You cannot find one instance where I advocated that states prohibit guns. Not one. Your claim is ludicrous -- actually, it's a lie.
"You claim they can therefore prohibit 'assault weapons', despite the clear words of our 2nd Amendment."
Yep, California can do that. The second amendment protects you from federal infringement, not state infringement. The Ninth circuit has ruled this way in a half-dozen cases.
"Of course they do, but they cannot infringe on our individual rights to life, liberty, or property."
They can infringe on those rights as long as you are accorded due process in a court of law. Then your right to life, liberty, or property is controlled by the state.
"--- if a state official, pledged to support the US Constitution, attempts to pass state legislation contrary to federal law, why, that would be treason, would it not? Well then, you and I are in agreement.
Not really. You still advocate a States 'right' to prohibit guns, or most anything else.
Moral majority rule is not the american way, paulsen.
I'm not an advocate.
Of course you are. Every day anyone can see you here advocating the States 'power to prohibit'. Your denial is ludicrous.
You cannot find one instance where I advocated that states prohibit guns. Not one. Your claim is ludicrous -- actually, it's a lie.
Are your words just below a lie? - In them, you claim that states can prohibit guns, & ignore the 2nd.
I simply said the state has the power to regulate/prohibit guns PROVIDED it wasn't against the state constitution. I stand by that.
The CA State constitution has no RKBA's provision. You claim they can therefore prohibit 'assault weapons', despite the clear words of our 2nd Amendment. Again, your denial is ludicrous.
Yep, California can do that. The second amendment protects you from federal infringement, not state infringement. The Ninth circuit has ruled this way in a half-dozen cases.
There you go again, claiming/advocating that States can ignore the US Constitutions BOR's. - How daft.
-- We live in a representative republic whereby our constitutionally elected representatives write the rules.
Agreed. -- They can 'write reasonable rules' under constitutional bounds.
Most of these "rules" have a basis in morality.
Of course they do, but they cannot infringe on our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
They can infringe on those rights as long as you are accorded due process in a court of law. Then your right to life, liberty, or property is controlled by the state.
Again, -- you claim/advocate that as long as we get due process in a fair trial, rights can be "controlled by the state". Ludicrous. -- "Due process of the law" is being ignored in the writing of these 'laws' that prohibit socalled 'evil property'. The State has no delegated power to so "control" our life, liberty, or property.
Your advocacy of prohibitions on guns, drugs, etc; -- infringe on those rights. -- And you cannot deny it.