[tpaine]

I moved to CA in '58, before the majority here infringed upon my rights, violations I fought through political action. I continue to support the fight thru legal recourse.
If the USSC appeal fails, we will take our fight to increasing levels of civil disobedience. -- Unintended consequenses may arise.
Surprisingly, a lot of socalled FR 'conservatives' are against such constitutional action..
-- Are you? - Yall?

Spiff: -- Where do you stand on CA's supposed 'right' to ignore our US Constitutions BOR's ?





You and I have had this argument before. The Constitution created and empowered a limited Federal government. The BOR provided further express limitations on that Federal government. When amendments in the BORs says "Congress shall make no law" that becomes obvious.
If not, then the Constitution formed a national government and the states are simply subdivisions of the whole. But, you and I both know that is not what was intended.
-spiff-


Yep, we both know that puts you solidly behind the supposed 'right' of fed/state/local governments to violate our constitutional, inalienable RKBA's.

Really weird position, one you cannot defend. -- Thanks.

[Spiff]

Yep, we both know that puts you solidly behind the supposed 'right' of fed/state/local governments to violate our constitutional, inalienable RKBA's.

No. It doesn't. Our right to keep a bear arms, among other rights, is inalienable. No government has the "right" to violate them.

That, however, does not mean that the protections included in the BORs applies to state governments as the U.S. Constitution did not form the state governments. The proper location for BOR-like protections which apply to the states would be within the various constitutions of the states.

That is how the Founding Fathers intended things to be. That is NOT how things are practiced today.