That’s a big fail. Guess Cain hasn’t read the part about ‘shall not be infringed.’
Only one way to keep a firearm out of the hands of say, a child molester or wife beater.
Cain reads it the same way SCOTUS Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito read it, the States have authority to enact reasonable resrtrictions on firearms like permits to carry or discharging in public. This is the Conservative position. If you believe the states do not have such authority, you are far outside of mainstream conservative thinking, more in the realm of libertarians or anarchists.
He’s not up on the fine points of the legal debate and issues on guns and a lot of other stuff. That is why he not as wonderful as everyone here says. He’ll be dangerous, actually, and won’t even know it.
He’s going for Kemp designed corporate welfare in the cities. That already failed. He’s opening us up to a new source of taxes - consumption tax.
All but 2 states have their own constitutional standards regarding self-protection.
A strict constructionist/original intent sort of guy would instantly argue that firearms are subject only to state control ~ and then argue that out within the context of the state constitutions.
To apply the Bill of Rights except for the 9th and 10th amendments directly to the states you have to turn into a mind-numbed, robot-like, knee-jerk Leftwingtard who cr*ps on the Founders intentions.
I think you may have been missing the point of this debate ~
Yeh that and the Heller decision which I guess Herman has not read up on. Somebody needs to have a chat with him about that.