Here we go again….

By Aurelio Rojas
Published: Thursday, Nov. 06, 2008 | Page 1A
Sacbee.com

California’s battle over gay marriage shifted from the ballot box to the courts Wednesday as stunned opponents of Proposition 8 declared they had too much at stake to concede.

Advocates of the measure to end same-sex marriage were certain they had succeeded in amending the state constitution to declare that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” But hours after they declared victory, the ACLU and a coalition of gay rights groups challenged the measure in the state Supreme Court, a move one backer called an “insult to California voters.”

Opponents charged in their court petition the measure is invalid because it would undo the state constitution’s commitment to equality for everyone.

The suit also contends the initiative process was improperly used because only the Legislature can place a measure before voters to so radically revise the state constitution.

Jenny Pizer, an attorney with the gay rights group Lambda Legal, said that allowing voters to remove a protected right conflicts with the constitution’s basic ideals of equality.

“That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters,” Pizer said in a statement.

In May, the state Supreme Court ruled that a measure voters approved in 2000 violated the state constitution’s clause on equal protection. Since then, more than 17,000 gay couples have been married, and weddings continued Wednesday.

Unlike the 2000 measure, Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment that supporters are confident will withstand legal challenges.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the “Yes on 8” campaign, called Wednesday’s lawsuit “frivolous” and “completely lacking in merit.”

“Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself,” Pugno said in a statement.

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Lynchburg, Va.-based Liberty University School of Law, noted the court found earlier this year “there was no merit” in the revision argument.

“This is a constitutional amendment. It was on the ballot rightfully. (Opponents) have to accept the will of the people. They might not like it, but that’s our democratic process,” Staver said.

He said his group believes gay marriages in California this year are not valid but that it has no plans “to go out and roam the countryside trying to invalidate” them.

Democratic state Attorney General Jerry Brown told reporters his office would defend marriages “contracted during the time when the right to same-sex marriage was the law of California.”

He said same-sex marriages enacted in recent months were not only lawful “but a fundamental constitutional right.”

“The measure that was written by the Yes on 8 people was very simple, one sentence. It did not say the measure was retroactive,” he said. He said civil measures must state specifically they are retroactive in order to be so.

Yet Brown said his office would also defend the “will of the people” in Tuesday’s election against challenges to its legality.

“As Proposition 8 is challenged … we will defend the law as enacted by the people of California,” he said.

Wednesday’s suit was filed nine hours after supporters declared victory. With all precincts reporting, the measure was leading 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent, a difference of about 400,000 votes.

As a watershed election – Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only two other states where same-sex marriage is legal – the campaign generated more than $73 million in contributions.

Supporters of the measure said their side also benefited from a get-out-the-vote effort that included 100,000 volunteers.

Campaign officials said they were able to tap into higher-than-expected support from black voters, who were drawn to the polls by presidential candidate Barack Obama, and from Latino voters.

The apparent approval of the measure was a crushing blow for gay rights activists, who had hoped public opinion had shifted enough to help them block it.

LINK

I wonder if they offer drive-thru service in the nanny state.

LOS ANGELES (AP) – The Los Angeles City Council has approved a one-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a low-income area of the city.

The moratorium unanimously approved Tuesday is a bid to attract restaurants that offer healthier food choices to residents in a 32-square-mile area of South Los Angeles.

Councilwoman Jan Perry says residents at five public meetings expressed concern with the proliferation of fast-food outlets in the community plagued by above-average rates of obesity.

Nearly three-quarters of the restaurants in South L.A. are fast-food outlets. That’s a higher percentage than other parts of the city but the restaurant industry says the moratorium won’t help bring in alternatives.

LINK

Earlier this week the Assembly passed Assembly Bill 2948 by a vote of 41 to 25. AB2948 seeks to ban the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace. The bill now heads to the Senate for its consideration. Also headed to the Senate are Assembly Bill 2235 and Assembly Bill 2062.

AB 2235 would prohibit the sale of handguns other than “owner-authorized (or “smart”) handguns”—that is, handguns with a permanent, programmable biometric feature that renders the firearm useless unless activated by the authorized user. No proven, viable handgun of this type has ever been developed. Introduced by Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier (D-11), AB2235 would require the Attorney General to report to the Governor and Legislature on the availability of owner-authorized handguns; once the Attorney General finds that these guns are available, only “owner-authorized” handguns could be approved for sale in California.

AB 2062 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require vendors to keep a record of the transaction including the ammunition buyer’s name, driver’s license, the quantity, caliber, type of ammunition purchased, and right thumbprint, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. All ammunition sales in the state of California would be subject to a $3 per transaction tax. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited. Any violator of AB2062 would be subject to civil fines. AB2062 was amended to remove the requirement that law-abiding gun owners obtain a permit to purchase handgun ammunition.

Please contact your State Senator and respectfully urge him or her to oppose AB2948, AB2235 and AB2062 when they come before them for a vote. Contact information for your State Senator can be found by clicking here.

Anyone still think border security is not a top issue for our country?

TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) – Fifteen Mexican drug gang members were killed in a gun battle near the U.S. border on Saturday, their bodies soaked in blood in the road after one of the deadliest shootouts in Mexico’s three-year-long narco-war.

Rival factions of the local Arellano Felix drug cartel in Tijuana on the Mexico-California border fought each other with rifles and machine guns in the early hours of the morning, police said.

LINK

On Tuesday, April 15, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider Assembly Bill 2235, a bill to forbid the sale of handguns other than “owner-authorized (or “smart”) handguns”—that is, handguns with a permanent, programmable biometric feature that renders the firearm useless unless activated by the authorized user. No proven, viable handgun of this type has ever been developed.

