Nationwide Concealed Carry Bill has 72 Consponsors

[Gray Peterson]

States rights, folks, states rights.

Let's get one thing straight, folks.

States do not have "rights". They have "powers". There is a big different. Saying that a state government, or literally, "any" government has "rights" is making the government seem like a person. They are not.

The Federal government has powers. The state governments have powers. The local governments have powers that either constitution or statute gives them in their respect states.

Powers, not rights. Rights are only possessed by people.

 

[RealGun]

Quote:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
This is a restatement of Article IV, Section 2, but implying a power in the Fedraral Government to enforce it regarding the States, but what is it referring to, exactly? It does not have the meaning the current SCOTUS gives it, or it would have had that meaning from day one of the signing of the Constitution. It's purpose seems only to affirm that the former slaves now also enjoy this protection, like everyone else.

By now I understand that you hate the concept, but the 14th Amendment forever changed whatever intention the FF may have had about State sovereignty. The civil war had consequences. Let's not deny what the 14A actually says. You can't insist that only an interpretation that suits your sense of history is valid. The 14th amendment means that the nature of US citizenship shall not depend upon in which State one lives. That would be to say that the BoR applies uniformly to all States. That would also mean that the federal government has all necessary powers to guarantee such rights to all US citizens.

For the 14A as applicable to the Second Amendment, refer to Hallbrook. While the 14A has not been applied to the 2A, it should be. Therefore, precedent or neglect does not control the argument.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Let's get one thing straight, folks.

States do not have "rights". They have "powers". There is a big different. Saying that a state government, or literally, "any" government has "rights" is making the government seem like a person. They are not.

The Federal government has powers. The state governments have powers. The local governments have powers that either constitution or statute gives them in their respect states.

Powers, not rights. Rights are only possessed by people.

Literally, you are correct, however what is meant by the term "State's Rights" is the right of the people to local self government, without interference from the Federal Government, along the lines of Madison's Federalist No. 45, viz., "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

By now I understand that you hate the concept, but the 14th Amendment forever changed whatever intention the FF may have had about State sovereignty. The civil war had consequences. Let's not deny what the 14A actually says. You can't insist that only an interpretation that suits your sense of history is valid. The 14th amendment means that the nature of US citizenship shall not depend upon in which State one lives. That would be to say that the BoR applies uniformly to all States. That would also mean that the federal government has all necessary powers to guarantee such rights to all US citizens.

For the 14A as applicable to the Second Amendment, refer to Hallbrook. While the 14A has not been applied to the 2A, it should be. Therefore, precedent or neglect does not control the argument.

Ok, Real Gun, then tell me how the Federal Government is going to enforce the right of each American, as against his own State's laws, to the privilege of local self government and the immunity against interference with same from the Federal Government, which are the primary privileges and immunities granted to each citizen by the Federal Constitution according to the Founders. You are suggesting that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended by its framers to quite literally turn the form of government instituted by the Founders on its head. It's words do not require this interpretation, and it seems utterly unlikely that this was the intent. If it were the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, we would have a substantial record of it.

I have read That Every Man Be Armed. It is a good book, but Halbrook is a typical product of American law schools in regard to his understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Radical Republicans had wished for a Fourteenth Amendment which would be amenable to its modern interpretation, but what they got was not nearly what they had asked for. It was only through later false interpretation by the SCOTUS that it became that, like so many other parts of the Constitution.

 

[Drysdale]

The Second Amendment is a restriction only on what the Federal Government may do, i.e., it may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was never intended to bar the States, however, which are sovereign in their own rights. Yes, it acknowledges the preexistence of the right to keep and bear arms, but acknowledging a right is not the same as making its free exercise Federally enforceable. For that to be the case, you'd have to show where the Constitution delegates to the Federal Government the power to enforce citizens rights as against their State governments (other than the right to a republican form of government, and the Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process and equal protection of the law). Our system is federal, i.e., the national government only has those powers delegated to it by the States, which are the Federal Government's wellsprings of sovereignty.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It CLEARLY includes the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of Couse the Bill of rights has precedence over States rights. But anything NOT clearly mentioned in the Constitution is the purview of the people, or the states.

Your statement would mean that the states have the right to coin money, enter into treaties on their own, and waive the right of the people to trial by jury just because.

I'm a huge proponent of States Rights. But I realize where those rights end and the federal obligations begin.

