| Can California Drive the Climate Change Fight?12-09-2018 16:42 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. And this would their poor water management policies. They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil. This could be why they're having such severe fires. After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-climate-summit-preview-20180912-story.html |
| 12-09-2018 19:55 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. It is.
James___ wrote:
And this would their poor water management policies. That has a lot to do with it.
James___ wrote:
They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil.
The water supplies they overuse is mostly surface water.
James___ wrote:
This could be why they're having such severe fires.
Rather unrelated. They are having a bigger problem with fires because they don't manage their forests anymore. In the past, trees were logged and then replanted (the farmer was Weyerhaeuser in most cases). California started forbidding logging and management of the forests, so they burn instead. British Columbia in Canada basically did the same thing, and they have a much larger forest fire problem their as well. Most of the smoke in Seattle a few weeks ago came from the Canadian fires.
California actually enjoyed a couple of wet springs in a row. This caused the grass to grow better. When it dried out like it usually does in the summer, it became excellent tinder for starting wildfires.
About the only thing the lack of surface water did was make it harder to fight these fires.
James___ wrote:
After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
Depends on where the warmer water is at the time. The Pacific ocean, like all oceans, does not have a single temperature.
During an El Nino cycle, the equatorial currents move just a tad further apart, allowing the equatorial counter-current to flow (these are both surface currents). The effect of this is warmer water, which normally gathers on the west end of the area flow east. This effectively snuffs out the usual upwelling of nutrient rich water from below along the west coasts of places like Central America and Mexico. The fish go elsewhere to eat, making the local fishing more difficult. This is why they call such a current flow 'the Child'. It tended to show up around Christmas time.
El Nino is not a warming of the Pacific, it is just warmer water flowing to a different location than usual. The effect of an El Nino on the United States is to drive the jet stream further south than usual and may even cause it to split into two jet streams. The southern one often winds up over northern or even southern California, bringing with it the same rains and storms that usually hit Seattle. Their soil is largely sand and rocks. Such rains cause flooding and damage. They don't have the vegetation we do to tie the soil down.
El Nino years tend to reduce Atlantic hurricanes. The southern jet stream tends to cut their tops off before they can develop into anything serious. Storms during such years are usually weaker.
La Nina is the opposite. The equatorial currents move closer together, completely shutting off the equatorial counter current. The result is colder water than usual along the west coasts of the Americas, and warmer than usual along Asia and Australia. The effect of La Nina is to cause the jet stream to move a bit further north, putting it right over the Seattle area or on into Canada. Our heaviest snow in Seattle tends to occur during such years.
La Nina years can also be a bad hurricane season. There is nothing to prevent the convection from developing into a massive storm. Like the Pacific, the Atlantic also has an 'El Nino' and a 'La Nina' cycle. It is not called that, but it takes place all the same. Being a smaller ocean, it doesn't effect the jet stream as much, and what it does change mostly effects Europe, not the United States.
Most years are neutral years, neither an El Nino nor a La Nina. This is the usual equatorial currents and the usual amount of counter current flow.
We have a line of buoys extending out across both oceans watching this cycle take place. While there are not enough to measure the temperature of the ocean as a whole, there are enough to see the effects of these currents as they change.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-09-2018 15:45 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. It is.
James___ wrote:
And this would their poor water management policies. That has a lot to do with it.
James___ wrote:
They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil.
The water supplies they overuse is mostly surface water.
James___ wrote:
This could be why they're having such severe fires.
Rather unrelated. They are having a bigger problem with fires because they don't manage their forests anymore. In the past, trees were logged and then replanted (the farmer was Weyerhaeuser in most cases). California started forbidding logging and management of the forests, so they burn instead. British Columbia in Canada basically did the same thing, and they have a much larger forest fire problem their as well. Most of the smoke in Seattle a few weeks ago came from the Canadian fires.
California actually enjoyed a couple of wet springs in a row. This caused the grass to grow better. When it dried out like it usually does in the summer, it became excellent tinder for starting wildfires.
About the only thing the lack of surface water did was make it harder to fight these fires.
James___ wrote:
After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
Depends on where the warmer water is at the time. The Pacific ocean, like all oceans, does not have a single temperature.
