Decoligny
Regular Member
Just had a co-worker hand me an article from yesterday's Antelope Valley Press.
If at all possible I will be attending.
I am a little concerned that Rep Knight is suggesting that individual cities should be able to infringe upon rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
*********************************************************************************
Town hall focus: Firearms, safety, budget
By ALISHA SEMCHUCK
Valley Press Staff Writer
PALMDALE - A state Assembly fill that would restrict how Californians can carry firearms is among the topics expected to highlight a town hall meeting Thursday night arranged by Assembly Steve Knight, R-Palmdale.
In addition to the discussion of Assembly Bill 144, the legislation that would ban the open carry of unloaded firearms, Knight will talk about public safety concerns in the Antelope Valley and budgetary woes plagueing the state.
Antelope Valley residents will have an opportunity to express their concerns during the informal question-and-answer session from 6 to 8 p.m. Thursday at the Holiday Inn, 38630 Fifth St. West.
Knight intends to focus on what the budgetary crisis and possible passage of that firearms legislation means to California's future in general and, more specifically, how those issues impact this Valley.
The assemblyman will likely touch on the proposed release of 30,000 prisoners state-wide, resulting from an order in May by the U.S. Supreme Court intended to reduce California's overcrowded prisons, but seen as "a huge public safety issue," according to Sarah Tyndall, a spokeswoman for Knight.
"Meeting with citizens of the high desert helps me to understand their concerns and to discuss issues important to our community and California," Knight stated in a news release.
"It is a mutually beneficial event that I enjoy holding throughout my district," the assemblyman noted.
The firearms bill is opposed by Knight.
Knight contends that AB 144 "would make it illegal for Californians to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution."
The assemblyman said Los Angeles officials should create a law that applies within the city regarding gun restrictions rather than making statewide legislation such as this bill, introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Los Angeles.
Knight estimated that 99% of the open carry of weapons occurs among people in rural communities, not in Los Angeles.
"There's never been an issue with open-carry, law-abiding citizens. I've talked to the police chiefs. No police report. No crime," the assemblyman said.
Knight is also expected to discuss three Assembly bills he drafted, one which prevents properties of registered sex offenders that are single-family dwellings from being used as polling places; another which allows a member of the U.S. military to obtain a refund of tuition paid to a California university or community college if deployment forces that individual to drop classes; and the third would enable a criminal complaint to be filed within one year of the date that a hidden recording device is discovered, regardless of when a crime occurred.
At the two-hour town hall meeting, Tyndall said, the discussion will "just be hitting the tip of the iceberg with the budget and public safety topics.
_____________________
asemchuck@avpress.com
*******************************************************************************
I am thinking of attempting to get an opportunity to ask two questions. Not so much to point an accusing finger at Knight, but to illustrate the point that unconstitutional laws should not be acceptable at any level.
Representative Knight, in the Antelope Valley Press article about this meeting, you were reported to have stated that AB 144 would make it illegal for Californians to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
It was then reported that you stated that Los Angeles should create a law that applies within the city regarding gun restrictions rather than making statewide legislation.
I have two quick questions in regards to these reports.
1. In the Supreme court case Heller v. DC, the Court indicated that we have the right to have functional firearms in case of confrontation. How can an unloaded firearm be considered a functional firearm in regards to exercising the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
2. If passing a law that makes exercising a Constitutional right illegal at the State level is wrong, i.e. unconstitutional, any law that does the exact same thing at the city level would also be just as much of an infringement on our rights. I travel outside of the Antelope valley. I even go to Los Angeles on occasion. Shouldn't I as one of your consitutants be able to exercise those same constitutional rights regardless of whether or not I happen to be within the confines of your district?
Any comments or suggestions?
If at all possible I will be attending.
I am a little concerned that Rep Knight is suggesting that individual cities should be able to infringe upon rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
*********************************************************************************
Town hall focus: Firearms, safety, budget
By ALISHA SEMCHUCK
Valley Press Staff Writer
PALMDALE - A state Assembly fill that would restrict how Californians can carry firearms is among the topics expected to highlight a town hall meeting Thursday night arranged by Assembly Steve Knight, R-Palmdale.
In addition to the discussion of Assembly Bill 144, the legislation that would ban the open carry of unloaded firearms, Knight will talk about public safety concerns in the Antelope Valley and budgetary woes plagueing the state.
Antelope Valley residents will have an opportunity to express their concerns during the informal question-and-answer session from 6 to 8 p.m. Thursday at the Holiday Inn, 38630 Fifth St. West.
Knight intends to focus on what the budgetary crisis and possible passage of that firearms legislation means to California's future in general and, more specifically, how those issues impact this Valley.
The assemblyman will likely touch on the proposed release of 30,000 prisoners state-wide, resulting from an order in May by the U.S. Supreme Court intended to reduce California's overcrowded prisons, but seen as "a huge public safety issue," according to Sarah Tyndall, a spokeswoman for Knight.
"Meeting with citizens of the high desert helps me to understand their concerns and to discuss issues important to our community and California," Knight stated in a news release.
"It is a mutually beneficial event that I enjoy holding throughout my district," the assemblyman noted.
The firearms bill is opposed by Knight.
Knight contends that AB 144 "would make it illegal for Californians to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution."
The assemblyman said Los Angeles officials should create a law that applies within the city regarding gun restrictions rather than making statewide legislation such as this bill, introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Los Angeles.
Knight estimated that 99% of the open carry of weapons occurs among people in rural communities, not in Los Angeles.
"There's never been an issue with open-carry, law-abiding citizens. I've talked to the police chiefs. No police report. No crime," the assemblyman said.
Knight is also expected to discuss three Assembly bills he drafted, one which prevents properties of registered sex offenders that are single-family dwellings from being used as polling places; another which allows a member of the U.S. military to obtain a refund of tuition paid to a California university or community college if deployment forces that individual to drop classes; and the third would enable a criminal complaint to be filed within one year of the date that a hidden recording device is discovered, regardless of when a crime occurred.
At the two-hour town hall meeting, Tyndall said, the discussion will "just be hitting the tip of the iceberg with the budget and public safety topics.
_____________________
asemchuck@avpress.com
*******************************************************************************
I am thinking of attempting to get an opportunity to ask two questions. Not so much to point an accusing finger at Knight, but to illustrate the point that unconstitutional laws should not be acceptable at any level.
Representative Knight, in the Antelope Valley Press article about this meeting, you were reported to have stated that AB 144 would make it illegal for Californians to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
It was then reported that you stated that Los Angeles should create a law that applies within the city regarding gun restrictions rather than making statewide legislation.
I have two quick questions in regards to these reports.
1. In the Supreme court case Heller v. DC, the Court indicated that we have the right to have functional firearms in case of confrontation. How can an unloaded firearm be considered a functional firearm in regards to exercising the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
2. If passing a law that makes exercising a Constitutional right illegal at the State level is wrong, i.e. unconstitutional, any law that does the exact same thing at the city level would also be just as much of an infringement on our rights. I travel outside of the Antelope valley. I even go to Los Angeles on occasion. Shouldn't I as one of your consitutants be able to exercise those same constitutional rights regardless of whether or not I happen to be within the confines of your district?
Any comments or suggestions?
