Originally Posted by
Glenn E. Meyer
The analogy is ludicrous only to those with an authoritarian mind set. The right to hold high cap mags as not been determined to be protected by the 2nd Amend. by SCOTUS. The banning of them as been part of Congressional and State legislation over the years and supported by state and lower Federal courts many times. I guess you missed that.
Thus, a governor who righteously decided to nullify what he or she thought as a ludicrous restriction of liberty in the firearms realm is relevant. State actions to limit federal infringement of liberty is not unknown. States took action against the ludicrous Fugitive slave laws.
If one thinks that infringement of the right have use marijuana is a ludicrous blow against personal liberty, the action is reasonable. What is a liberty is determined by social consensus, you may have missed that. The right to inter-racial marriage wasn't in the BOR, but found to exist as societal norms changed. I can quote Senators who thought they had a God Given agenda to forbid that and even have a Constitutional amendment to codify it.
The Bill of Rights - its limits are determined by SCOTUS, it seems nowadays. I do respect those who will act against liberty and do not respect those of an authoritarian mindset that want to limit our rights, God Given or determined by reasonable discussion among enlightened human beings to be good for society. Otherwise the concepts of rights is ludicrous.