During an El Nino cycle, the equatorial currents move just a tad further apart, allowing the equatorial counter-current to flow (these are both surface currents). The effect of this is warmer water, which normally gathers on the west end of the area flow east. This effectively snuffs out the usual upwelling of nutrient rich water from below along the west coasts of places like Central America and Mexico. The fish go elsewhere to eat, making the local fishing more difficult. This is why they call such a current flow 'the Child'. It tended to show up around Christmas time.
El Nino is not a warming of the Pacific, it is just warmer water flowing to a different location than usual. The effect of an El Nino on the United States is to drive the jet stream further south than usual and may even cause it to split into two jet streams. The southern one often winds up over northern or even southern California, bringing with it the same rains and storms that usually hit Seattle. Their soil is largely sand and rocks. Such rains cause flooding and damage. They don't have the vegetation we do to tie the soil down.
El Nino years tend to reduce Atlantic hurricanes. The southern jet stream tends to cut their tops off before they can develop into anything serious. Storms during such years are usually weaker.
La Nina is the opposite. The equatorial currents move closer together, completely shutting off the equatorial counter current. The result is colder water than usual along the west coasts of the Americas, and warmer than usual along Asia and Australia. The effect of La Nina is to cause the jet stream to move a bit further north, putting it right over the Seattle area or on into Canada. Our heaviest snow in Seattle tends to occur during such years.
La Nina years can also be a bad hurricane season. There is nothing to prevent the convection from developing into a massive storm. Like the Pacific, the Atlantic also has an 'El Nino' and a 'La Nina' cycle. It is not called that, but it takes place all the same. Being a smaller ocean, it doesn't effect the jet stream as much, and what it does change mostly effects Europe, not the United States.
Most years are neutral years, neither an El Nino nor a La Nina. This is the usual equatorial currents and the usual amount of counter current flow.
We have a line of buoys extending out across both oceans watching this cycle take place. While there are not enough to measure the temperature of the ocean as a whole, there are enough to see the effects of these currents as they change.
...With surface water, this is kind of what I'm talking about https://water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html. If surface water that isn't runoff tries to refill a water table then it will go down to where the water is.
..With what you mentioned about buoys across the Atlantic, we need more monitoring similar to that. Only it needs to monitor something like 100, 500, 1,000 feet down. That's where when you'd say enough thermometers, we need to start somewhere to look for trends. Even a grid 5° square would be a start. Usually when more attention is paid to something new discoveries are made. |
| 13-09-2018 21:33 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. It is.
James___ wrote:
And this would their poor water management policies. That has a lot to do with it.
James___ wrote:
They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil.
The water supplies they overuse is mostly surface water.
James___ wrote:
This could be why they're having such severe fires.
Rather unrelated. They are having a bigger problem with fires because they don't manage their forests anymore. In the past, trees were logged and then replanted (the farmer was Weyerhaeuser in most cases). California started forbidding logging and management of the forests, so they burn instead. British Columbia in Canada basically did the same thing, and they have a much larger forest fire problem their as well. Most of the smoke in Seattle a few weeks ago came from the Canadian fires.
California actually enjoyed a couple of wet springs in a row. This caused the grass to grow better. When it dried out like it usually does in the summer, it became excellent tinder for starting wildfires.
About the only thing the lack of surface water did was make it harder to fight these fires.
James___ wrote:
After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
Depends on where the warmer water is at the time. The Pacific ocean, like all oceans, does not have a single temperature.
During an El Nino cycle, the equatorial currents move just a tad further apart, allowing the equatorial counter-current to flow (these are both surface currents). The effect of this is warmer water, which normally gathers on the west end of the area flow east. This effectively snuffs out the usual upwelling of nutrient rich water from below along the west coasts of places like Central America and Mexico. The fish go elsewhere to eat, making the local fishing more difficult. This is why they call such a current flow 'the Child'. It tended to show up around Christmas time.
El Nino is not a warming of the Pacific, it is just warmer water flowing to a different location than usual. The effect of an El Nino on the United States is to drive the jet stream further south than usual and may even cause it to split into two jet streams. The southern one often winds up over northern or even southern California, bringing with it the same rains and storms that usually hit Seattle. Their soil is largely sand and rocks. Such rains cause flooding and damage. They don't have the vegetation we do to tie the soil down.
