What About State's Rights?

InkEd · Jan 16, 2013

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?

CoRoMo · Jan 16, 2013

...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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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

NeuseRvrRat · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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/...ite-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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

oneounceload said:
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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

What About State's Rights?

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

oneounceload · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

Darkbob said:
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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

oneounceload said:
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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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 · Jan 16, 2013

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".

What About State's Rights?

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Sixgun Nut

member

Member

Member

Member

member

Moderator

Member

member

Member

member

Member

Similar threads