XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Leif"  wrote in message   
   news:1189747146.028761.56010@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 13, 4:48 pm, "RSweeney"  wrote:   
   >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:1189707451.827623.145790@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > 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.   
   >>   
   >> The 14th amendment says otherwise. And since the debate on WHY the 14th   
   >> amendment was needed specifically included the abuse of state laws to   
   >> deny   
   >> black citizens the right to bear arms, it's clear that the 14th's INTENT   
   >> was   
   >> prohibit this.   
   >>   
   >> Additionally, SCOTUS in Presser makes it clear that any state law that   
   >> would   
   >> deny arms to the citizens would run afoul of the second.- Hide quoted   
   >> text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  No, Presser does not say that.  What the Supreme Court   
   > said in Presser was this:   
   >   
   > "But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment [the   
   > Second Amendment] prohibits the legislation in question lies in the   
   > fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of   
   > Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the   
   > States."   
      
   IOW, what he said.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)