El Nino years tend to reduce Atlantic hurricanes. The southern jet stream tends to cut their tops off before they can develop into anything serious. Storms during such years are usually weaker.
La Nina is the opposite. The equatorial currents move closer together, completely shutting off the equatorial counter current. The result is colder water than usual along the west coasts of the Americas, and warmer than usual along Asia and Australia. The effect of La Nina is to cause the jet stream to move a bit further north, putting it right over the Seattle area or on into Canada. Our heaviest snow in Seattle tends to occur during such years.
La Nina years can also be a bad hurricane season. There is nothing to prevent the convection from developing into a massive storm. Like the Pacific, the Atlantic also has an 'El Nino' and a 'La Nina' cycle. It is not called that, but it takes place all the same. Being a smaller ocean, it doesn't effect the jet stream as much, and what it does change mostly effects Europe, not the United States.
Most years are neutral years, neither an El Nino nor a La Nina. This is the usual equatorial currents and the usual amount of counter current flow.
We have a line of buoys extending out across both oceans watching this cycle take place. While there are not enough to measure the temperature of the ocean as a whole, there are enough to see the effects of these currents as they change.
...With surface water, this is kind of what I'm talking about https://water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html. If surface water that isn't runoff tries to refill a water table then it will go down to where the water is. The water is at the surface. That's what they use. If a place is using a well, they will see the well run dry if the water table drops enough. That really hasn't been happening much in California.
James___ wrote:
..With what you mentioned about buoys across the Atlantic, we need more monitoring similar to that. Only it needs to monitor something like 100, 500, 1,000 feet down. That's where when you'd say enough thermometers, we need to start somewhere to look for trends. Even a grid 5° square would be a start. Usually when more attention is paid to something new discoveries are made.
There funny thing about ocean water temperature is a thing called the thermocline. This is basically a profile of relative ocean water temperature with depth. This themocline is quite predictable for each temperature. That means if you measure the temperature at the surface, you can rather easily predict the temperatures below the surface at various depths. Many buoys also have thermometers hanging from them. These are used to determine the depth of a current at that location that the buoy is monitoring. They do this because the depth of a current can vary somewhat.
The further you go down, the colder the water becomes. Once get below 100 ft, that temperature drops off rapidly. It does not contribute to the temperature difference between the warm ocean water and the cold air at higher altitudes that drive the hurricane or tropical storm.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-09-2018 15:03 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
The water is at the surface. That's what they use. If a place is using a well, they will see the well run dry if the water table drops enough. That really hasn't been happening much in California.
..And when the water table drops water doesn't stay at the surface. This why water tables get replenished. This is the mistake that California is making, they are pumping too much water from the ground. You should learn some about soil conservation. Then you'd understand what you're missing.
..And most of what you post follows this same logic. All you did was exclude how water tables and aquifers are replenished. I guess water magically appears there, right ? |
|
| 14-09-2018 20:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The water is at the surface. That's what they use. If a place is using a well, they will see the well run dry if the water table drops enough. That really hasn't been happening much in California.
..And when the water table drops water doesn't stay at the surface.
Makes no difference (unless you're in someplace like Florida!) In the desert, water can easily run on the surface and not soak in for a very long time if at all.
James___ wrote:
This why water tables get replenished. Not necessarily.
James___ wrote:
This is the mistake that California is making, they are pumping too much water from the ground.
They are using too much water, true. Most of what they use is surface water.
James___ wrote:
You should learn some about soil conservation.
Soil is not eroding in California (except under very localized conditions).
James___ wrote:
Then you'd understand what you're missing.
No, you are trying to equate the soils and rain patterns of other areas of the country as if they were all the same. You are actually making a compositional error here.
James___ wrote:
..And most of what you post follows this same logic. All you did was exclude how water tables and aquifers are replenished.
I guess water magically appears there, right ?
Water tables are replenished through a variety of methods. Surface water in California generally stays on the surface. The water tables there tend to follow the levels of nearby lakes, underground aquifers (which could come from rains very far away), or just plain old rain that doesn't wind up in surface water.
