[Prokopton]

You haven't had the guts to answer anything

Are Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Edwards wrong when they agree with Cain and say that the States have the legal authority to enact reasonable restrictions on firearms? It's a simple question. Are they all wrong? Is this what you believe?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes, I "answered" your "question". I disagree with your claim that they "agree with Cain". That IS the only valid answer to a question with a false premise.

It makes no sense to expect me to say whether I think they are "wrong" for holding a position I don't believe they hold. Although really the problem is that you haven't explained why you think Cain's position is what you state. I asked you to give a link justifying your belief, and you didn't, but I'm not going to post another three times complaining about you not answering MY question. You are free to do whatever you want, as am I.

I had already posted my opinion on what the limits should be for laws regarding guns. It's back in Post 75, which I posted before I read any of your repeated posts asking your question. I'll let YOU decide whether my view matches what you think Scalia et. al have ruled. If it doesn't, I guess I disagree with them. That does happen sometimes.

I keep doing google searches trying to find newer quotes from Cain that would tell me in more detail what he believes. I haven't found it.

I posted a link to a GOA article from September 30th (40 days ago), where THEY complain that they don't have the answers either. They really care about the gun issues, and they have a lot of resources to devote to finding out what Cain believes, and THEY said he hadn't made his position very clear at all.

[CharlesWayneCT]

But, in case you find going to another link in the same thread is just too hard for you, I'll give an answer to a modified version of your question (removing the unsupported hypothesis):

Do states have the legal authority to enact reasonable restrictions on firearms?

Yes. "reasonable restrictions" must be tightly defined to only cover "immediate and compelling government interest related to other rights", as I said in my other post.

So I do NOT believe states can restrict all use of guns EXCEPT for personal protection within the home. I don't believe states should have the right to restrict law-abiding citizens with no prior record from carrying guns, either concealed or openly. I don't think my right to carry a gun should end at the state border.

My liberty right, further protected by the 2nd amendment's statement that the government shall not infringe on my right to keep and BEAR arms, should preclude states from restricting my possession and transportation of a firearm ANYWHERE in the United States. Because if Maryland can forbit me from driving into their state with a weapon, they have violated my right to bear arms anywhere, since I can't just make my gun dissappear at the border.

Now, I'll ask you a question. Does Cain believe that states should be allowed to prohibit concealed carry of weapons for law-abiding citizens of other states who have no priors nor any other item in their background that would suggest they are a clear threat to the property or libery rights of the citizens of the states?

When giving your answer, since you are NOT Herman Cain, please provide a link to the article or speech where you get the information about what Cain's position is, thank you.

If you don't want to, don't. I'm not paying you to work for me.

I hope that this answers your question to your satisfaction. If not, ask another one.

[William Tell]

Prokopton said: "Are Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Edwards wrong when they agree with Cain and say that the States have the legal authority to enact reasonable restrictions on firearms?"

Could you clarify this claim? You make it sound as if any state law which has a "rational basis", would be allowed. What supports such a broad interpretation?