[jjm2111]

Lockyer is a statist scumbag.

[Jeff Head]

In answwer to your , let me pose another question ...

Did the King?

Same answer.

[GaConfed]

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

In other words this leftist believes in states rights after all.............as long as it fits his agenda of totalitarianism.

[bullseye1911]

I thought Lincoln settled the State's rights issue....bad my...

[jjm2111]

Actually, he doesn't, BTW. Just like a local school in Oklahoma can't violate the church and state provision of the first amendment, Lockyer cannot violate the second.

[itzmygun]

This guy is a threat to all freedom. By his reasoning, the constitution means nothing. He should be removed.

[southern rock]

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Well, if it is an INDIVIDUAL right (as all rights are, both enumerated and unenumerated), then how can the STATE (a collective) regulate and ban it, Bill? You jerk!

[Jeff Head]

In answer to your question, let me pose another one and cut to the chase ...

Did the King?

Same answer.

[11th Earl of Mar]

If this is allowed to stand, what does it mean for voting rights in the South?

[jjm2111]

((((( Ping )))))

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I doubt if Bill has ever read that 1939 Miller vs U.S. decision, since it is very clear that the Supremes considered every able-bodied male to be a part of the militia - therefore rendering Mr. Lockyear's argument moot.

[unixfox]

... states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer...

If that's the case then it could also be said that ANY of the amendments could be regulated by the states.

Kalifornia has proven time and time again that the constitution doesn't really mean anything to them, so why should it matter with guns?

Maybe they should regulate free speech as well and tell this idiot to shut his trap !!!

[Bigun]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There is your answer!

[BallandPowder]

Powder..Patch..Ball FIRE!

Jim Talent is an ardent supporter of the 2nd ammendment. Help him take back the senate!

To make a contribution to Jim Talent, former Congressman from St. Louis, running against current Senator Jean Carnahan (who was appointed when her dead husband narrowly "won" in 2000 election over John Ashcroft), click on the Link below or mail a check to the address below.

Support Jim Talent!

Jim Talent for Senate
9433 Olive Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63132

[apillar]

If you follow the premise that states can regulate firearms because it is only a "federal" constitutional right then on the same token state could ban religon, free speech, reinstitute slavery etc.

[Always Right]

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Can we apply that same logic to the Roe v. Wade and the alledged 'right to an abortion'.

[Kenton]

This claim is the liberals' fallback position since Ashcroft came out and said the obvious, which is that US vs. Miller in no, way shape or form ruled that you have to be a member of the National Guard in order to have the RKBA.

If the claim has any legitimacy at all, it would have to be derived from Article X, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

In other words, he's saying that just because the Federal Government doesn't have the power to ban private firearms, because this proscription only applies to the Fed, and since it is "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states", it is reserved for the states to decide. This approach only assumes that the states have reserved this power, and completely ignores the phrase "or to the people".

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one in bars in order to pick up women, but IMHO it's a pretty damn flimsy pretext. It's kind of like saying that none of the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments apply to the state governments, and I can't remember the case, but there was a Supreme Court ruling that the Federal Laws trump the state laws if there is a conflict.

The liberals are fine with that in first amendment situations, but they seem to want to exlude the Second, for some reason...

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Time for Bill Simon to speak out forcefully on the fundamental issue of Constitutional liberty. Kalifornistan is riding the fast train to fascism.

[texson66]

What do you expect for Kali-phoney-ia? They also believe their
marijuana laws should over rule federal law too!

[Ramius]

If the states were not bound by the federal constitution there would then be no need for the states to ratify amendments.

Game... set... match.