CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Kind of hard to defend "life and liberty" and posses property without having a firearm. The State cannot acknowledge an inalienable right and then put a proviso on it. The State didn't GIVE you the right, you were born with it, so the State cannot alter it, either.
The right to keep and bear arms exists whether the political subdivision known as the State of California acknowledges it or not.
-----
do you agree that the 2nd should apply as our supreme law in CA ?
No.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
They say it doesn't, and I can't see why it would. The US Constitution is for areas under the jurisdiction of the federal government ONLY. It has no authority within the jurisdiction of the State.
Government (at any level) can only legitimately exercise whatever authority has been given to it by the People.
Nowhere can I find the government's authority to tell us what we may or may not possess.
Can you show me of any instance where a homeowner in California shot a burgler and was prosecuted for it?
-----
Because State constitutions must be approved by Congress before they are admitted to the union.
Thanks, I know the procedure, but it didn't answer the question.
Why does a State even have to have a Constitution? Why can't they just agree to abide by the federal Constitution and be done with it?
And if a State makes changes after admission, changes that violate the US Constitution
Why do States have the ability to 'change' anything if they can be overridden by the federal Constitution?
-------
The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
Independent Journal
Wednesday, January 16, 1788
[James Madison]
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
The Federalist No. 45
Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
Independent Journal
Saturday, January 26, 1788
[James Madison]
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
_________
The contention in the article that the federal Constitution is for the federal government, so the establishment clause does not affect the States. I agree, and have submitted evidence to support that claim.
Do you have any historical or legal proof to the contrary?
LOL! Heaven's no!
The States have the right to bear arms provisions too.
California does not, and thus contends that it can prohibit arms; -- do you agree that the 2nd should apply as our supreme law in CA ?
No.
Just above you agreed that states should not infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. -- Which is it, yes or no?
The US Constitution is for areas under the jurisdiction of the federal government ONLY. It has no authority within the jurisdiction of the State.
Article VI directly contradicts your comment.
If the federal Constitution was meant to cover the entire country, why are the Bill of Rights duplicated almost word for word in every State Constitution? Why do the State Constitutions even exist?
Because State constitutions must be approved by Congress before they are admitted to the union. --- And if a State makes changes after admission, changes that violate the US Constitution, such infringements can be struck down as unconstitutional.
Why does a State even have to have a Constitution? Why can't they just agree to abide by the federal Constitution and be done with it?
Because States write laws that the feds can't, and their constitutions apply to those laws.
Why do States have the ability to 'change' anything if they can be overridden by the federal Constitution?
Because State constitutions apply to laws written under State powers, unless those laws violate our Law of the Land.
The contention in the article that the federal Constitution is for the federal government, so the establishment clause does not affect the States.
I agree, and have submitted evidence to support that claim. - Do you have any historical or legal proof to the contrary?
In my first post here I quoted the Constitutional proof [Article VI] that our Law of the Land is supreme over "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Learn to live with that proof -- as it cannot be logically denied.