Introduced by Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier (D-11), AB2235 would require the Attorney General to report to the Governor and Legislature on the availability of owner-authorized handguns; once the Attorney General finds that these guns are available, only “owner-authorized” handguns could be approved for sale in California.

The law enforcement community has even expressed concerns about the use of this technology in firearms. How often has your computer malfunctioned while simply sitting stationary on your desktop? With that in mind, are you willing to put your personal safety, and that of your loved ones, in the hands of a sensitive computer system exposed to recoil, heat, solvents, dirt and grime? For an informative article about smart guns and the New Jersey law this bill is based on, please click here.

Please contact the members of the Public Safety Committee today and respectfully urge them to oppose this ill-advised proposal. Contact information for the Committee can be found below.

State Assembly Member Jose Solorio (D-69), Chair
(916) 319-2069
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Greg Aghazarian, (R-26), Vice Chair
(916) 319-2026
Assemblymember.aghazarian@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Joel Anderson (R-77)
(916) 319-2077
Assemblymember.Anderson@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Hector De La Torre (D-50)
(916) 319-2050
Assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-12)
(916) 319-2012
Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Anthony J. Portantino (D-44)
(916) 319-2044
Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

Yesterday, Tuesday, April 8, the Assembly Public Safety Committee passed Assembly Bill 2948, sponsored by State Assembly Member Mark Leno (D-13). AB2948 would ban the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace.

While AB2948 passed the Public Safety Committee, another anti-gun bill, Assembly Bill 2566, introduced by State Assembly Member Loni Hancock (D-14), failed to pass after several votes. AB2566 would have repealed statewide preemption statutes and allowed cities, counties, and other such localities to enact their own forms of restrictive regulation on handguns. Uniform laws regulating firearms and ammunition are necessary to protect the constitutional rights of California’s law-abiding gun owners and to prevent anti-gun municipalities from passing their own laws, which may conflict with state law.

Please continue contacting your State Assembly Member and respectfully urge him or her to oppose AB2948 and AB2566.

PLEASE CONTACT THIS BLOG IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IS!!!!

OPPOSE AB2062

On Tuesday, April 8, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider legislation that would require gun owners to obtain a “permit-to-purchase” before buying handgun ammunition.

Introduced by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), Assembly Bill 2062 puts ammunition sales in the crosshairs. AB2062 would require that law-abiding gun owners obtain a permit to buy handgun ammunition and would impose severe restrictions on the private transfers of handgun ammunition. Applicants for a “permit-to-purchase” would be required to submit to a background check, pay a $35 fee, and wait as long as 30 days to receive the permit.

Under AB2062, it would be unlawful to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require vendors to keep a record of the transaction including the ammunition buyer’s name, driver’s license, the quantity, caliber and type of ammunition purchased, and right thumbprint, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice or the number of his handgun ammunition purchase permit. Vendors would be required to contact the purchase permit database, to verify the validity of a permit before completing a sale. All ammunition sales in the State of California would be subject to a $3 per transaction tax. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited. Any violator of AB2062 would be subject to civil fines.

Please contact the members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and your State Assembly Member TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose this onerous attack on our Second Amendment freedoms. Contact information for the committee members can be found below. Please click here to find your State Assembly Member.

State Assembly Member Jose Solorio (D-69), Chair
(916) 319-2069
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Greg Aghazarian, (R-26), Vice Chair
(916) 319-2026
Assemblymember.aghazarian@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Joel Anderson (R-77)
(916) 319-2077
Assemblymember.Anderson@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Hector De La Torre (D-50)
(916) 319-2050
Assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-12)
(916) 319-2012
Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

State Assembly Member Anthony J. Portantino (D-44)
(916) 319-2044
Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

Contact these people today!

By Gayle Garbolino-Mojica –
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, March 13, 2008
Story appeared in SOUTH PLACER ROSEVILLE section of the SacBee, Page G5

This sad story of poor, whiney school officials doesn’t tell both sides.

“In Placer County, our districts stand to lose more than $25 million in general fund revenue and another $8 million in categorical funding, for a total of $33 million in loss of revenue. That equates to about $580 less per-student funding for our county.”

Full story link

Oh please! Every time state budget cuts come up the schools and firemen all scream bloody murder. Schools are very top heavy with administrators getting 6 figure salaries; almost 100% job security, a pension, etc etc while the private sector pays for this. What Garbolino won’t tell you is that she (or a close relative) is in the teaching profession, or related, so there’s a conflict of interest. Also she fails to let the reader know that by law, over 50% of the entire state budget of CA is earmarked for K-12 alone. This doesn’t include all the money going to the community colleges, the California State Univ or the University of California campuses. It’s almost a scam folks the amount of money the taxpayers of this state throws at education. Any yet we don’t get much for our money. Please be smart and informed about this issue and don’t fall for these fear stories in the media. The schools of CA do very well for themselves monetarily and the budget already reflects that to a fault.

Sac Bee Metro Staff – March 14, 2008

Legislative staff members are more likely than most state workers to earn six figures, though typically state Senate and Assembly staffers make about the same as their peers elsewhere in state government.

Those and other facts were gleaned from a Bee analysis of state salary data, which has just been updated with salaries for legislative staffers and is available at sacbee.com/statepay.

Link to story.

Finally, a GOP club with some b_alls!

“The Lincoln Club recommends a No vote on all four Indian gaming measures (Propositions 94-97) because we believe ratification of the compacts would perpetuate and expand the unfair monopoly that the state unwisely granted to a small group based solely on racial preferences.”

-From the Flash Report

This is great news for our country and for our Second Amendment rights! The NRA is an important institution and we as Conservatives need to support this group. Everyone needs to renew their membership today!

San Francisco Gun Ban Ruled Null and Void

Fairfax, VA – The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.
“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”

Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.
“This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” concluded Cox. “I’d like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms.”

nra

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.