California Politics


Newsom

Our governor is a self centered narcissist.  He will not enforce our death penalty laws, even though he said he would when running for office.  He Is giving our tax dollars to illegal aliens for education, healthcare and other services.  This is our tax dollars that should only be used to benefit the citizens of California.  He cannot be trusted in office.  He demonstrated his lack of morals when he had an affair with his best friends (and campaign manager) wife.  If he is willing to do this to his best friend, we do not have much hope that well can trust him in any way.

Recall Governor Newsom….

Homeless California

California has an overwhelming homeless problem because of the liberal policies in our biggest cities.  This is true to anyone, who can see that cities run by Republican/Conservatives does not have homeless people camping out everywhere in the city.  The policies that have lost control of our liberal cities are numerous and unsustainable.  San Francisco, LA and Sacramento are just a few of the cities being overwhelmed by homeless people.  

To understand the problem, one only needs to talk with police officers in the cities to hear the fundamental issues.  The homeless population can be divided into three general groups; 1st are the mentally challenged, 2nd are the economically challenged and 3rd are the people who want to be homeless.  

The people with mental issues are not homogenious and are in very different levels of capacity.  The ability of our police, courts and mental health providers to have the “mentally ill” committed for evaluation and treatment.  These people need treatment and help.  The State needs to pass laws that allow them to be held and treated for their mental illness in state funded care.  This model was the norm for many years, but was reversed and not restored.  We need to have the courage to help people with mental illness.

Our second group are suffering ecconomic hard times.  These people need a safety net and employment assistance.  We know how to do this and can help our fellow citizens who need help.  With our economy in great shape these days, we should be able to help everyone who wants a job.  We need to establish the support they will need to get back on their feet.  This means taking care of their families and housing while they begin the climb back to self-sufficiency.  This support is very important and cannot be done poorly or half assed.

Finally, we have the happily homeless.  This group of folks want to live this lifestyle and are not interested in another path.  We cannot allow them to squat in our public spaces, trash our neighborhoods and misbehave without recourse.  As long as it is easy to squat and take advantage of our cities, they will take advantage of us all.  Allowing this group to ruin our public spaces and poop where they want, we will suffer from their abuse of the rest of us.  These are people who choose to break laws and take advantage of us.  

We should focus on the two groups we can help and deal with the hardcore homeless.  Compassion for the two groups we can help and a firm hand with the hardcore.  These are hard decisions and tasks.   If we care about our cities, we need to make the effort.

Response to Erwin Chemerinsky  Sac Bee “The Second Amendment does not bar gun control; let’s stop pretending it does. (Aug 25 1919)

The Bill of Rights consists of the 1st ten amendments to the constitution.  These are rights and protections that limit our government and reserves certain rights and protections to the people.  In Erwin’s story, he suggests that the 2nd Amendment is different than the other amendments.  This is not true.  The founders documented their discussions as they created the constitution and the Bill of Rights.  There debates make it clear that they intended the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right.  In the Heller case the Supreme Court confirmed this which was also confirmed in the Presser v. Illinois (1886).    

 Although, liberals argue that the Militia portion of the Amendment limits the individual right.  This is a fabrication of the 20th century and was never heard at the Supreme Court.  There in-fact were no substantial cases limiting the 2nd Amendment until the 1930s.  This was because everyone prior to this understood that this was an individual right. 

 US v. Cruikshank (1875) was an interesting case where freed slaves were deprived of the right to bear arms and of free speech and assembly.   The court in a convoluted decision decided that states were in fact obligated to protect citizens rights under the constitution.  

 Presser v. Illinois (1886) was a case where the court affirmed that the 2nd Amendment was in fact an individual right. 

 In the 1930s, with the gangsters using machine guns and short barreled shot guns, the Supreme Court heard US v. Miller (1939).   This is the 1st time the court affirmed limiting gun rights.  It is specific to a short-barreled shotgun.  It was an extremely weird case in that Miller passed away prior to the court hearing the case and because of this, there was no real advocate for his rights.  The ruling was limited but the militia discussion was posited in a vague argument that was not challenged because of the death of Miller.  In any case, this decision has been used as an argument for gun control.  That is until the Heller decision clearly stated the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. 

In the McDonald v. Chicago (2010) decision incorporated the protections of the 14th Amendment into the 2nd Amendment.  This held that states and local governments be held to the Due Process clause in protecting gun rights.   This decision ensures that Red Flag laws will be scrutinized for Due Process.  Normally this means a right trial etc.  In the case of Red Flag laws, no crime has been committed, what is the purpose of a trial when government isn’t accusing the gun owner of a crime.  And the gun owner has the right to confront his accuser.  This gets very messy when looking at the details.  It is easier for liberals to argue that Red Flag laws make sense, except that they toss out our rights of trial and to know what crime we are accused of committing.  Kind of reminds us of the Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report”.

