Why would you try to prove such a thing when it has nothing to do with a State preemption claim?
[[Why would you try to prove such a thing when it has nothing to do with a State preemption claim? ]]
What do you mean it has nothing to do with preemptive law? The state is preempting federal law- and the constitution (claiming they have a right to do so =-for the protection of it’s citizens)- by passing laws in the state that prevent people from being able to adequately protect themselves against superiorly armed enemies.
Unless I’m missing something- We have a federally confirmed right to an inalienable right to defend ourselves- but the state thinks it has the right to preempt that that constitutionally affirmed right- Why shouldn’t this go to federal court? Our federally confirmed right is being denied-
[[Why would you try to prove such a thing when it has nothing to do with a State preemption claim? ]]
The state is claiming they have a right to preempt the constitutional right to own firearms, to ban certain guns and clips and gun features- They claim this ‘;right’ on the basis that it is ‘to protect citizens’ Yet they are not protecting citizens by limiting their means of self defense- they are endangering them