I have for as long as I can remember operated under the idea that the 2nd Amendment applied to each individual state. In that no state could constitutionally pass a law that infringed upon the ownership and bearing of arms.
However, I am inclined now to change my position upon this issue. Here is why:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>The Consitution was written to define and control the powers of Federal government.
This brings up the 10th Amendment which states:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/quote]
Thus giving the state the right to dictate law concerning the right to keep and bear arms through the popular voice of those delegated to define such laws within the state.
<LI>If I remember correctly there are 3 states that do not have within their own constitutions the provision to keep and bear arms. California being one of them.
If this is true, then the California legislator is perfectly within its consitutional limits when it passes a ban on any feature, ammo type, capacity, or firearm.
</UL>
Does this then mean that Washington D.C. is in the most direct violation per this interpretation of all territories of the USA, as it is not a state, but a federal district? And that all federally mandated bans and limitations are in direct conflict with consitutional restrictions, as well as a possible national CCL, but state bans and limitations would no be, unless restrained by their own constituton?
-----
I apologize for the half-baked structure of this post...
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
However, I am inclined now to change my position upon this issue. Here is why:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>The Consitution was written to define and control the powers of Federal government.
This brings up the 10th Amendment which states:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/quote]
Thus giving the state the right to dictate law concerning the right to keep and bear arms through the popular voice of those delegated to define such laws within the state.
<LI>If I remember correctly there are 3 states that do not have within their own constitutions the provision to keep and bear arms. California being one of them.
If this is true, then the California legislator is perfectly within its consitutional limits when it passes a ban on any feature, ammo type, capacity, or firearm.
</UL>
Does this then mean that Washington D.C. is in the most direct violation per this interpretation of all territories of the USA, as it is not a state, but a federal district? And that all federally mandated bans and limitations are in direct conflict with consitutional restrictions, as well as a possible national CCL, but state bans and limitations would no be, unless restrained by their own constituton?
-----
I apologize for the half-baked structure of this post...
------------------
John/az
"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!