Court rules against Washington gun control initiative

Broken record:

As I've noted in hundreds of posts all over the net, we can thank the idiots on the courts for these problems at the state level. In 1833, Chief Justice John Marshall and the SC ruled that not one iota of the Bill of Rights bound the States. The case was Baron v Baltimore. Marshall and the Court were wrong and that wrong gave us 20,000+ state level laws that clearly violate the 2nd amendment. Regardless of Madison's intent or desires, he was repudiated by the placement of the Bill of Rights at the end of the Constitution. While some, the 1st and probably the 3rd, are clearly aimed at the feds, the others are general. Once ratified the amendment became an integral part of the Constitution and were covered by the SUPREMACY Clause. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, and other clearly cover all governmental entities, federal, state, and local. Not a single word in any of them gives the slightest hint of limiting any amendment solely to the federal government.

Even then the courts have lied and used the necessary and proper clause to expand federal powers. The use of the words "necessary and proper" in Article I, Section 8 are restrictive and not expansive. Those who treat N&P as expansive do not grasp English grammar. If the N&P are expansive words then half the granted powers are unnecessary and the Framers were simply ignorant in spending so much time explicitly stating those powers. No interpretation/reading of one clause in the Constitution is valid if that reading negate the need for another clause or clauses. If the N&P is expansive then the grant to "provide for the common Defense" carries with it the power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to declare war, to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, etc. Thus those grants are superfluous and a waste of space and ink.