Of course I specified. The point is that general prohibitions in the Constitution, that don't mention states, apply against the federal government only. Those items I mentioned are evidence in support of that point. Ignore them if you like, but there they stand.
The 'feds' have no power over states except that delegated.
They have the power to enforce the Constitution. If your position is true, that the Bill of Rights is binding upon the states, then the "feds" have the power to enforce it. My position is that the Founders didn't intend for it to be binding on the states, so therefore the federal government would be without power to enforce something that was intended to only apply to themselves. So yes, this dispute is about the proper extent of federal power.
By not fighting the USSC on these 'rulings', the States are failing in their constitutional obligations to the people. -- You are blaming our Constitution for the 'peoples' political failures.
That's no different from you blaming Barron vs. Baltimore for the people's failure, in your state, to respect gun rights. Yes, the states and the people are failing to resist federal encroachment. The question is, Is the current interpretation of the Constitution part of the solution, or part of the problem? Seems clearly part of the problem to me.
Yet you've spent a good amount of time, trying to 'educate' me in the supposed fact that CA is not obligated to honor the 2nd amendment.
The only thing I've tried to convince you of is that the federal courts aren't constitutionally empowered to protect gun rights from your state government. That's up to the people of your state.
Of course I specified. The point is that general prohibitions in the Constitution, that don't mention states, apply against the federal government only. Those items I mentioned are evidence in support of that point. Ignore them if you like, but there they stand.
Very well then, your entire point is made mute by the 14th amendment, which 'mentions' that States must observe individual rights to life, liberty or property.
------------------------------
The 'feds' have no power over states except that delegated.
They have the power to enforce the Constitution.
Yep, sure do. Although below, you again insist they can't enforce individual rights to property. Weird dichotomy:
"the federal courts aren't constitutionally empowered to protect gun rights from your state government"
Which way would you have it?
If your position is true, that the Bill of Rights is binding upon the states, then the "feds" have the power to enforce it. My position is that the Founders didn't intend for it to be binding on the states, so therefore the federal government would be without power to enforce something that was intended to only apply to themselves.
Circular reasoning again? The protection of individual rights were VERY important to the founders, and they certainly were not naive enough to believe that state governments couldn't abuse them. The BOR's applies to states, just as it says in the 10th.
So yes, this dispute is about the proper extent of federal power.
It shouldn't be, because I agree the feds abuse our constitution, more so than the states.
By not fighting the USSC on these 'rulings', the States are failing in their constitutional obligations to the people. -- You are blaming our Constitution for the 'peoples' political failures.
That's no different from you blaming Barron vs. Baltimore for the people's failure, in your state, to respect gun rights.
Odd comment. -- I don't 'blame' B v B. - I blame the communitarians in power, and some of their 'states rights' so-called-conservative allies, who passed these insane bills.
Yes, the states and the people are failing to resist federal encroachment. The question is, Is the current interpretation of the Constitution part of the solution, or part of the problem? Seems clearly part of the problem to me.
Yet you've spent a good amount of time, trying to 'educate' me in the supposed fact that CA is not obligated to honor the 2nd amendment.
The only thing I've tried to convince you of is that the federal courts aren't constitutionally empowered to protect gun rights from your state government. That's up to the people of your state.
You said just above:
"They have the power to enforce the Constitution."
I suggest you rethink your position.