What About State's Rights?


PDA






InkEd
January 16, 2013, 11:20 AM
I am wondering when/if political leaders or citizens of "the fly over states" (read the geographical majority) of the U.S. will push to make gun control a matter of state's rights. The way the constructive documents of the country are written say that the federal government should only intervene when issues are too large for individual states to handle on their own. (At said point, the leaders/people of the state are supposed to REQUEST additional help from the federal government... not just have it thrown upon them.)

The way I see it, there are more than enough federal gun laws already on the books and the Bill of Rights clearly expresses citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore, IMHO would it not make more sense, save money and calm hostility and allow resources to be better spent on other issues by simply leaving any further firearm regulation to the governing bodies of the individual states?

The only additional say in a the matter from the federal government should be in cases brought before the supreme court like in the Heller court case.

What are your thoughts about it?

If you enjoyed reading about "What About State's Rights?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CoRoMo
January 16, 2013, 11:25 AM
...the federal government should only intervene when issues are too large for individual states to handle on their own.
Washington DC believes that almost all issues fall into that category.

JBrady555
January 16, 2013, 11:26 AM
I think almost everything except national defense should be handled at the state level. The federal government has grew way to large. We had a guy running for president in '08 and '12 that vowed to greatly reduce the size of the federal government and return the power to the states. Too bad we couldn't wake enough people up to vote for him.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 11:28 AM
That was the original plan; however, since the Civil War, the fed has grabbed more power away from the States. This started to steamroll with FDR (one of the greatest Socialists), but really exploded with LBJ's "Great Society" - which, IMO, really started us on the downhill slide we see today. Thus the feds have had these powers for quite a long time - they are not about to give them up without the States forcibly taking them back.

They say every great republic only lasts about 200 years- we are overdue. Too bad, because the Swiss copied our form of government - and it is working fine - they have one of the greatest economies in the world, one of the smallest central governments, and life is good.

InkEd
January 16, 2013, 11:29 AM
I think the state's need to be very vocal about the feds interfering too much with things.

NeuseRvrRat
January 16, 2013, 11:31 AM
the erosion of state's rights and the growth of the federal govt started over 200 years ago (Whiskey Rebellion, anyone?) and has continued unabated. that ship has sailed, brother.

They say every great republic only lasts about 200 years- we are overdue. Too bad, because the Swiss copied our form of government - and it is working fine - they have one of the greatest economies in the world, one of the smallest central governments, and life is good.

primarily due to their lack of a humongous standing army

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 11:37 AM
Remember, we are a country of huge disparities when it comes to culture, morals, thoughts, religious beliefs (or not), ethnicities, etc. The fed's answer to a problem? "One size fits all" square pegs into round holes - which is why every fed social program has been fraught with failure, cost overrun, or outright corruption. What works in one region or state may go against the very soul of the citizens of another, yet the fed will cram it down the throat by threatening to take something away that we gave them.

The 55 speed law was a good example - the states collect and give the feds gas tax money, so the feds can give it back - but with a lot of pork and corruption as to who gets it, minus fed salary costs. Then they impose the 55 and states who did not comply were refused highway money. Even if 55 made sense in NY, it did not in Montana, Nevada or any of the other wide-open Western states.

Gun control, education, welfare, health care, etc. all belong at the state level. There can be some form of fed standard - say every first grade kid should be able to do XX, YY, ZZ before going to second grade, but it should be up to each state to determine how. The 2A is what it is; if some states want to impose some minor regs for certain specific situations, that should up to the voters in those states, etc., etc.

(I know the last sentence will draw some flak, so be it)

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 11:38 AM
primarily due to their lack of a humongous standing army

and no need to play the world's policeman or force their ideology on everyone else - they deal and trade with any and everyone, like our FF said - make no permanent treaties. Of course, they also have a fairly homogenous society, whereas our "diversity" is what, IMO, seems to cause the most issues, especially societal ones.

sansone
January 16, 2013, 11:43 AM
inkEd-
I like this thread, thanks for starting it..

I agree with previous posts stating the feds will squash any attempt by individual states to go outside the box.
Our only option has been the vote, sadly the vote requires an adult need only be alive, intellect and reason not required

gossamer
January 16, 2013, 11:44 AM
I have a couple thoughts on this.

First, my home state: We have a state rep who put a proposal before the legislature that would make the EOs illegal in the state of Missouri.

http://www.missourinet.com/2013/01/15/gun-bill-would-uphold-missouri-right-to-bear-arms-despite-executive-orders-from-federal-government/

I personally think this is a good thing because I personally believe the laws specific to firearms should be decided as close as possible to the constituency and citizens for whom they apply. My rationale is, the effect of guns is quite different in Bethany Missouri than it is in Kansas City, MO, than it is in Washington DC, than it is in Upstate New York.

Which brings me to the next point of states' rights: What New York did yesterday is in keeping with their right as a state. If a state can - rightly - pass a law saying we allow so-called assault weapons, 30-round mags, etc. - then can't that state also pass a law saying we can restrict those things?

In the end, I'm a firm believe in the closest government possible. To me that does not mean a small government. Tt means that the governmental entity closest to the citizens affected should be making certain decisions. We let counties make laws about voting practices, traffic laws, etc.. So, why not let those counties or cities or states make the laws specific to guns?

People on the left love to say "You don't need 10 rounds to hunt a deer." My answer is, what if I'm not hunting deer? What if I'm hunting feral hogs in Arkansas? Those little buggers have a nasty habit of not hanging out in groups of one. So, if I want to hunt them I might want more than one round in the magazine. I might need more than 10. So why not let me have 10.

The utility to me for rounds 11-30 might be completely different from the utility of those same 20 rounds to a drug dealer in the Bronx. I'm hunting feral hogs in some back 40 acres without a home within a mile, and he's hunting dope slingers with a row house every 20 feet. In which case, let the Bronx set a restriction on magazine capacity. They know their streets better than I do. And I know my fields better than they do. So let me keep my 30 round magazine in my AR because the feral hogs are tearing up my acres.

So for me, I agree with the States' Rights theory of this argument. But it cuts both ways. If we argue that the states/counties should be permitted to allow specific technologies (mags, platforms, etc.), we should also be willing to allow that they have a right to disallow them. Personally, as someone who lives in an urban area, I'm fine with that. I can move.

Bovice
January 16, 2013, 11:48 AM
I was just thinking... some states have legalized marijuana which is still against federal law... But they're able to do things their way.

Seems to me it could go the same way with guns.

gossamer
January 16, 2013, 11:53 AM
The 2A is what it is; if some states want to impose some minor regs for certain specific situations, that should up to the voters in those states, etc., etc.

(I know the last sentence will draw some flak, so be it)

Not from me. Well said.

As someone living in Missouri I feel I have little to offer in the way of policy for someone living in Manhattan. I've been there enough to know that in a place where a hundred thousand people regularly populate an area the size of my back yard, I can't begin to tell them how to order their lives. And it would be incredibly egotistical and ignorant of me to try. I think they should act likewise.

AlexanderA
January 16, 2013, 11:55 AM
It certainly does cut both ways. Look at the atrocity we just saw enacted in the state of New York. Legal challenges to that are going to be based on federal law (the 2nd Amendment, and the Heller and McDonald cases). Considering that the majority of the states in this country are pro-gun, and there's a pro-gun majority in Congress, the feds could well be the "good guys" and some of the individual states be the "bad guys."

CraigC
January 16, 2013, 12:08 PM
What About State's Rights?
Lincoln took care of that a long time ago, in the name of "saving the union".....at gunpoint. :rolleyes:

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 12:21 PM
sadly the vote requires an adult need only be alive

Not necessarily - LOTS of dead folks voted for BO in several states, they rest don't even have to be legal citizens

Darkbob
January 16, 2013, 12:25 PM
Which brings me to the next point of states' rights: What New York did yesterday is in keeping with their right as a state. If a state can - rightly - pass a law saying we allow so-called assault weapons, 30-round mags, etc. - then can't that state also pass a law saying we can restrict those things?

State's Rights can not trump the Rights protected by the Constitution.
That is what the Bill of Rights is for, to protect our Natural Rights.

