I agree with you in principle, but here is how I view the whole subject of rights and laws at the state and federal levels. First of all, individual rights trump state's rights. The federal government should have no power to take away individual rights protected by state governments (Tenth Amendment), but it should be able to protect individual rights from state governments (Fourteenth Amendment). While this may seem asymmetrical in a way, the constant is that individual rights are the union between the rights protected by government at both the state and federal levels. All other rights that are not being attacked are of course left to the people.
For comparison, this is analogous to the benefit of the doubt that the accused are given in our system of justice. The burden of proof in a criminal trial is, in principle, on the government--they must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or else the accused walks free. Additionally--and this is the most directly analogous part--in a trial by jury, the jury may acquit over the objections of the judge, and the judge may acquit over the objection of the jury, but neither can convict over the objection of the other. The point is to set a high standard, protected by both judge and jury, for taking away a person's freedom. In my opinion, the same standard should be applied to our rights--when either a state government or the federal government decide to protect a right, neither can overrule the other. The only overruling that takes place is the individual rights protected by either over the laws of the other.
That's how things supposedly are, and in my opinion how they should be. Now all we have to do is actually hold all of these governments to it.
Right, and naturally states like New York and Illinois must respond in kind. At this rate, we'll get to zero-round magazines in no time.
I dunno, maybe it would be good if several states went to absurd extremes, since they're more likely to get slapped down eventually.
