Replies

"How can you believe individuals have a constitutional right to keep and bear militia related weapons and also say States may infringe that right? It's not really a constitutional right if the States can override it, is it?"

Where do you get this "constitutional right" bull$hit? You do NOT get your rights from any constitution.

You have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That right is protected by your state constitution. That right may not be infringed by the federal government. What is so hard about that?

1) Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That is my interpretation.

2) The RKBA as described in #1 (whatever it is) may not be infringed by the federal government. That is my interpretation.

3) Constitutional state and federal laws may contain reasonable restrictions. That is my interpretation.

(Don't ask me about any exceptions unless you can first point to a state that allows it. Then we can discuss it).

-- "does the Second Amendment mean the States should be prohibited from infringing on the individual RKBA, if they are militia related weapons?"

Not at all. The states are limited by their state constitution. Period.

Demented opinion paulsen. The States of the Union are quite clearly limited by the US Constitution, -- most plainly in Art. VI's supremacy clause & oaths of office, and then followed by the 10ths words, saying that some powers are prohibited by it to the States. -- One such prohibited power, -- to infringe on our RKBA's.

1) Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That is my interpretation.

It is not so protected in CA, as you know.
Thus, you claim CA has unlimited power to prohibit arms. -- An absurd position.

2) The RKBA as described in #1 (whatever it is) may not be infringed by the federal government. That is my interpretation.
3) Constitutional state and federal laws may contain reasonable restrictions. That is my interpretation.

Yet you support unreasonable restrictions [prohibitions] in CA.
Thus, you are lying about your "interpretations".

Where do you get this "constitutional right" bull$hit?

From robertpaulsen:

But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model".

Here's the "limited individual rights model" that robertpaulsen is drifting to:

"individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service."

So robertpaulsen doesn't believe that individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearm related to militia service, as he earlier claimed?