Most surface water stays as surface water. That's why you get lakes, rivers, and streams, seas, and oceans in the first place.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-09-2018 01:41 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The water is at the surface. That's what they use. If a place is using a well, they will see the well run dry if the water table drops enough. That really hasn't been happening much in California.
..And when the water table drops water doesn't stay at the surface.
Makes no difference (unless you're in someplace like Florida!) In the desert, water can easily run on the surface and not soak in for a very long time if at all.
James___ wrote:
This why water tables get replenished. Not necessarily.
James___ wrote:
This is the mistake that California is making, they are pumping too much water from the ground.
They are using too much water, true. Most of what they use is surface water.
James___ wrote:
You should learn some about soil conservation.
Soil is not eroding in California (except under very localized conditions).
James___ wrote:
Then you'd understand what you're missing.
No, you are trying to equate the soils and rain patterns of other areas of the country as if they were all the same. You are actually making a compositional error here.
James___ wrote:
..And most of what you post follows this same logic. All you did was exclude how water tables and aquifers are replenished.
I guess water magically appears there, right ?
Water tables are replenished through a variety of methods. Surface water in California generally stays on the surface. The water tables there tend to follow the levels of nearby lakes, underground aquifers (which could come from rains very far away), or just plain old rain that doesn't wind up in surface water.
Most surface water stays as surface water. That's why you get lakes, rivers, and streams, seas, and oceans in the first place.
...I'd like some of what you're on. Know where I can get me some? |
| 06-10-2018 06:04 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. And this would their poor water management policies. They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil. This could be why they're having such severe fires. After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-climate-summit-preview-20180912-story.html
To answer your question, no, California cannot drive the Climate Change fight. Furthermore, it is illegal for them to try outside of California. States are specifically prohibited under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution from entering into any agreements or compacts with either another State, or with a foreign power.
Any agreement California makes with another State or foreign power, on any topic, is automatically null and void since they do not have the constitutional authority to make such agreements. |
| 06-10-2018 06:50 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
AK_User wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. And this would their poor water management policies. They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil. This could be why they're having such severe fires. After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-climate-summit-preview-20180912-story.html
To answer your question, no, California cannot drive the Climate Change fight. Furthermore, it is illegal for them to try outside of California. States are specifically prohibited under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution from entering into any agreements or compacts with either another State, or with a foreign power.
Any agreement California makes with another State or foreign power, on any topic, is automatically null and void since they do not have the constitutional authority to make such agreements.
...And the 2nd Amendment states that I have a right to bare arms but I'm not allowed to posses any nuclear material. The 2nd Amendment places no limitations on what arms a citizen such as myself might posses. And no governing body has the right to limit my rights under the 2nd Amendment. itn told me that Seattle's been a little chilly lately and needs to be warmed up from the soul of our planet. I only wish to encourage such individuals. I think Seattle would enjoy a nice green glow. After all they do call it the Emerald City |
| 06-10-2018 07:14 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
James___ wrote:
AK_User wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. And this would their poor water management policies. They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil. This could be why they're having such severe fires. After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-climate-summit-preview-20180912-story.html
To answer your question, no, California cannot drive the Climate Change fight. Furthermore, it is illegal for them to try outside of California. States are specifically prohibited under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution from entering into any agreements or compacts with either another State, or with a foreign power.
Any agreement California makes with another State or foreign power, on any topic, is automatically null and void since they do not have the constitutional authority to make such agreements.
...And the 2nd Amendment states that I have a right to bare arms but I'm not allowed to posses any nuclear material. The 2nd Amendment places no limitations on what arms a citizen such as myself might posses. And no governing body has the right to limit my rights under the 2nd Amendment. itn told me that Seattle's been a little chilly lately and needs to be warmed up from the soul of our planet. I only wish to encourage such individuals. I think Seattle would enjoy a nice green glow. After all they do call it the Emerald City
I don't know what the Second Amendment has to do with California willfully violating Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution, except perhaps that California willfully violates the Second Amendment as well.
However, you are are correct in that the Second Amendment acknowledges your individual right to own and possess arms, unconnected with service in a militia (as the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 determined).
