[robertpaulsen]

California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms. California has no "second amendment" in the state constitution.

Normally, the 14th amendment would cover a citizens rights at the state level, but the USSC never incorporated the 2nd amendment under the 14th. Bottom line: California could ban guns if it wanted to.

[templar]

Normally, the 14th amendment would cover a citizens rights at the state level, but the USSC never incorporated the 2nd amendment under the 14th. Bottom line: California could ban guns if it wanted to.

That's what I was thinking. But I was more mentioning the 14th in regard to this law since it should be obvious that it is targeting a specific group (minorities) for different treatment than others. That is what the voters rights act of '65 was about. Why is it that only the liberals want to use the 14th?

[tpaine]

California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms. California has no "second amendment" in the state constitution.
Normally, the 14th amendment would cover a citizens rights at the state level, but the USSC never incorporated the 2nd amendment under the 14th.
Bottom line: California could ban guns if it wanted to.
-rp-


"Incorporation" is a legal fiction used by the USSC and the political power structure to play their silly games.

The constitution uses clear language to declare itself as the supreme 'law of the land' and, in the 2nd, - to protect the peoples RKBA's.
The 9th and 14th clearly support these facts of constitutional law. The arguments used at the ratification of the 14th clearly show that the one of the purposes of the 14th was to make the individual U.S. citizens RKBA's absolutely un-infringeable by state/local governments.

Statists of all stripes cannot abide by this fact.

Your 'incorporation' theory is a red herring. Dupes use it to imply that 'interpreting' our constitution is best left to the 'experts'.