 

[Henry Bowman]

To me, the 14th Amend. really was just a "it means what it says" kind of law (amendment). With the exception of the 1st Amend., which says "Congress shall make no law...", the next 9 say "... shall not be infringed," "No soldier shall...", "The right of the people to be secure...", " No person shall be held to answer...", etc.

In other words, 2-10 already were not limited to application to the federal government. Only the 1st was.

But then what do I know. I'm just reading what it says.

 

[RealGun]

You are suggesting that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended by its framers to quite literally turn the form of government instituted by the Founders on its head.

Exactly. The Civil War had consequences, one of which was the 14th Amendment. I think you have made it clear before that there is nothing you like about the Civil War's outcome.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It CLEARLY includes the states.

It is the highest law of the land, but it applies to the Federal Government. It was not meant to supplant the laws of the States. The Supremacy Clause applies only to those powers delegated exclusively to the Federal Government. With regard to all others, the Tenth Amendment makes State law supreme.

Of Course the Bill of rights has precedence over States rights.

Negative! The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on Federal Power, and nothing more. The Constitution gave the Federal Government certain limited powers, and namely barred if from ever presuming to exercise certain other powers.

But anything NOT clearly mentioned in the Constitution is the purview of the people, or the states.

Correct. Those powers not delegated to the Federal Government belong to the States and to the people. Since the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal Government a plenary power to defend the rights of individuals visa vis their State governments, that Federal power does not exist.

Your statement would mean that the states have the right to coin money, enter into treaties on their own, and waive the right of the people to trial by jury just because.

Quite to the contrary, the Constitution delegates those powers to the Federal Government. In those areas, the Supremacy Clause applies. As for trials by jury, each State had their own Constitutions requiring that when one is charged with a crime.

I'm a huge proponent of States Rights. But I realize where those rights end and the federal obligations begin.

As do I.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

To me, the 14th Amend. really was just a "it means what it says" kind of law (amendment). With the exception of the 1st Amend., which says "Congress shall make no law...", the next 9 say "... shall not be infringed," "No soldier shall...", "The right of the people to be secure...", " No person shall be held to answer...", etc.

In other words, 2-10 already were not limited to application to the federal government. Only the 1st was.

But then what do I know. I'm just reading what it says.

That is about the best argument out there supporting the idea that the Bill of Rights, other than the First Amendment, already applied to State governments. For various reasons, however, I do not personally buy the argument.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Exactly. The Civil War had consequences, one of which was the 14th Amendment. I think you have made it clear before that there is nothing you like about the Civil War's outcome.

Indeed, the Civil War did have consequences, but the modern interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was not a necessary consequence of the Civil War. The Supreme Court rejected your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment well into the post Civil War era. The proximate cause of the eventual perversion of its meaning was the Seventeenth Amendment, which removed from State governments any meaningful check on Federal usurpations of non-delegated powers. With that, the floodgates were opened.

 

[RealGun]

Indeed, the Civil War did have consequences, but the modern interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was not a necessary consequence of the Civil War. The Supreme Court rejected your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment well into the post Civil War era. The proximate cause of the eventual perversion of its meaning was the Seventeenth Amendment, which removed from State governments any meaningful check on Federal usurpations of non-delegated powers. With that, the floodgates were opened.

The 14th Amendment does not explicitly address anything having to do with the Civil War, but it is quite clear what the catalyst might have been for the amendment. As it reads, it is far broader than addressing whether States could allow slavery. What it means is that a State cannot abuse ones US citizenship, obviously a higher calling from that point forward. The notion of State sovereignty was forever changed.

As far as holding up the Supreme Court's rulings on the one hand and condemning federal exercise of power on the other, the SCOTUS reads the Constitution and precedent to support a desired outcome. It is the least respectable of the three branches of government, fond of creating tortured logic to support a ruling that the Constitution doesn't mean what it clearly says or somehow means something that cannot be found in the document or any supporting documents with any standing.

We have had similar debates before. I will simply state that I look to Halbrook for whether the 14th Amendment applies to the Second. See http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/14th-amendment.pdf

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The 14th Amendment does not explicitly address anything having to do with the Civil War, but it is quite clear what the catalyst might have been for the amendment. As it reads, it is far broader than addressing whether States could allow slavery. What it means is that a State cannot abuse ones US citizenship, obviously a higher calling from that point forward. The notion of State sovereignty was forever changed.

