So, since the BOR originally DID only apply to the new Federal Government, and we all agree that the BOR is a good thing, why would you be against those protections extending down to the State level, especially for those States that restrict certain rights? (Cali/Guns...)
I don't object to states securing these rights as well.
But if the people of the states chose to govern differently that's their choice. I E California could enforce strict gun laws, accordingly to what the California Constitution allows. They could ban guns altogether.
So, since the BOR originally DID only apply to the new Federal Government, and we all agree that the BOR is a good thing, why would you be against those protections extending down to the State level, especially for those States that restrict certain rights? (Cali/Guns...)
I don't object to states securing these rights as well.
But if the people of the states chose to govern differently that's their choice. I E California could enforce strict gun laws, accordingly to what the California Constitution allows. They could ban guns altogether.