[faireturn]

Starting in the early 1900's, the U.S. Supreme Court has erroneously used the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to selectively 'incorporate' the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

The fact remains that all of the Constitution & all of its Amendments have always applied to all levels of governments and all officials in the USA, just as Article VI makes clear.


The USSC has erroneously declared only certain rights fundamental to liberty, and made the protection of only those rights applicable to the states, contrary to the clear words of both Article VI and the 14th Amendment.


Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been erroneously 'incorporated' (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment).
We can only wonder who gave the Supreme Court the power to 'except' certain of our most fundamental rights.

This means that your RKBA is unprotected by your state or local officials if they ignore your state constitution.
Thus they can contend that our second amendment is only a restriction on the federal government, not the state.

Since the California state constitution provides no protection in this area, a constitutional amendment is only one way to get it.

Forcing the US Supreme Court to hear a case on Califorina's clear infringements of the 2nd is another, and better method. It would settle the issue for good.

[William Tell]

faireturn said: "Forcing the US Supreme Court to hear a case on Califorina's clear infringements of the 2nd is another, and better method. It would settle the issue for good."

I agree.

It's pretty obvious to me that continuing to allow the disarmament of recently freed slaves was not the intention of those who passed the Fourteenth Amendment.

The "privileges and immunities" of US citizens include an immunity from infringement of their right to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from passing any law which abridges those privileges and immunities.

[45Auto]

The US SC refused to hear what many considered to be a seminal and valid RKBA/2nd Amendment case from California. The case was Silviera vs. Lockyer and was discussed here.

In this case the 9th Circuit (with the majority opinion writen by Reinhardt) held that.... "Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision."