Oh, well then! That clinches your argument beyond any reproach...
Not.
As for your slander, let's see how much of an "idiot" people are when they choose to actually follow the law, specifically "the supreme Law of the Land:"
Because
it's the law. That's why.
Specifically:
1. The 9th's decision conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. Details to follow.
2. Article VI, Clause 2 establishes the U.S. Constitution, and not the Supreme Court, as "the supreme Law of the Land."
3. Article VI, Clause 3 binds the Supreme Court "by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution," along with all other elements of our federal government.
4. Article Vi declares that all Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution." Thus, the Second Amendment is "Part of this Constitution" and is therefore also "the supreme Law of the Land," which the Supreme Court is bound to support.
Back to precisely how the 9th's decision conflicts with the U.S. Constitution...
Hogwash.
I took the same oath of office "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" as the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, along with all other civil officers of our federal government. One cannot "support and defend" what one doesn't know, so I took the time to study our Constitution in considerable detail. With items 1-4 above clearly in mind, let's examine the Second Amendment further:
1. It applies to individuals. Our Founding Fathers knew that when they wrote "the right of the people," but I guess it took the Supreme Court a couple of centuries to recognize that in an official decision (District of Columbia v. Heller).
2. The "shall not be infringed" prohibition is absolute, without limit. The word "shall" is an imperative. It was (and still is) "used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory." It does not apply itself to only one entity, as does the First Amendment with it's "
Congress shall make no law..." preface. Instead, the Second Amendment is universal, applying to all levels -- local, county, state, and federal.
3. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been repeatedly upheld to mean all people of these United States, to keep as in own or possess, and to bear as in carry. Many clauses in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically restrict activities. By contrast, the Second Amendment does not, thereby specifically reiterating its absolute nature, particular on the bear (carry) part. Thus, its moratorium on infringement against "bear" applies to all modes of carry.
Not only is this inconsequential, the U.S. Constitution specifically states that it's "notwithstanding," which means that the Constitution stands in matters of conflict between state and federal law: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." It also states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned,
and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Thus, a state law that contradicts the Second Amendment is in violation of "the supreme Law of the Land" and violates the right of the people of these United States.
The original states signed off on the Second Amendment when it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the other first ten Amendments in our Bill of Rights. California signed on to all of this when it applied for statehood, which was granted on September 9, 1850. Thus, California is as bound by the Second Amendment's absolute prohibition against infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as it is all other elements of the U.S. Constitution, commensurate with the incorporation doctrine. The fact of the Second's application to the states (and D.C.) is reflected in both Heller and McDonald, as well as a rather large number of other Supreme Court rulings.
Thus, the city of California is without excuse for passing this flagrantly un-Constitutional infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Also without excuse is the State of California and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for upholding it.
Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court has more sense as to the nature of what "shall not be infringed" really means. Sadly, their historical decisions indicate they'll probably flub this one, too.