Replies

I agree to explain how I maintain these two assertions.
You have said that I cannot have it both ways. The two assertions are:

1. I do not want any state to have the power to infringe on rights, quite the contrary.
2. The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA.

If the state of CA confiscates your firearm, I am dead-set against that.

*It should not have given itself the power to do that.*

The citizens of CA and of other states should not stand for it. Thank goodness most other states have had wiser founders. And thank goodness the federal government limits itself from such a travesty. And it codified the 2nd Amendment to make dead sure of it.
-NutCboy-

You claim:
"The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA." -- You can't have it both ways.. States do not have such powers. You claim they do..

Nothing you've written above explains how you "maintain these two assertions".

You maintain an illogical position by insisting that a state has a power to 'trample' one of our inalienable rights.

Where did the state get the power to *"give itself the power to do that"?*

The CA constitution simply fails to mention our RKBA's, -- as do some of the other states.
There is no power to ban property in the CA constitution.
'We the people of CA' did not grant the legislature this power.

We petition our supreme court to right this wrong, and you support the states 'right' to ban guns.

Why is that?

If the state of CA confiscates your firearm, I am dead-set against that. -NutCrackerBoy

How much more can I underscore this? I think it is wrong. I want it changed. Among other things, the wrongful CA Constitution is clearly having the effect of inducing people such as yourself to grant even more influence to the Supreme Court, which already has way too much.

Where did the state get the power to give itself the power to [confiscate firearms]?

It is not legitimate. The federal government did not give it that power. It arrogated the power unto itself.