Sorry, Herman, but any chance of my support for you just ended.
The 2nd Amendment is no more negotiable than any of the other Amendments and it pains me that you think otherwise.
Can’t argue with this, as long as the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is upheld within the states and localities. Having said that, I’d like to hear more from him on this.
First Amendment -- "CONGRESS shall make no law ..." Okay, if you wanted to make the case that a state could abridge freedom of speech and religion, you might have some ground to stand on.
Second Amendment -- "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed". Not by the feds. Not by the states. Not by the towns. No one. It is an absolute right.
Cain ought to know this.
Another one bites the dust. Cain is a silly candidate anyway. Just a way to avoid making a real choice.
Uh oh.
What? He could not be more wrong about this issue.
oops!
Oops! You sure about that Herman?
Wrong Herman, the 2nd amendment must apply everywhere!
Lol.
Mr. Cain is dead wrong.
The Constitution is not a State issue.
I live in Maryland and if it were left to this Commie Democrat State they would outlaw cap pistols, and water guns.
The Federal Government must protect us from Democrat Richard Craniums in State Legislatures.
Thank you for playing, Herman. Now go away.
B: So what’s the answer on gun control?
So what's the question?
Conservative are use to seeing this sort of political activism from the Leftists, it doesn't work with us.
This is disheartening news. I had hopes for Mr. Cain. I hoped he would be as conservative a candidate as Palin but without the negatives. But this (again?) demonstrates at least a lack of preparation on another issue (like the “Right of Return” gaffe). IMO
Look at the 10th Amendment MNJohnnie posted. The way I read the Amendment, it seems to indicate, basically, states have a right to regulate anything they want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with any of the rights expressed in the Constitution. Thus, a state can’t limit one’s free expression of speech and/or religious belief. But a state CAN regulate something not expressed in the Constitution, like abortion for example. (at least until the SC decided to butt into that, which is now why a Right of the Unborn Amendment is pretty much necessary to truly put that issue to rest, or at least another ruling that extends Constitutional rights to the unborn, but I digress).
The point is, the States don’t have the power to regulate what they wish, regardless of the Constitution. They can only regulate what hasn’t been specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And the 2nd Amendment is obviously IN the Constitution already, so, Q.E.D.
Good bye Herman.
Scratch Cain. Now down to 18 possibles.
States do have the right to regulate some aspects of gun ownership, but.... my reading of the Heller decision is that they cannot issue regulations that as a practical matter would render that right impossible to exercise.
For example, a state may require licensing and training as a condition of handgun ownership, but they cannot require citizens to keep their guns disassembled or under lock and key in their own homes (as in D.C.).
A key issue is the "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights into state law. State regulations that functionally prevent citizens from exercising their right to bear arms in self-defense cannot pass Constitutional muster. State laws in respect of such rights must have a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest (such as public safety).
For example, it is not enough that a state authority maintains that they may mandate gun locks because they make guns "safer", because such laws also make the use of a firearm functionally impossible when it is most needed. But can a state require you to pass a proficiency exam and pay a fee as a condition of empowering a police chief to issue you a license to carry? Yes, it can.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!
Okay, he’s crossed off my list!