There are civilians who own fighter planes, tanks, artillery pieces, and machine guns. Any weapon the military produces is available for private ownership.
Edited on 06-10-2018 07:16 |
| 06-10-2018 07:27 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
AK_User wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. And this would their poor water management policies. They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil. This could be why they're having such severe fires. After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-climate-summit-preview-20180912-story.html
To answer your question, no, California cannot drive the Climate Change fight. Furthermore, it is illegal for them to try outside of California. States are specifically prohibited under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution from entering into any agreements or compacts with either another State, or with a foreign power.
Any agreement California makes with another State or foreign power, on any topic, is automatically null and void since they do not have the constitutional authority to make such agreements.
States may form a compact if authorized by Congress. Several such compacts exist. An example is the Colorado River Compact, of which California is a part of.
Otherwise you are correct.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-10-2018 07:33 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
AK_User wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. And this would their poor water management policies. They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil. This could be why they're having such severe fires. After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-climate-summit-preview-20180912-story.html
To answer your question, no, California cannot drive the Climate Change fight. Furthermore, it is illegal for them to try outside of California. States are specifically prohibited under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution from entering into any agreements or compacts with either another State, or with a foreign power.
Any agreement California makes with another State or foreign power, on any topic, is automatically null and void since they do not have the constitutional authority to make such agreements.
...And the 2nd Amendment states that I have a right to bare arms
Stupid pun.
James___ wrote:
but I'm not allowed to posses any nuclear material.
Yes you are. You ARE required to handle it in a safe manner, however, as required by your State laws. BTW, have you changed your smoke detector batteries lately?
James___ wrote:
The 2nd Amendment places no limitations on what arms a citizen such as myself might posses.
Nuclear material is not a personal arm. It is also not a practical means of self defense.
James___ wrote:
And no governing body has the right to limit my rights under the 2nd Amendment.
Correct.
James___ wrote:
itn told me that Seattle's been a little chilly lately and needs to be warmed up from the soul of our planet. Never said any such thing.
James___ wrote:
I only wish to encourage such individuals. I think Seattle would enjoy a nice green glow.
Nuclear fission actually glows blue, not green.
James___ wrote:
After all they do call it the Emerald City
It's a good name for Seattle. Very appropriate for the summers here. Doesn't apply to well for the winters here though.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-10-2018 07:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
AK_User wrote:
James___ wrote:
AK_User wrote:
James___ wrote:
...This is an attitude that can be dangerous.
Put simply, the three-day environmental summit will test whether California can bring the country to a place Congress and the White House won't.
..With California most of it's "climate change" problems might actually be self inflicted. And this would their poor water management policies. They've depleted their ground water supplies and this could increase the capillary effect of top soil. This could be why they're having such severe fires. After all a warmer Pacific should be increasing the moisture content of the air flowing over California.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-climate-summit-preview-20180912-story.html
To answer your question, no, California cannot drive the Climate Change fight. Furthermore, it is illegal for them to try outside of California. States are specifically prohibited under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution from entering into any agreements or compacts with either another State, or with a foreign power.
Any agreement California makes with another State or foreign power, on any topic, is automatically null and void since they do not have the constitutional authority to make such agreements.
...And the 2nd Amendment states that I have a right to bare arms but I'm not allowed to posses any nuclear material. The 2nd Amendment places no limitations on what arms a citizen such as myself might posses. And no governing body has the right to limit my rights under the 2nd Amendment. itn told me that Seattle's been a little chilly lately and needs to be warmed up from the soul of our planet. I only wish to encourage such individuals. I think Seattle would enjoy a nice green glow. After all they do call it the Emerald City
I don't know what the Second Amendment has to do with California willfully violating Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution, except perhaps that California willfully violates the Second Amendment as well.
However, you are are correct in that the Second Amendment acknowledges your individual right to own and possess arms, unconnected with service in a militia (as the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 determined).
There are civilians who own fighter planes, tanks, artillery pieces, and machine guns. Any weapon the military produces is available for private ownership.
Quite true. I even have a friend of mine that owns a Russian fighter plane no less. I recently repaired it for them. It had a bit of trouble with it's charging system. They fly it to Oshkosh every year.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |