And in the case in question, CA has rejected the 2nd Amendment? -- Please advise.
It does appear that we live in a UNITED STATE, rather than the United States. The federal government wasn't created to enforce the BOR. The BOR were added to RESTRAIN the federal government.
Work to change the CA law! Folk in other states should not allow same to occur in their own state and donate resources to CA folk who are trying to repeal this law!
Citizens should have access to weapons that pose a serious deterrent to the federal government. This would include personal possession of any firearm in use by the military or federal police. WMD aren't needed to deter fed gov from imposing martial law, if the citizenry are appropriately armed and sufficient numbers in the military and fed police support Constitutional government. The worst case would be civil war, vs the annihilation of large segments of the unarmed populace, as happened in various places last century.
Significantly prior to the BOR - The Avalon Project : Virginia Declaration of RightsXIII
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
I recommend the 'The Revolutionary Second Amendment'
That site seems to agree with you that guns can be banned by States. -- Correct me if I'm wrong.
with the following in mind: Hot Topics - visionforum.org Black's Law Dictionary:
Interposition "The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.
And in the case in question, CA has rejected the 2nd Amendment?
-- Please advise.
It does appear that we live in a UNITED STATE, rather than the United States. The federal government wasn't created to enforce the BOR.
Read the Preamble Ed. -- Establishing a Union and Securing the Blessings of constitutional Liberties pretty well says it all.
The BOR were added to RESTRAIN the federal government.
You deny that it also restrains the States? Read the 10th again about prohibited powers. One prohibited from State infringement is our RKBA's.
Work to change the CA law! Folk in other states should not allow same to occur in their own state and donate resources to CA folk who are trying to repeal this law! Citizens should have access to weapons that pose a serious deterrent to the federal government. This would include personal possession of any firearm in use by the military or federal police. WMD aren't needed to deter fed gov from imposing martial law, if the citizenry are appropriately armed and sufficient numbers in the military and fed police support Constitutional government. The worst case would be civil war, vs the annihilation of large segments of the unarmed populace, as happened in various places last century.
You are preaching to the choir, Ed.
Significantly prior to the BOR - The Avalon Project : Virginia Declaration of Rights XIII
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
Again, -- we can all agree that the miltary is controled by civil power. --- Are you trying to say that a State should have the power to control/prohibit military 'type' arms, as does CA?