[processing please hold]

They need to petition the Congressional, Executive and Judicial branch officials of both Fed and State governments to enforce the 2nd, just as they are bound by Article VI.

Is there not a brave enough person in Ca. to petition the courts?

Careful on what you call them. -- There are many here that applaud the so-called 'right' of a gov't [fed/state/local] to deprive individuals certain aspects of life, liberty, or property.
If Legislators or the Courts decide certain types of guns/drugs/behaviors are 'harmful', they ciaim a power to prohibit them.

Fancy that indeed. ;)

I'll have to stick to my original remark about them, stupid idiots.

[robertpaulsen]

"Is there not a brave enough person in Ca. to petition the courts?"

Sure. The latest was Silveira v Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) in which the 9th Circuit Court stated that the second amendment "protects the people’s right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use."

In an earlier case, Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), the 9th Circuit Court stated that the second amendment protected against federal infringement only and was not applicable to state or local laws.

Despite what others tell you on this forum.

[tpaine]

Is there not a brave enough person in Ca. to petition the courts?

Careful on what you call them. -- There are many here that applaud the so-called 'right' of a gov't [fed/state/local] to deprive individuals certain aspects of life, liberty, or property.
If Legislators or the Courts decide certain types of guns/drugs/behaviors are 'harmful', they ciaim a power to prohibit them.

Fancy that indeed. ;)

I'll have to stick to my original remark about them, stupid idiots.

As we see, the idiotic 9th circuit courts have backed up the socialistic 'states rights' position.

Some on this forum inanely support that position. -- Fancy that.

[muleskinner]

As for me, I have a personal policy of skipping over text that looks like it was written in the early 60’s by the John Birch Society. Especially when half the words are underlined for emphasis.