Questionable. If the BOR was done away with, our "republic" would still stand. The BOR is the foundation for our freedom, not our republic.
Why should a Californian have to move to Nevada to own an "assault weapon"? -- Makes no constitutional sense.
Because the people of CA did not include RKBA in their BOR at the state level. By living there, you grant implicit agreement with their governing documents, which have allowed them the leeway to restrict weapons.
It matters little to me which level of government takes away our RKBA's.
You and I will differ on that point. I think a more careful consideration of federal removal of the RKBA might convince you otherwise. Nobody is holding you hostage in CA, are they? My guess is that there is something about CA that is to your benefit, and the cost of moving out of state currently overrides your desire for a less restrictive RKBA. This sort of cost/benefit analysis is at the crux of every decision we make. If you don't like it, work to amend the CA constitution or move. Until then, you're just complaining because government is working as designed (and no, I don't like it any better than you).
Seems as though you're lumping a large body of diverse political opinion and philosophy under the name of states' rights-ers.
So what? Percisely ~why~ each one insists that a state should be able to ignore the BOR's doesn't matter. They threaten our republics foundation with their actions.
Questionable. If the BOR was done away with, our "republic" would still stand.
~Your~ version of a 'republic' might, but not our constitutional one, as written.
The BOR is the foundation for our freedom, not our republic.
Specious nitpicking.
---------------------------------
My understanding of the phrase all powerful state in tpaine's original statement was a reference to the federal government. That is almost always the context in which that phrase is used.
It matters little to me which level of government takes away our RKBA's.
You and I will differ on that point. I think a more careful consideration of federal removal of the RKBA might convince you otherwise. Nobody is holding you hostage in CA, are they? My guess is that there is something about CA that is to your benefit, and the cost of moving out of state currently overrides your desire for a less restrictive RKBA. This sort of cost/benefit analysis is at the crux of every decision we make. If you don't like it, work to amend the CA constitution or move.
Until then, you're just complaining because government is working as designed (and no, I don't like it any better than you).
How cynically anti-liberty can you get? --- CA's gun prohibition is "government is working as designed"? What a clownish attitude. - Your disclaimer to not "like it" is merely more BS. -- You just spent a paragraph telling me to like it or leave it, your favorite specious ploy.
----------------------------------
The organizational structure of our republic prevents it's use in reference to state government, as those opposed could just vote with their feet (oddly, this was tried once at the federal level - and as a result we all find ourselves here today)!
Why should a Californian have to move to Nevada to own an "assault weapon"? -- Makes no constitutional sense.
Because the people of CA did not include RKBA in their BOR at the state level. By living there, you grant implicit agreement with their governing documents, which have allowed them the leeway to restrict weapons.
More bull. -- I moved here as a citizen of the USA, with a 2nd amendment RKBA's, which has since been violated by unconstitutional state acts, which I fought since they were proposed.
I gave no "implicit agreement" to a violation of an inalienable right. -- You are a fool to believe that this is even possible.
I was taken aback when later it was explained that all powerful state was not in reference to federal power. The notion of an all powerful government at the state level is not reasonable, as certain powers are delegated away from the states by our federal constitution.
Exactly my point.. A state cannot ignore our U.S. Constitutions basic principles.
-- IE, -- that our BOR's do not apply to a state.
Incredible. - In effect they are constitutional scofflaws, and are proud of it... -tpaine 135
States' rights advocates are not alone in their opinion that the BOR applies limits only to federal power. There are many who believe this, and they are not totally unjustified - that is to say, I have not seen a convincing argument that the opposite is true. The BOR is, after all, amending a document ordained and established for the United States of America.
Yep, sure is. - Which makes my point. All states are bound thereby. [Art VI]
Much additional contrary evidence exists. To continue your example, 46 states (I believe that # is correct still) have explicit protection of the RKBA in their own state constititions. It is evident that such a clause could have been included in the original 13, had they been established and ratified prior to the appendage of the BOR to the constitution, but how to explain the others when there is an explicit constitutional clause forbidding them to act?
Why do state constitutions need explaining? Sure, they are at times redundant when it comes to enumerating our individual rights. --- Better repetitions than the 'legal' mess made because the 48'ers forgot to put a 2nd amendment type clause in CA's..
You are proving my point, Gianni. You are a constitutional scofflaw.