Letter of support from Mayor Schneider

ACTION ALERT! Please click here to download a letter of support regarding AB 1934

What Was The Intent Of the Authors Of the Bill of Rights?

The Second Amendment written 1791, stated, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In 1939 in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court stated, "The significance of the militia was that it was composed of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The arms in common use were muzzle-loading muskets.

"The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud; I repeat the word, 'fraud,' on the American public. The distortion of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights by the gun lobby is glaring, as they focus their argument on the last half of the amendment, while ignoring the first half, on which it was based."

–Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1991)

Chicago's Response to the Supreme Court Decision

Mayor Richard Daley — who promised the city would not “roll over” if the court ruled against the city’s handgun ban — clearly wanted to give police a law they could begin enforcing as quickly as possible.

The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the nation, but not before lashing out at the Supreme Court ruling they contend makes the city more dangerous because it will put more guns in people’s hands. The new ordinance, which is now law, bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. “I wish that we weren’t in the position where we’re struggling to figure out a way in which we can limit the guns on our streets and still meet the test that our Supreme Court has set for us,” said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, minutes before the council voted 45-0 to approve the ordinance. It was swift action for a council that typically takes far longer to pass ordinances, but Mayor Richard Daley — who promised the city would not “roll over” if the court ruled against the city’s handgun ban — clearly wanted to give police a law they could begin enforcing as quickly as possible. It was important to pass a new law to clear up confusion Chicagoans might have about what kind of weapons they can legally own and how they can use them. Vandermyde would not say when lawsuits might be filed. But he said the ordinance would be attacked on a number of fronts.Opponents are arguing that some people in some of the poorer neighborhoods who merely want to have firearms for self-defense won’t be able to afford to get through all the red tape. The new Chicago ordinance:

• Requires prospective gun owners to pay $15 for each firearm registered; $100 every three years for a Chicago Firearms Permit, plus the cost of the required training.
• Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibits residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
• Requires residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks and requires residents convicted of a gun offense to register with the police department, much as sex offenders are now required to do.
• Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Requires prospective gun owners to be fingerprinted, take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range.
• Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every registered handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns, illegal under the original Chicago ban, would have 90 days from the day the ordinance is enacted to register those weapons.

Residents convicted of violating the ordinance face a fine of up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense, and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

Back To Top

CAGV "Open Carry" Protest

CAGV stirred up downtown State Street on Tuesday, July 13 with an “Open Carry” protest at the Starbucks on De La Guerra due to their corporate policy of allowing “open carry” in their stores. Openly carrying our posters and signs, CAGV members and supporters (15 of us!) paraded on that corner from 11 am to 1 pm. Joined by Mayor Helen Schneider, former Mayor Marty Blum and City Councilmember Das Williams, we attracted several media outlets and were featured on KEYT’s 6 pm news. The Santa Barbara NewsPress has been fired up by our protest with two front page stories, and by the four opposing individuals who remained at the scene, passing out pro-open carry information and engaging people in angry, contentious speech regarding their Second Amendment rights. This writer spoke to one individual who adamently stated “the people need to be armed against the government because they are taking away our rights and that’s what the Second Amendment is for – to go against the government like we did in the Revolutionary War.” CAGV was calm with some members attempting to dialogue with these individuals. We want to thank our wonderful Santa Barbara Police Department, lead by Officer Olsen, who closely monitored the scene.

A major focus of the protest was to promote AB 1934, a bill now in the California Senate that will ban “open carrying” and is supported by the City of Santa Barbara (See City support letter on our website or blog) and a long list of Police Chiefs across the state. CAGV chose the store on State Street and De La Guerra due to its central location and to raise awareness in our community regarding this important issue. A support letter for AB 1934 garnered many signatures. (See AB 1934 Support Letter insert in this newsletter).CAGV called the manager prior to the event to assure him that we were not targeting his store but the corporate policy of Starbucks.

