Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan
It is an open question exactly what gun laws California can pass after Heller. "States rights" are trumped by the Second Amendment
For example, the 7th Circuit struck down an Illinois gun law last week that pretty much banned public carying of weapons on the basis that it violated the Second Amendment
With regard to federal "regulation" of abortion, that is based upon a constitutional right to privacy established by the Supreme Court that limits the power of State and local governments to regulate access to abortion - you may disagree with Roe v. Wade but is is just as much a binding opinion of the Supreme Court as the two Second Amendment opinions handed down in 2008 (Heller v. District of Columbia) and 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago) that for the first time, after more than 200 years of constitutional law, held the Second Amendment clearly created an individual right to bear arms and thereby barred significant regulation of handguns by DC and Chicago. Links to opinions below if you have some spare time and have not had the opportunity to read how the Second Amendment has been interpreted recently
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
State and local governments are not just subject to laws passed by Congress. They are subject to Constitutional limitations upon their actions established by the incorporation of certain rights articulated in the Bill of Rights under the original amendments to the Constitution (which only limited actions by the federal government) into the due process clause and equal protection clauses of the Fourteeenth Amendment, which limits the actions of state and local governments (limitatoins upon actions by the District of Columbia are diffeent becuase it is a creation of the fedral government).
Just as you may regard Roe v. Wade as unwise, some of us are not big fans of the Heller and McDonald opinions. But they are all binding Supreme Court precedent and are all based upon the same theory that places Constitutional restrictions upon the ability of State and local governments to regulate certain private conduct.
I will read into those, I hadn't heard about that.
And it's not that I'm against Roe vs. Wade necessarily, I just don't think the federal gov't should have a right to legislate that law (same with drug laws and marriage laws). So no, I doubt I'm going to be in favor of the Heller/McDonald rulings. I can't imagine that ric likes it either, even though it takes away a states right.