[general_re]

Then you must necessarily dispute the validity of the 14'th amendment, which was, as steve-b points out, clearly intended to bind states to the Bill of Rights. Why do you feel the 14'th amendment is invalid?

For instance, California does not have protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you feel this is a good thing? IOW, you must then argue that, although it would be wrong and unconstitutional for the federal government to confiscate all firearms from citizens, it is proper and just that the state of California does so. Why is it proper and just that rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution can be abrogated by the states at will?

What is the point of having a "right" to keep and bear arms if it can be revoked by the states? If such a thing is revocable, does it make sense to even call it a "right"?

[Rule of Law]

Then you must necessarily dispute the validity of the 14'th amendment, which was, as steve-b points out, clearly intended to bind states to the Bill of Rights. Why do you feel the 14'th amendment is invalid?

The language that was intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states was deleted from the final version of the 14th Amendment. So while the Senator may have wanted the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, his colleagues clearly disagreed with him. We cannot apply the meaning of the first draft when it was not adopted.

Do you feel this is a good thing? IOW, you must then argue that, although it would be wrong and unconstitutional for the federal government to confiscate all firearms from citizens, it is proper and just that the state of California does so. Why is it proper and just that rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution can be abrogated by the states at will?

What is the point of having a "right" to keep and bear arms if it can be revoked by the states? If such a thing is revocable, does it make sense to even call it a "right"?

There is a difference between "rights" and political authority. A state may have the political authority to violate someone's rights. But they are morally wrong to do so.

I for instance, believe the income tax is nothing more than armed robbery. I believe it is morally wrong and a violation of our rights. But I don't pretend the government does not have the authority to levy such a tax.

My advice to the people of California is to change their constitution or move to a state that has gun rights protection in its constitution.

And I do believe that federalism is a good thing. I don't want to give the federal courts more authority to micromanage our lives.