[tpaine]

You agree that I can't own an 'assault rifle' because I live in CA. Some conservative.

It really works out well--the People of the State of California want to ban guns, I want to own a gun, so I don't live there. What's the problem here? There's a real simple solution: you want to own an assault weapon? There are like 45 other states to live in.

I moved to CA close to 50 years ago, with a rifle that is now 'banned' because of how it looks. -- Bet me that the will of the majority now has the 'right' to ban me and my gun from the state.

You cannot see the problem in such laws? BS.

There is some other agenda in play here. Can you tell me what it is?

My agenda is Our Federalism. My agenda is a respect for Laboratories of Democracy.

Respect? -- Belied by your disrespect posted herein for our Constitutions 2nd Amendment.

As I've noted before, I think there should be no gun laws. [see bold, above & below]
Again, in all seriousness, I think a 14 year old girl, with a felony conviction, ought to be able to walk into Home Depot and buy a Browning Automatic Rifle with no taxes to pay, no identification to show, and no waiting period to pass. But, I respect that some people are different than me and that's fine--I choose not to live in those political communities, California included--shoot, I won't even VISIT California. If you moved to California 50 years ago, sorry about your luck, but if you want to own an assault weapon, it's time to move.
The state has a right to pass legislation--that's all there is to it. If you want to own an assault rifle--if it really bothers you that much--MOVE. Montana is pretty gun friendly, and you can probably sell your house in California and get something a lot nicer there--plus better scenery.

Sorry kid, but I'm a citizen of the USA that pledged over 50 years ago to protect & defend. I will not move.

You are the one that should move, considering your disrespect for the 2nd.

[Publius Valerius]

I have plenty of respect for the Second Amendment. I don't think the Federal Government can make any laws restricting the ownership of firearms. Last I checked, California wasn't the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, you're cut from the same cloth as a lot of the liberals today who are willing to distort the plain text of the constitution to suit your conveniences.

Let me give you a news flash: not everything is a constitutional right. The states have police powers, and the Bill of Rights didn't change that. Period.

You can piss and moan all you want, but California's law is on the books--it's been there since 1989--and it's not going anywhere. Why? Because states have police powers. If you don't like it, your answer is simple: move.

I would point out to you that Raoul Berger, a brilliant constitutional scholar, has discussed incorporation at length in his book, "Government by Judiciary," but I can see, by your former comments, that you are one of those people that think that the term "due process," despite a lengthy English common law and American history to the contrary, has some sort of substantive meaning and would not change these thoughts despite voluminous scholarship indicating otherwise.

I find that fascinating that when the Founders drafted the document, a term can mean one thing--but, apparently by magic--we can wake up one day 200 years later and the term has a different meaning. Remarkable!