IF a state can "Rightly" pass a law banning weapons, then the state can also pass a law "Rightly" banning the freedom of speech or the equality of all men and women. Those Rights are all constitutionally protected.

gossamer
January 16, 2013, 12:48 PM
State's Rights can not trump the Rights protected by the Constitution.
That is what the Bill of Rights is for, to protect our Natural Rights.

IF a state can "Rightly" pass a law banning weapons, then the state can also pass a law "Rightly" banning the freedom of speech or the equality of all men and women. Those Rights are all constitutionally protected.

I'll ask that you not to misquote, manipulate, or misrepresent what I wrote. I never wrote a state can rightly ban weapons. I wrote a state can rightly, meaning legally, restrict certain kinds of weapons or rounds within it's borders.

Darkbob
January 16, 2013, 12:51 PM
As long as we the people believe that "Shall not be infringed" doesn't include legally restricting our arms, we are going to be in trouble.


Edited to add:
It was not my intent to misrepresent you. I was attempting to show that what you believe to be legal and right, is not what I believe to be legal and right.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 12:57 PM
State's Rights can not trump the Rights protected by the Constitution.
That is what the Bill of Rights is for, to protect our Natural Rights.

IF a state can "Rightly" pass a law banning weapons, then the state can also pass a law "Rightly" banning the freedom of speech or the equality of all men and women. Those Rights are all constitutionally protected.

It is done all the time- state colleges and Universities refuse to allow conservative speakers on campus. Gossamer isn't saying a ban on guns, he is saying restrictions imposed by one state. You can still own guns in NYS, but they are restricting certain elements. IMO, it is a State's right to do so; HOWEVER, it should only be done by a full vote of the populace, not some small cadre of political cronies

Frank Ettin
January 16, 2013, 12:59 PM
The bottom line is that if a state law is less restrictive than a federal law, state law would be effectively trumped by federal law. One might be legal under state law and still be committing a federal crime.

If state law is more restrictive than federal law, one could be committing a crime under state law even if he is not under federal law (unless state law is preempted by federal law, and that can be a very complex issue).

gossamer
January 16, 2013, 01:06 PM
It is done all the time- state colleges and Universities refuse to allow conservative speakers on campus. Gossamer isn't saying a ban on guns, he is saying restrictions imposed by one state. You can still own guns in NYS, but they are restricting certain elements. IMO, it is a State's right to do so; HOWEVER, it should only be done by a full vote of the populace, not some small cadre of political cronies

Thanks. I'd personally like to see it drilled down a little further to the county level, but put it to a referendum and not pols. I don't trust one political affiliation any more than another.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 01:10 PM
And a National "one-size-fits-all approach to social issues never works, which is why national gun control, or national abortion, or -fill in the blank with the contentious social issue you want - never works with a federal solution, but requires a local one. Again, there was a movement by some liberal anti's in Switzerland to impose gun control - the Cantons told the central government to forget it - their voters didn't want it.

But what the voters in NYS want versus those in TX, especially regarding guns, should be left up to them. IF those folks want to impose certain restrictions without an all out ban, and the majority of voters approve that, then it should be that way in NY. That could be done without interfering with the 2A RKBA

CoRoMo
January 16, 2013, 01:21 PM
I was just thinking... some states have legalized marijuana which is still against federal law... But they're able to do things their way.

Seems to me it could go the same way with guns.
Except that marijuana legalization and broader gun control are the platform of the administration. They do not view the legalization of dope the same way they view protecting the 2A rights of Americans.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 01:21 PM
Thanks. I'd personally like to see it drilled down a little further to the county level, but put it to a referendum and not pols

I spent a few VERY cold winters in ND back in the 80s. There, the group known as Posse Comitatus was VERY strong and most had a hard time recognizing any level of authority above the County Sheriff. Personally, state level on certain items is good enough; but I agree - the further you get away from your local City Council/County Commissioners, the less the politicos will listen to you and the more the big money and corruption becomes a reality - DC is the perfect example of corruption run amok - on all sides. I would not want every county in a state to decide on a CCW law, that should be at state level, but other social issues? Sure. here in FL, we have counties that are dry, some beer and wine only and not on Sunday, some almost 24 hours no restrictions, some after 12 on Sunday, etc....... each county has its say, because in each County, the issue is a different one

Bringing this back to guns, each State should have a say, like they do now with CCW, as far as sales, checks, full auto, semi, or whatever.

Then it becomes a choice for someone - if he doesn't like that political climate in his state regarding a certain issue - like guns - he has two choices - move, or start a grass roots campaign to overturn the law at the next election

Darkbob
January 16, 2013, 01:35 PM
But what the voters in NYS want versus those in TX, especially regarding religion, should be left up to them.

There, I changed the above quote to substitute in another constitutionally protected right. I imagine we all see a problem with it put that way.

Just because a majority of voters feels a certain way, does not make it acceptable. We do not live in a Democracy, instead we live in a Democratic Republic. The difference is the protection that the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives. Voters can only overcome the protections guaranteed in the Constitution by amending it. This, of course, has been done a few times before, and it's the only way to legally remove the protections.

The intent and definition of the 2nd Amendment can be debated all day, but I believe that since it covered cannons (obvious military arms), its intent was easy to divine. However, current popular opinion seems to be different, especially regarding the meaning of "infringed".

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 02:07 PM
I don't see a problem with that at all. No one is saying a state should have the right to BAN guns, nor religion, but each region has differing values from a social, religious, and moral perspective. Making you do a check or similar is not banning, nor infringing on your RKBA - it might be a little inconvenient - but then again - I find highway speed limits that way as well. If those folks TRULY believe that gun-free zones and magazine restrictions make them feel safer, than the people, not the legislature should have the right to vote for what makes them sleep safer at night

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 03:00 PM
The 2A is what it is; if some states want to impose some minor regs for certain specific situations, that should up to the voters in those states, etc., etc.

(I know the last sentence will draw some flak, so be it)

It should draw some "flak." Local and state governments should have no authority to infringe upon the "rights" of an individual regardless of how many local knuckleheads are in support of it. This is the Bill of Rights we’re talking about here, not driving privileges, zoning or intrastate commerce… The Supreme Court has already determined that local or state governments can't interfere with 2nd amendment rights by enacting laws that prohibit the possession of certain types of firearms such as handguns. Leaving gun laws up to the states is a very dangerous proposition. It is far easier to enact (or in other words restrict your freedoms with) local or state ordinances/laws than it is federal…. Would you really want your local or state governments “tweaking” the other rights you posses such as those guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th or 6th amendments? No, although it may not currently seem like it, our collective 2nd amendment rights are much safer with the Federal government and much more difficult to tamper with than in the hands of locals.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 03:34 PM
Compared to what? What the last few administrations have done with even greater lethality? A distant government does not listen to the populace - evidence now - the WH got tired of our online petitions, so now you need 4X the signatures

A government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything you have. A small government is not.

My comment was not about banning guns but about a locale's rights to self-determination, and that any minor restrictions that may make sense in their locale, shall be up to them to decide and have the populace determine through a vote. magazine restrictions, or a background check to see if you are not a prohibited person does not take away you 2A rights - it might make it a little inconvenient to wait a few minutes, or you might need to buy an extra magazine, but that has nothing to do anything else.

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 03:50 PM
A government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything you have. A small government is not.

My comment was not about banning guns but about a locale's rights to self-determination, and that any minor restrictions that may make sense in their locale, shall be up to them to decide and have the populace determine through a vote. magazine restrictions, or a background check to see if you are not a prohibited person does not take away you 2A rights - it might make it a little inconvenient to wait a few minutes, or you might need to buy an extra magazine, but that has nothing to do anything else.

Tell that to the guys from New York, California or Illinois... All it takes is a local incident or two and reactionary or otherwise motivated local lawmakers can start tampering with your rights... Background checks and magazines; you say you want small federal government but then you want them involved every time you buy or sell a firearm? If it’s only a matter of buying another magazine then why bother with a restriction in the first place? Then, the next time someone commits another terrible crime with some other type of gun that type will be on the chopping block until slowly all of our rights are eroded away. It wasn’t all that long ago that handguns were considered the “evil” guns, now it’s semi-auto rifles, although they amount to only a small percentage of the weapons used in crime… What’s next pump shotguns?

gossamer
January 16, 2013, 03:51 PM
Just because a majority of voters feels a certain way, does not make it acceptable. We do not live in a Democracy, instead we live in a Democratic Republic..

And if those voters express that opinion at the ballot box, within the law, it means it is law. That's what a Democratic Republic is.

To extend your substitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What does your example propose a state law could do that would violate that?

As it applies to 2A, the Courts have found that restrictions of certain types of weapons or attachments is not a violation of 2A. So, a state law restricting those in NYS does not violate the 2A or US Law. It is still legal within OUR current Democratic Republic.

Alternately, a state law in TX specifically allowing 30-round mags and AR15 platforms is also legal and not in violation of 2A within our Democratic Republic.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 03:55 PM
All it takes is a local incident or two and reactionary or otherwise motivated local lawmakers can start tampering with your rights

I guess you missed the part about it needing a vote by the entire populace and NOT left up to the politicians?? That prevents willy-nilly tampering, especially when it would take a super majority...............

ssyoumans
January 16, 2013, 04:00 PM
As long as the Federal government doles out the money to the states, they will "control" the states. If states don't fall in line with the Federal Government's agenda, they get cut off. Simple as that. Their state's citizens would be paying into a system that they wouldn't get their money back in the form of grants, construction, services, etc.

gossamer
January 16, 2013, 04:03 PM
Tell that to the guys from New York, California or Illinois... All it takes is a local incident or two and reactionary or otherwise motivated local lawmakers can start tampering with your rights...

Did you miss the part where oneounceload and I both said these questions should be put to a referrendum of that locale's populace, and NOT the votes of local legislators? It reads as if you did.

Background checks and magazines; you say you want small federal government but then you want them involved every time you buy or sell a firearm?

They are, and it's legal.

If it’s only a matter of buying another magazine then why bother with a restriction in the first place?

To continue the example: because my fellow citizens in my state deemed that the law. and I prefer their judgement to the 536 well-heeled mosquitos in DC who spend all their time sucking money out of donors.

Then, the next time someone commits another terrible crime with some other type of gun that type will be on the chopping block until slowly all of our rights are eroded away.

Only if the people in my state deem it so. And if - forbid it - that tragedy happens in another state, one far away with completely different circumstances, there is less likelihood that my fellow citizens will allow that firearm to be restricted here.

It wasn’t all that long ago that handguns were considered the “evil” guns,

On a national level, yes. But not in my state.

now it’s semi-auto rifles,

On a national level, yes. But not in my state.

although they amount to only a small percentage of the weapons used in crime…

In which state?

What’s next pump shotguns?

Not in my state.

(are we detecting a theme here?)

It's called the insulation of diversity. If we drink from various, dispersed, different wells, poisoning one will not make us all sick.

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 04:04 PM
I guess you missed the part about it needing a vote by the entire populace and NOT left up to the politicians??

I don't want locals limiting or tampering with my rights whether by "direct vote" or by elected local lawmakers. Any small group can be easily influenced and reactionary.

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 04:08 PM
Background checks and magazines; you say you want small federal government but then you want them involved every time you buy or sell a firearm?

They are, and it's legal.

Not with local sales between individuals they weren't and it was legal although it may not be any longer...

Halal Pork
January 16, 2013, 04:12 PM
And if those voters express that opinion at the ballot box, within the law, it means it is law. That's what a Democratic Republic is.


Even if 55% of voters or legislators decide certain rights protected under the Constitution should be revoked, the law is still unconstitutional. As Milton Friedman said, "No one believes in democracy." That is, a majority voting to violate the civil rights or property rights of a minority is not a desirable result in spite of being democratic; and most people, given several examples, would recognize it. You're right in that it takes the courts stepping up to weigh in when voters and legislators go overboard. Certainly judges have been known to make decision based on political activism rather than their understanding of the law.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 04:16 PM
I don't want locals limiting or tampering with my rights whether by "direct vote" or by elected local lawmakers. Any small group can be easily influenced and reactionary.
YOU would BE one of those locals deciding - what's the best chance do you think you have of persuading folks? At your local level with folks you know, or at the national level with bigger groups who do not share your views?

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 04:19 PM
It's called the insulation of diversity. If we drink from various, dispersed, different wells, poisoning one will not make us all sick.

gossamer, You keep refering to "your state" or "not in your state"... My state is just about as conservative as they come as far as gun rights are concerned. I'm concerned about everybody's gun rights, not just mine. In the current political environment if we all don't stick together we will all lose... If you think your rights will some how be safer by letting those in other states fall by the wayside you are wrong...

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." B. Franklin

Divide and conquer

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 04:23 PM
YOU would BE one of those locals deciding - what's the best chance do you think you have of persuading folks? At your local level with folks you know, or at the national level with bigger groups who do not share your views?

It's not a matter of those in my community sharing my views, it's a matter of the ease or difficulty in limiting my rights. There is a reason NY enacted it's new law so quickly and easily, it's because it could. It's a much more difficult thing to do on a national level...

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 04:31 PM
Even if 55% of voters or legislators decide certain rights protected under the Constitution should be revoked, the law is still unconstitutional. As Milton Friedman said, "No one believes in democracy." That is, a majority voting to violate the civil rights or property rights of a minority is not a desirable result in spite of being democratic; and most people, given several examples, would recognize it.

Exactly..... Well put Halal Pork...

Zardaia
January 16, 2013, 04:44 PM
Problem is libs/obama don't really care that much about pot. Try state nullification of a fed gun law on the other hand I bet the feds'll choose to fight that one.

joecil
January 16, 2013, 05:13 PM
I guess I will be in a minority here but I find states and local laws the biggest restriction on my rights and not just gun rights but all of them. Now as for the 2nd Amendment there seems to be a word over looked by most that Scalia based his recent opinion on in DC v. Heller that said basically a militia is an individual but does not stop regulations on guns. The word is highlighted below in the copy of the 2nd.


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 06:23 PM
It's not a matter of those in my community sharing my views, it's a matter of the ease or difficulty in limiting my rights

Who said it was going to made easy? Right now, the FEDS are the ones having it easy with EOs, and other BS. Most states have in their own Constitution, what it takes to change it - it takes years, several votes, petitions with signatures - this isn't like deciding whether Joe gets to put his McDonald's on one corner or another; but it does allow folks to better control their own destiny when the laws are made at the lowest level possible, especially those regarding individuals

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 07:09 PM
Who said it was going to made easy? Right now, the FEDS are the ones having it easy with EOs, and other BS. Most states have in their own Constitution, what it takes to change it - it takes years, several votes, petitions with signatures - this isn't like deciding whether Joe gets to put his McDonald's on one corner or another; but it does allow folks to better control their own destiny when the laws are made at the lowest level possible, especially those regarding individuals

The executive orders issued were comparatively weak. Any measures of significance will need to go through congress. You obviously have never experienced how easy it is to pass a local ordinance prohibiting guns in one way or another. Prior to the Heller case, while I was in college, I lived in a city where a prohibition on the possession of so called "assault rifles" was brought up before the local town council. Most gun owners weren't even aware that it was being brought up for a vote until it was almost too late. The ordinance was narrowly defeated. But, anyone who thinks that their gun rights are best served by local or even state governments needs to talk to gun owners from California, Chicago, New York, Illinois or Washington D.C.

k_dawg
January 16, 2013, 07:09 PM
"States Rights" was never meant to allow violations or denial of basic civil and human rights.

Violation of either is repugnant in a free society, regardless of the level of government engaged in it.

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 07:29 PM
This whole idea and argument is (fortunately) purely hypothetical and for the most part a waste of time because this isn’t how our government works in matters that pertain to individual rights. Prior to the Heller case state and local governments had far more leeway in gun related laws and since Heller many of those laws have been deemed unconstitutional. Any laws relating to guns made on the local or state are almost always more restrictive.

Frank Ettin
January 16, 2013, 08:07 PM
The executive orders issued were comparatively weak....They appeared comparatively weak because as has been said repeatedly on this board there is a limit to what can be done by executive order.

Viottato
January 16, 2013, 08:13 PM
As long as the Federal government doles out the money to the states, they will "control" the states. If states don't fall in line with the Federal Government's agenda, they get cut off. Simple as that. Their state's citizens would be paying into a system that they wouldn't get their money back in the form of grants, construction, services, etc.

You hit the nail on the head. Sooner or later the state/local politicians will cave in. Mama Fed holds the purse strings.