As far as holding up the Supreme Court's rulings on the one hand and condemning federal exercise of power on the other, the SCOTUS reads the Constitution and precedent to support a desired outcome. It is the least respectable of the three branches of government, fond of creating tortured logic to support a ruling that the Constitution doesn't mean what it clearly says or somehow means something that cannot be found in the document or any supporting documents with any standing.

We have had similar debates before. I will simply state that I look to Halbrook for whether the 14th Amendment applies to the Second. See http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/14th-amendment.pdf

I will take Section 1 - which is where from we got all the twisted rulings you like so much - sentence by sentence. The first sentence states essentially that anyone born in the US is a US citizen. The intent was to make certain that Southern States could not deny rights to freed blacks on the basis of not being citizens. The second sentence states that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Ok, here is where all the trouble comes from. What precisely are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? Any reading of the Founders tells us that the primary privilege is that of local self-government. This is, after all, what we fought the War for Independence over. Any reading of the Founders will also inform one that the primary immunity of a citizen of the United States is an immunity from interference in State matters by the then newly instituted Federal Government. So, the second sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment can only mean that the Federal Government is now authorized to defend each citizen's privilege of enjoying local self government and immunity from interference by the Federal Government in State matters . That's if your interpretation is correct. Actually, however, all that was intended was to extend to the newly freed blacks all the rights enjoyed by whites, i.e., it guarantees that the freed blacks now equally enjoy the protection of Article IV, Section 2 of the original US Constitution, which reads, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." Look familiar? Nothing new, except regarding to whom it now also applies.

Now let's look at sentence number three of the Fourteenth Amendment in two parts. Its first part simply states that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Now, this is clearly a mere restatement of the Fifth Amendment. Read it and see. Nothing new here at all, except in regard to the newly freed blacks. Now let's look at the second part of this sentence, to wit; "nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Again, why was this an issue? Because blacks were previously slaves, and as such did not enjoy the equal protection of the laws. What is the required consequence? All State laws must apply to its citizens without regard to previous condition of servitude, i.e., the law must be blind with regard to the incidental characteristics of the person it is dealing with. So, for example, if you have a State law that requires a license to carry a handgun concealed, that law must not be discretionary, because this opens it up almost inevitably to unequal application, based on characteristics other than being objectively qualified.

Where you get the modern notion of a so called "Fourteenth Amendment Incorporation Doctrine," essentially a plenary busybody power, from this is beyond me. It says no such thing. The entire point of the Constitution was to keep the powers of the Federal Government strictly limited, while leaving all other power in the hands of the States and the people. This is the primary reason for demanding a Bill of Rights, i.e., to keep the Federal Government from expanding its own powers to the point of interfering with self government at the State level. How do you "incorporate" that? It's an absurd notion. Absurdity cannot function as law, which is why we get all the twisted logic in defense of said doctrine from the SCOTUS.

 

[LAR-15]

States rights......blah, blah blah.

So people on here support states banning CCW?

 

[RealGun]

Ok, here is where all the trouble comes from. What precisely are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? Any reading of the Founders tells us that the primary privilege is that of local self-government.

This is your own dogma, and your arguments veer off from this point. It is not about self government. It is about States being obliged to recognize and honor the same rights (privileges and immunties) as are guaranteed by the federal government. Treatment of the Bill of Rights by the SCOTUS since then, although selective, confirms exactly this reading. Freedom of speech and the press are great examples.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

This is your own dogma, and your arguments veer off from this point. It is not about self government. It is about States being obliged to recognize and honor the same rights (privileges and immunties) as are guaranteed by the federal government. Treatment of the Bill of Rights by the SCOTUS since then, although selective, confirms exactly this reading. Freedom of speech and the press are great examples.

Not initially. The SCOTUS did not interpret the Fourteenth Amendment thus for many years, and resisted any suggestion of a plenary incorporation. The entire notion of incorporation makes no sense when you consider the central purpose of the Constitution. It's central purpose is not my creation, but that of the Founders, and that is to restrain the Federal Government to certain limited powers, while leaving the people of the States to govern themselves with regard to internal matter via their State governments. I did not make this up, as you suggest.

Now, this being the central privilege and immunity provided to each citizen by the Constitution, how does the Federal Government "incorporate" that at the State level? The only possible way is to guarantee that State governments also not interfere with the right of the people of each State to govern themselves via their State governments without Federal interference. As you can see, this is nonsensical, and thus could not be the intended meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the Fourteenth Amendment was simply intended to extend all the rights that ordinary Americans already enjoyed to the recently freed slaves, and to prevent State governments from denying said rights to them.

