[tpaine]

the state [does not have ] the power to give itself the power to [confiscate firearms]
It is not legitimate. It arrogated the power unto itself.

---

Yet you claim:
"2. The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA."


Can you agree that 'we the people' can ratify a constitution that says:

'The 2nd amendment limits state governments from trampling on our RKBA?'

I submit we did so, back in 1791.

You must admit that in the territory of CA, before statehood, US citizens had a RKBA's, -- yet you insist, because of a oversight, modern CA can now ban arms..
This is an illogical position.

[NutCrackerBoy]

You must admit that in the territory of CA, before statehood, US citizens had a RKBA's, -- yet you insist, because of a oversight, modern CA can now ban arms.

I don't know anything about the laws governing California before statehood. Why should I? Why do I have to know anything specific about California in order to understand the U.S. Constitution? There is obviously something screwed up, since you tell me California has passed laws that allow state officials to confiscate firearms. I don't know why you want to place the blame on the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal government is not imbued with infinite power to watch over all the actions of the states. It is possible for a state to do a wrong thing.