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.
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.
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.
Last time I checked, all states are bound to support our Constitution; -- as per Article VI, and the 10th/14th Amendments.
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.
Unfortunately, you're cut from the same cloth as a lot of the communitarian's today who are willing to distort the plain text of the constitution to suit your 'majority rule' dreams.
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.
Your 'statist' slip is showing.
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.
Let me give you a news flash: -- misused 'police powers' are ignored by patriots, -- and there are millions of us in California.
If you don't like it, your answer is simple: move.
If you don't like our Constitution, your answer is simple: move. Prohibitionists are welcomed in most of the world.
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 rather like Barnetts 'Presumption of Liberty' facts about constitutional due process. See:
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
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!
Indeed, -- how you can 'term' the 2nds clear words as being infringe-able by State or local governments, -- is a truly remarkable feat of magic.