It is that simple. There is no plenary power delegated to the Federal Government to oversee the internal affairs of the States and to defend every citizen's right against potential State abuse. It delegates to the Federal Government powers to protect some rights, i.e., those mentioned in the amendment, but this is not what "incorporation doctrine" claims it does. According to incorporation doctrine, the powers of the Federal government now extend to transferring all Constitutional restrictions on itself to the States, as if the States were a branch of the Federal Government. This is just not found in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment, and makes a shambles of the system instituted by the Founders. This was quite obviously not the intent of the framers of the amendment in question, and for many decades after the Civil War, the SCOTUS agreed with me.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

States rights......blah, blah blah.

So people on here support states banning CCW?

Not at all. I am a firm believer in the right of every human being to keep and bear arms as they see fit, and to use those arms to defend themselves, others, their community, State, country, Constitution and liberties. I am not a compromiser in this. States that have laws denying liberties commensurate with this right are acting contrary to human rights and natural law, and ought to be changed, but not by the Federal Government. Those laws need to be changed by the citizens of those States, as States are sovereign visa vis the Federal Government. They are not subordinate with regard to internal laws. To advocate that the Federal Government send in the troops to enforce its ideas about personal liberty is to advocate lawlessness and tyranny in defense of liberty. This might sound good in the short term, but in the long term it is disastrous for the precedent it sets. Sovereign States are one of the bulwarks of liberty. It is one of the central checks on Federal power, without which we will inevitably have absolute Federal totalitarianism.

Unchecked power invariably corrupts into tyranny. It has always been so. The genius of the Founders was in creating a system of governmental power so checked against itself that corruption was very difficult, and even if it did corrupt to some degree, its powers could never be so concentrated as to become a significant threat to liberty. Consolidation of governmental power in one central super state was what they feared most, so they divided our nation's governmental powers with the Constitution. The Federal Government was to have powers almost exclusively with regard to external matters (and even with regard to them, these powers were divided among three main branches, while Congress was again divided into two houses), while the States retained all the rest, varying among themselves how they used those powers under the watchful eyes of their citizens who were positioned to keep them in check.

If you, like me, oppose State level restrictions on firearms, then fight those laws at the State level. Do not invite in the 600 pound gorilla to do your fighting for you, because once he has vanquished your adversaries, he is going to make himself at home, and he is going lay down his own laws that you may like even less.

 

[Gray Peterson]

The Real Hawkeye,

That's because the entire "incorporation" doctrine is a false one from the get go, created by a Supreme Court that was filled with people who didn't like the 14th amendment at all, so they interpreted it out of existance for many years, created a false "incorporation" doctrine via the Slaughterhouse cases, US v. Cruikshank, and Presser v. Illinois so that they didn't have to apply them to the states.

Clayton Cramer's work on the racist roots of gun control, as well as LeRoy Lucas' treatise on behalf of the Silveira v. Lockyer case (Which sought to overturn the state AWB via the 14th amendment), shows this to be the case.

It wouldn't be the first time where the Supreme Court tries to interpret things out of existance due to their own personal prejudices, and it certainly won't be the last.

 

[Gray Peterson]

It is that simple. There is no plenary power delegated to the Federal Government to oversee the internal affairs of the States and to defend every citizen's right against potential State abuse.

Then what is the point of the 14th amendment?

Hawkeye, have you ever read the Congressional record over the debate on the 14th amendment? What is the point of the 14th amendment if not to prevent those who carry guns openly in the southern states being shot by law enforcement of the states merely because they don't like the color of the skin of the person carrying openly.

Using the logic you're giving, when a state or locality goes bad, and the local courts refuse to listen, then the federal courts have no right to say "No, states and localities, you can't just shoot people in the street just because". The entire idea of this would stand the entire point of the constitution and the 14th amendment on it's head.

There would be official state religions, local law enforcement would have free reign to execute people on sight for their own petty reasons, merely because a state law gives them that authority for whatever reason.

Does anyone here not read their history? Battle of Athens, Tennessee, anyone?

 

[RealGun]

Not initially. The SCOTUS did not interpret the Fourteenth Amendment thus for many years, and resisted any suggestion of a plenary incorporation. The entire notion of incorporation makes no sense when you consider the central purpose of the Constitution.

Sure it does. Look, in the simplest of terms, States can and have abused civil rights. When they do that, they become subject to the authority of the Federal government, formed for the very purpose of protecting civil rights, whether that be racial equality or the right to keep and bear arms.

Furthermore, when States accept federal money, they are owned by each and every tax payer in the United States. A State is then not free to secede or to act in any way separate from the United States that would be contrary to the spirit of union. A citizen takes all of his rights with him when he crosses State lines. He also takes the right of due process extending all the way to the US Supreme Court. What is essentially being protected and guaranteed is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That does not end at any State border.

States are nothing more than practical levels of administration, entirely subordinate to the federal government. We know that to be true when we observe that being a Governor of a State, while certainly respectable, is not that big a deal. He or she has very limited power. Those States accept money from the federal government and are property owned by the United States.

If all that strikes you as offensive in light of your view of the FF intent, I am sorry. That is the reality and is the way this country is being run. One can be pragmatic and deal with reality or be a Don Quixote and be an expert on how wrong everything is.

That is not to say that corruption doesn't occur and discussions don't need to be rooted in principle. I would agree that we have gotten off course, although we might not agree upon exactly how and where. My biggest concern is the Supreme Court and the legal profession in general, which of course explains how we got to this point.

 

[Manedwolf]

That introduces a gaping logical hole: If Vermont and Alaska citizens should be able to carry concealed without a permit in any state, why not allow everyone to do the same? This bill sets up privileged classes based on State of residence.

The general retort is that Congress doesn't have the power to grant citizens of states concealed carry privileges... only their states of residence can do that. That's bunk. A national permit-less ccw law would not have to grant anyone any privilege. It would simply forbid states from prohibiting ccw, much like states are prohibited from segregating public schools.

That said, if this bill passes, I suspect a lot of currently shall-issue states would quickly pass VT-style carry laws. That alone is why I support the bill.

I don't think that's much of a problem, because drivers' licenses are of precedent. Every state has different requirements to get one. Some have driving tests, some don't, some have written tests, vision tests, some don't. But a driver's license lets you operate your car in any state.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Then what is the point of the 14th amendment?

The point of it is exactly what it says, and no more. The only thing radical about it is that it extends liberties enjoyed by white Americans to black Americans, and yes, that was radical at the time, but there was no intention to transform the States of the Union into extensions of the Federal Government, thereby making them also limited by the Constitutional chains created by the States for the Federal Government. The very purpose of those chains was to prevent the Federal Government from assuming the powers that rightly belonged exclusively to the States (Please read Madison's Federalist No. 45).

Hawkeye, have you ever read the Congressional record over the debate on the 14th amendment?

I am glad you mentioned this, because many people are as confused as you on this point. Much of the Congressional record you refer to consists of the record of the desires of the Radical Republicans (just Google the term). They in fact did wish to entirely replace federalism with a unitary centralized republic. This desire was behind all of their arguments in favor of their proposed versions of a Fourteenth Amendment. That is not, however, what they got, because, thank goodness, not all members of our national government at that time were Radical Republicans.

What is the point of the 14th amendment if not to prevent those who carry guns openly in the southern states being shot by law enforcement of the states merely because they don't like the color of the skin of the person carrying openly.

That was exactly the point, i.e., equal protection of the laws. Any State law had to be applied equally, regardless of color or former status of servitude. This is clearly spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. This has nothing to do with transforming the States into component parts of the Federal Government, which is what the incorporation doctrine attempts to do, in line with the desires of the Radical Republicans. In essence, through the invention of the incorporation doctrine, the Radical Republicans got what they could not achieve through the amendment process.

Using the logic you're giving, when a state or locality goes bad, and the local courts refuse to listen, then the federal courts have no right to say "No, states and localities, you can't just shoot people in the street just because".

The central government is the last entity you want taking the States to the wood shed. The thing the Founders feared most was a Federal Government that usurped State powers, making itself the master of the several States. Tyranny in a singular central government is the invariable consequence of this, which is why the Federal Government was made so weak regarding internal matters. Each State already had Constitutions of their own. The best people to enforce those Constitutions are the citizens of those States. Inviting the Federal Government in to protect the weak is a repeat of the mistake made by the Jews of ancient Palestine when they invited the Romans in to protect them from the abuses of the Egyptians. Yes, the Romans came on in and were glad to protect the Jews from the Egyptians, but tribute was soon demanded, and then the power to choose the leaders of the Jews, and then control over their religious traditions and form of local government, then they required that they go about unarmed in their own land, and then they slaughtered and enslaved them. This historical pattern repeats itself whenever a central authority is unchecked by local self-government.

The entire idea of this would stand the entire point of the constitution and the 14th amendment on it's head.

How so? The point of the Constitution was to guarantee that the Federal Government would never usurp State powers. The point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure that newly freed blacks enjoyed the rights that whites enjoyed within their home States. Nothing is turned on its head with that.

There would be official state religions,

Well, there were official State religions prior to the Civil War, and it didn't do any harm to the intent of the US Constitution, which only forbade Congress from establishing one.

local law enforcement would have free reign to execute people on sight for their own petty reasons, merely because a state law gives them that authority for whatever reason.

Firstly, that doesn't sound conistant with a Republican form of government, which the Federal Government is bound to guarantee, not to mention that it sounds like a clear violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process.

Does anyone here not read their history? Battle of Athens, Tennessee, anyone?

If I remember correctly, that's where some local official refused to hold elections and a bunch of armed vets threw him out of office and held elections, after an armed conflict. Yes, a great example of how the citizens of a State are supposed to respond to State level tyranny. Read my signature line below.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Sure it does. Look, in the simplest of terms, States can and have abused civil rights. When they do that, they become subject to the authority of the Federal government, formed for the very purpose of protecting civil rights, whether that be racial equality or the right to keep and bear arms.

No, the way the Founders thought our liberties would best be protected was by restraining the Federal Government, and leaving most of the powers (those relating to internal matters) in the hands of local and State governments, where the people could keep a watchful eye on their exercise, with the preservation of their own liberties in mind. The Federal Government was considered a potential threat to liberty, not a friend of it. This is why it was tied up in the chains of the Constitution. If preserving liberty is your goal, you do not chain up its chief defender, you give it plenary power to vanquish those who would enslave us, or abuse our rights. That's not what they did, however. They chained it up good and tight, in fear of the monster all central governments eventually become, when unchecked by local self government and the Constitutions they impose on them.

Furthermore, when States accept federal money, they are owned by each and every tax payer in the United States. A State is then not free to secede or to act in any way separate from the United States that would be contrary to the spirit of union. A citizen takes all of his rights with him when he crosses State lines. He also takes the right of due process extending all the way to the US Supreme Court. What is essentially being protected and guaranteed is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That does not end at any State border.

States are nothing more than practical levels of administration, entirely subordinate to the federal government. We know that to be true when we observe that being a Governor of a State, while certainly respectable, is not that big a deal. He or she has very limited power. Those States accept money from the federal government and are property owned by the United States.

Sometimes someone is so wrong, one does not know where to begin in correcting them. You are such a one. Your views are such a tangle of untruths and half truths, that not even the great Alexander could cut through the Gordian knot they make. I leave you to your errors, my friend.

If all that strikes you as offensive in light of your view of the FF intent, I am sorry. That is the reality and is the way this country is being run. One can be pragmatic and deal with reality or be a Don Quixote and be an expert on how wrong everything is.

In order to have any chance of ever correcting a problem, one ought first to become an expert on what is wrong.

That is not to say that corruption doesn't occur and discussions don't need to be rooted in principle. I would agree that we have gotten off course, although we might not agree upon exactly how and where. My biggest concern is the Supreme Court and the legal profession in general, which of course explains how we got to this point.

Finally, something we can agree on.

 

[LAR-15]

This is an area where the Feds can do some good.

 

[RealGun]

This is an area where the Feds can do some good.

I wouldn't assume the bill would be recognizable by the time it was passed, assuming it ever got out of committee.

If this passes, then it will, in effect, be very close to the Iraq constitution, which says that one can own a gun only with a license from the government. Our version would become, one can carry a gun only with a license from the government. We have that now in most States, only now we are asking the federal government to validate that infringement of the RKBA. I believe the essential question of whether licensing is constitutional should instead be addressed.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I wouldn't assume the bill would be recognizable by the time it was passed, assuming it ever got out of committee.

If this passes, then it will, in effect, be very close to the Iraq constitution, which says that one can own a gun only with a license from the government. Our version would become, one can carry a gun only with a license from the government. We have that now in most States, only now we are asking the federal government to validate that infringement of the RKBA. I believe the essential question of whether licensing is constitutional should instead be addressed.

Something else we can agree on.