In Caetano V. Massachusetts (2016) the court held that the 2nd Amendment applied to all bearable arms.  This ruling sets the table for limited governments rights to regulate what types of arms are allowed.  An AR15 (Armalite Rifle 15) is reasonably covered by this decision as a legal fire arms.  It makes the expired Feinstein assault rifle ban likely to be found unconstitutional, if a recreation was attempted by congress.  It also suggests the California version of this law is unlikely to survive a challenge once it reaches the Supreme Court.

There are quite a few cases moving through the courts challenging California’s gun limitations.  I expect, based upon previous decisions, the court will overturn state laws that limit the protections of the constitution.  The gun roster, ammo tax, insurance requirements and other limitations are likely to be found unconstitutional.  A Judge within the 9th Circuit in California recently overturned the 10-round magazine limitation.  He stayed his judgment after a week to allow the AG in California to appeal his decision.  This is also, likely to end up at the Supreme Court after the 9th Circuit hears the appeal.

 Erwin left out all of the above history to fabricate and argument that gun control is legal and appropriate.  I’ve provided the history, so that readers can see the arguments he made are lacking in supporting facts.  Erwin suggests that limiting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will reduce gun crimes.  There have recently been a couple studies that show this is not true.  The studies conclude that legal gun ownership has no impact on gun crime.  They found that having concealed carry holders in location where guns are being used in criminal activities often reduces the duration and impact.  His suggestion to the contrary has no supporting studies to support his fabricated conclusions.  Gun control laws do not reduce gun crime.  One only needs to look at the City of Chicago to see a city with every gun law possible and yet every weekend there are 30 or more shootings.  1,692 people have been shot this year so far. 

 Clearly, gun control laws are not reducing gun crime in Chicago.  Liberal approaches to law enforcement and homelessness are ineffective.  Gun crime can be divided into categories.  In Chicago, the lack of effective law enforcement has abandoned the city to criminals. 

Two recent studies shed light on gun crime.  The first by the FBI evaluated the impact of the Feinstein AR Ban found it had absolutely no impact on gun crime.  The second found the over 80% of all gun crime was committed by gangs. 

 As we look at the remaining gun deaths, many are suicides.  Sadly, this is a reflection on our ability to help people with mental health issues.  I believe some work place violence and related gun crimes are often mentally impaired people.  There should be a way to keep mentally ill people away from guns.  In the 1980s the courts limited state and local governments from institutionalizing mentally ill people for treatment.  The increase in homelessness and gun violence has resulted. 

Terrorist attacks like the San Bernardino or home-grown terrorists are not going to be prevented by gun control laws.  Depending upon the terrorist’s skills and preparation, these killings require defensive action plans and armed people to confront the terrorists.  In the San Bernardino case, the couple entered the work place and began shooting former co-workers.  The Muslim couple planned to bomb and shoot up the work place.  The point to take from these types of shooting, is that it is unlikely any law being considered would have impacted this.

The group of crimes that is most troubling are those where an individual attacks a group of people at a store, in a church, at a school or another gathering place.  Each of these people are later found to have been self-identifying to law enforcement, families, coworkers and others.  In some cases, law enforcement, schools and the FBI had failed to do their jobs by reporting these individuals.  In others, family members and coworkers have failed to share their concerns.  It seems like our culture of ignoring bad behaviors and treating people behaving badly as victims has continued to the point where we don’t say anything until the shooting starts. 

Although Red Flag laws might help, there is no data that suggests this is true.  They seem reasonable on the surface and they might help.  The underlying problem with them is that they seem to violate the constitution.  They may violate the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment in addition the 2nd Amendment.  As previously discussed, without committing a crime and being charged with criminal activity, Red Flag laws step on our individual rights to a jury, confront our accuser and to the presumption of innocence. 

Erwin’s concludes that politicians must adopt meaningful gun control.  He is suggesting voiding our constitution without any likelihood of solving the killings he highlights.  None of the gun control initiatives being discussed would have prevented the mass killings that have taken place over the last two decades.  We already have background checks for nearly all gun purchases.  California has the strongest of these and it has prevented absolutely nothing.  Erwin’s arguments and conclusions have no merit or supporting data showing they will have any positive impact.  They are a flailing reaction to mass killings that our existing rules and law failed to prevent. 

I would suggest that, if we want to prevent mass killings, having armed citizens as well as law enforcement in these locations makes all the difference.  Since we are unable to predict when a person will target others for killing, we should be prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones.  Churchs and Synagogues have been working with their member and law enforcement to establish and train members to react in the event of an attempted mass shooting.  I believe this model is the best approach to save the lives of our members and communities.   The data shows that this is true.  When confronted by an armed resistance, shooters stop or are stopped.  Since response times for the police to a shooting are between 6 and 25 minutes in urban and suburban communities, it should be clear to the public that their safety for themselves and their families is our responsibility.  Our forefathers and ancestors understood this. 

Law enforcement, schools and government agencies must report people to prevent them from legally buying guns.  In a number of cases, our government officials including the FBI, schools and the Air Force have failed to follow our laws.  As we review mass shootings and continue to find many were preventable, I am left believing that our government is not the solution.