CAGV opposes the unregulated open carrying of guns in public places. The open carrying of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating, and poses risks to those nearby, to law enforcement and to our community. For example, when open carrying has occurred in retail stores, other customers quickly become alarmed and the police are called to the scene, creating a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. Everyone should have the right to sit in a coffee shop or a restaurant with their families, including their children, without being confronted with the threatening presence of openly-displayed handguns.

Back To Top

Blind Activism

Five conservative activist justices have overturned 70 years of legal precedent in ruling that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. The majority has decided to re-interpret history and the framers intent that there is a right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. Justice Scalia went further in his arguments with the disturbing concept that individuals have a right to arms for the purpose of resisting a tyrannical government. A statement of this sort feeds extremist positions like those of Sharron Angle, Republican Candidate forthe Nevada Senate. "Our founding fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government."

Justice Stephen Breyer criticized Scalia’s insurrectionist reading of the Second Amendment stating: "The Civil War Amendments, the electoral process, the courts, and numerous other [democratic] institutions today help to safeguard the States and the people from any serious threat of federal tyranny."

Justice Stevens in his dissent alluded to a remarkable statement made earlier in the Court’s term by Chief Justice John G. Roberts in Robertson v. United States ex rel. Wykenna Watson, wherein he stated, "A basic step in organizing a civil society is to take that sword (referencing the sword of liberty) and turn it over to an organized government, acting on behalf of the people. Indeed, the ...power a man has in the state of nature is the power to punish the crimes committed against that law. [But this] he gives up when he joins [a]...political society, and incorporates into [a] commonwealth.">

Stevens further stated, "Although the court’s decision in this case might be seen as a mere adjunct to Heller, the consequences could prove far more destructive—quite literally—to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure." He said the Court should have proceeded more cautiously in light of "the malleability and elusiveness of history" and because "firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty."

New CA Brady Chapters brochure: Honoring Victims and Survivors of Gun Violence!

Check out our new blog!

Help Support our Cause!

Do California's Gun Laws Make a Difference?

Thousands of Californians have been killed and wounded because of gun violence, but no state has done more to combat gun violence than California. In the past 20 years we have banned assault weapons, cheap handguns (“junk guns”) and .50 Caliber rifles. California has limited buyers to one-gun-a month and barred people convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning firearms and more.

According to an article by Dan Morain in July 4, 2010 Sacramento Bee, “Although California has far too much violent crime, gun-related deaths have declined at a greater rate here than the rest of the nation. Do we really want to gamble that it’s coincidence? Last week’s Supreme Court ruling in time could leave us with no choice.”

Dr. Garen Wintemute, a UC Davis medical school professor, began studying gun violence 28 years ago as an ER physician and determined that it is a public health issue, like other epidemics. The exact impact of our gun laws is unknowable. That is, says Wintemute, the “paradox of prevention.” Further he stated, ”We can’t count the deaths and injuries prevented, since they didn’t occur. But it’s clear that, taken together, California’s approach to firearm policy has benefitted the public’s health and safety.”

In 1993 California’s firearm mortality rate was higher than the national average with 5,424 deaths. By 2006 the mortality rate from guns had fallen to 3,276, which was lower than the national average. Since 1993 our mortality rate from gun-related deaths has declined 20 percent more than the rest of the nation.

As we know there are many causes fir the drop in crime and murder rates, but what sets California apart from other states is its gun restrictions. Between 2000 and 2008 some gun buyers were denied guns –33,709 – because they were unable to pass background checks. However, the state recorded 3.2 million sales in that same time period.

Dan Morain says, “Is the drop [in gun-related mortality] a coincidence? Do you truly want to gamble?” Since the Supreme Court ruling, attorneys for the NRA in California are lining up more legal attacks than any other state. This is grim news for financially beleaguered government entities, at the state and local level. Now is the time to ensure that those we elect to office at any level are committed to maintaining California’s gun laws.

Back To Top

AB 1934 - Open Carry Legislation

Our Activist Supreme Court

Youth Fair Success

Articles | Newsletter | Partner Organizations
About Us | Getting Involved | Resources | Contact Us | Site Map

Copyright © 1999-2007 Coalition Against Gun Violence. All rights reserved.
A Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation