1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What About State's Rights?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by InkEd, Jan 16, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. InkEd

    InkEd Well-Known Member

    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?
  2. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Well-Known Member

    Washington DC believes that almost all issues fall into that category.
  3. JBrady555

    JBrady555 Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    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.
  5. InkEd

    InkEd Well-Known Member

    I think the state's need to be very vocal about the feds interfering too much with things.
  6. NeuseRvrRat

    NeuseRvrRat Well-Known Member

    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.

    primarily due to their lack of a humongous standing army
  7. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    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)
  8. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2013
  9. sansone

    sansone Well-Known Member

    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
  10. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    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.


    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.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2013
  11. Bovice

    Bovice Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    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."
  14. CraigC

    CraigC Well-Known Member

    Lincoln took care of that a long time ago, in the name of "saving the union".....at gunpoint. :rolleyes:
  15. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

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

    Darkbob Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. Darkbob

    Darkbob Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2013
  19. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    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
  20. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    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).
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page