ZigZagZeke
January 16, 2013, 08:16 PM
States rights? According to the provisions of the 10th Amendment, the county sheriff has the supreme authority for law enforcement in his county in all states. Municipal and federal LEOs derive their authority from him. Here is a letter several county sheriffs in Oregon have sent to Joe Biden in the last couple of days:

From the desk of

Sheriff Tim Mueller

Linn County, Oregon

1115 SE Jackson St.

Albany, Oregon 97322

January 14, 2013

Vice President Joe Biden

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am Sheriff Tim Mueller, elected twice by the citizens of Linn County Oregon who have entrusted me with a noble cause: to keep them and their families safe. My deputies and I take that responsibility very seriously and, like you, have sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath equally as serious as protecting our citizens. I have worked for the people of Linn County for over 28 years as a member of the Linn County Sheriff's Office as well as serving three years active duty as a Military Police Officer in the US Army, where I also swore a similar oath.

In the wake of the recent criminal events, politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines. We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.

Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County Oregon.

In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians.

Respectfully,

Sheriff Tim Mueller

Linn County Oregon

Bushpilot
January 16, 2013, 08:23 PM
They appeared comparatively weak because as has been said repeatedly on this board there is a limit to what can be done by executive order.

I know... but apparently others still consider this significant...

hso
January 16, 2013, 08:50 PM
TN and WY both have proposed legislation defying any further restrictions being looked at by the legislatures.

oneounceload
January 16, 2013, 10:20 PM
Bushpilot, I grew up in NYC and went to college in Atlanta at a time when the gun control was strict, so yes I know. You seem to overlook what I have said over and over, that ability to change would NOT be upto the council but put before the voting public in accordance with that state's regs regarding making major changes, which typically calls for signed petitions, an initial vote, and than a second vote after a good period of time

gossamer
January 16, 2013, 10:36 PM
TN and WY both have proposed legislation defying any further restrictions being looked at by the legislatures.
As has MO.

Bushpilot
January 17, 2013, 03:17 AM
You seem to overlook what I have said over and over, that ability to change would NOT be upto the council but put before the voting public

oneonceload, I'm not overlooking what you said. What you are proposing is a direct vote type of democracy. I am just not in favor of direct vote, democracy on issues that involve my rights or the rights of others… Go back and read what Halal Pork said… He explained it better than I have been able too…. “a majority voting to violate the civil rights or property rights of a minority is not a desirable result in spite of being democratic.” Ever hear the joke about 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner? That is pure democracy in action and yet still ends in the rights of the sheep being violated… What you propose would no doubt benefit gun owners in some states but could be potentially disastrous for the rights of gun owners in other states… As I said before, I think we all need to stick together on this issue…

oneounceload
January 17, 2013, 01:08 PM
I am just not in favor of direct vote, democracy on issues that involve my rights

So you would rather the Congress do the direct voting where they do not have to listen to input from anyone, and where the lobbyists and media groups can easily sway them....OK, I will disagree and end it at that. You seem to trust the federal government to do the right thing - I choose to believe they will do everything to subvert any and all powers from individuals and states to strengthen their own power, making them immune to protests, or even being removed from office.

This thread is done for me - thanks for the fun discussion, though - I enjoyed it, but now we are just going in circles

pendennis
January 17, 2013, 01:21 PM
There, I changed the above quote to substitute in another constitutionally protected right. I imagine we all see a problem with it put that way.

Just because a majority of voters feels a certain way, does not make it acceptable. We do not live in a Democracy, instead we live in a Democratic Republic. The difference is the protection that the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives. Voters can only overcome the protections guaranteed in the Constitution by amending it. This, of course, has been done a few times before, and it's the only way to legally remove the protections.

The intent and definition of the 2nd Amendment can be debated all day, but I believe that since it covered cannons (obvious military arms), its intent was easy to divine. However, current popular opinion seems to be different, especially regarding the meaning of "infringed".
Without belaboring the point, we don't live in a "Democratic Republic". We live in a "Federated Republic". There's a huge difference.

East Germany was a "Democratic Republic". As is the Congo.

Frank Ettin
January 17, 2013, 03:37 PM
The thread has drifted too far from a discussion of firearm law into a discussion of political theory. That's off topic here.

If you enjoyed reading about "What About State's Rights?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!