"Constitution does that. Art 6. Para 2."Hmmmmm. I seem to recall that decision of the 9th Circuit held.
But even if the second amendment protected an individual RKBA, it would still only apply to federal laws. Silveira v. Lockyer concerned a California law, not a federal one. The decision would stand.
Unless you don't believe in the concept of federalism.
How can a California law over ride the US Constitution? Didn't California apply for entry into the Union? As such, aren't they subject to the Art 6, para 2, 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments? "Shall not be infringed" means by anyone at any level of government.
Or are you still pushing the same old BS that States aren't subject to Constitutional restrictions and could bring back slavery if the legislature voted to?
What you are pushing isn't Federalism. It's the old Confederation standard that proved unworkable as some States decided it would be fun to restrict the "unalienable Rights of Man" from certain classes of citizen.
n
paulsen, back at post #71:
"-- In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
All of the lower federal circuit courts (save one, in one case) have interpreted the second amendment as protecting the rights of the people, collectively, to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.
Don't shoot the messenger here. --"
American Civil Liberties Union : Gun Control
Address:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
"-- We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.
In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. --"
Paulsen's view, -- straight from the ACLU playbook.
paulsen now concedes:
"--- even if the second amendment protected an individual RKBA, it would still only apply to federal laws. --"
" -- All of the lower federal circuit courts (save one, in one case) have interpreted the second amendment as protecting the rights of the people, collectively, to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia. --"
Thus: '--- even if the second amendment protected an individual RKBA, it would still only apply to federal laws protecting the rights of the people,' -- which are protected from State abridgments or deprivations by the 14th Amendment.
--- You lose paulsen, by your own combined 'reasoning'.