I do no support the infringement of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether that infringement is committed by the FedGov or the state of California. However, as long as California has a Republican form of government and the California constitution permits it, and barring the traditional misinterpretation of the 14th, the California state legislature can prohibit weapons and the U.S. Constitution allows it and the 10th Amendment affirms this fact. The BOR clearly placed its limits upon the FedGov (as in, "Congress shall make no law...) as the Constitution was defining the FedGov, the several States pre-existing. Until the 14th began to be misinterpreted we had a federal form of government. Since then it has almost entirely metamorphed into a national government. Sad.
I do no support the infringement of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether that infringement is committed by the FedGov or the state of California. However, as long as California has a Republican form of government and the California constitution permits it, and barring the traditional misinterpretation of the 14th, the California state legislature can prohibit weapons and the U.S. Constitution allows it and the 10th Amendment affirms this fact.
Thank you. You've just joined a couple of dozen very confused FReekers who claim to support our RKBA's while admitting that states & localities can prohibit guns.
The BOR clearly placed its limits upon the FedGov (as in, "Congress shall make no law...) as the Constitution was defining the FedGov, the several States pre-existing.
A US citizen had a RKBA's in a territory, but lost his right if a new state so decreed? You sure?
Until the 14th began to be misinterpreted we had a federal form of government. Since then it has almost entirely metamorphed into a national government. Sad.
Yep, I find such reasoning more that sad.