No, that would be a case where the state is imposing an unconstitutional restriction on something that is Constitutionally protected -- RKBA.
Individual rights are Constitutionally protected, and RKBA falls under that. Any law that the states pass must be Constitutional. I agree with federalist ideas in general, within the bounds of the Constitution protecting individual liberties first and foremost. I think the 10th Amendment has been ignored, in the sense that states should primarily be in charge of themselves without federal intrusion.
The idea of the feds regulating commerce was originally meant as a way to ensure a level playing field between different states, but the feds have long since used it to encroach terribly on areas of governance which should be determined by the states (e.g. drug laws).
If we're going to believe in a principle, we need to be consistent.
39 Ryan
Ryan, does this mean you support State prohibitions on guns? Paulsen claims CA's 'assault weapon ban' is perfectly Constitutional.
No, that would be a case where the state is imposing an unconstitutional restriction on something that is Constitutionally protected -- RKBA.
Glad you're consistent about guns. -- Too bad we have no right to possess dildos, though. -- Seems this would be in conformity with bearing arms.
Then why is concealed carry a state issue? If RKBA is protected by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, how can different states have different laws? Isn't there something about constitutional due process that requires uniformity?
How can one state require registration, and others don't? Why are age limits different in each state? Why are some guns prohibited in one state but legal in another?
Are you sure that the second amendment applies to the states? Or is each state guided solely by its State Constitution?