XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   Leif wrote:   
   > On Sep 13, 4:52 am, "Topp@Work"  wrote:   
   >> "Spaz"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:9LCdnZ1NOcJU5HXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >>   
   >>> "RSweeney"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:tq2dnRvRTuoP9nXbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >>>> its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be   
   >>>> infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall   
   >>>> not be infringed by Congress.   
   >>> That's true.  So there's no reason the local government of San Francisco   
   >>> can't implement their own gun ban.   
   >> Except it violates State law.....   
   >> And cities can not violate state law   
   >   
   > Leif speaking: The SECOND AMENDMENT provides no reason why the local   
   > government of San Francisco can't implement their own gun ban.   
      
   Ya, prior to 1866 that may have been the case.   
      
   Amendment XIV changed all of that, though:   
      
   "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the   
   privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)