Squeaky Wheel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 157
I'm sure I'll catch a lot of hell for this, but it's where I honestly believe things will eventually end up. I submit these thoughts with the hopes of being respectful to different points of view. I am a gun owner, and have been for many years, yet I think that many hard-core RKBA folks make us all look 'unreasonable' when they demand that everyone has a right to .50 BMG, AP ammo, etc.
Eventually, I believe that there will a Constitutional amendment to clarify the federal "minimum" rights that exist in all states. I also believe that ultimately each state will have the latitude to tweak their state laws beyond the minimum rights stated in an updated constitution.
For example, I could foresee a constitutional amendment that basically says "an individual can own revolvers, semi-auto handguns (pistol) with magazine capacity <= X, shotguns, and rifles that do not exceed .30-06 (or whatever) and magazine capacity of 20 (or whatever number) rounds. These are minimal individual gun ownership rights that shall exist in all 50 states." Then, allow individual states to adopt their own state-specific AWB or whatever makes them happy.
Let's face it -- not all states are the same. What's wrong with letting each state tweak the laws to best suit the citizens of their state? I know that hard-core RKBA will slam me with "what about the poor California guy who wants to own a .50 BMG"? (Don't know if citizens of CA can currently own .50 BMGs, so it could be a bad example). If your state laws cause you enough discomfort to leave the state, at least you could.
In my opinion, it's a joke to say that all states are "united" over RKBA. Why keep pretending? What's wrong with updating the constitution to guarantee a minimum level of rights that must exist in all 50 states and then let each state individually fight out what's best for them?
This would allow anti-gun states like California and Illinois to add as many restrictions as they want, so long as none of their state-level restrictions violate the updated Constitution. By the same token, more gun friendly states could potentially say that "we have no state-level restrictions".
Your thoughts on how things will play out long term?
Eventually, I believe that there will a Constitutional amendment to clarify the federal "minimum" rights that exist in all states. I also believe that ultimately each state will have the latitude to tweak their state laws beyond the minimum rights stated in an updated constitution.
For example, I could foresee a constitutional amendment that basically says "an individual can own revolvers, semi-auto handguns (pistol) with magazine capacity <= X, shotguns, and rifles that do not exceed .30-06 (or whatever) and magazine capacity of 20 (or whatever number) rounds. These are minimal individual gun ownership rights that shall exist in all 50 states." Then, allow individual states to adopt their own state-specific AWB or whatever makes them happy.
Let's face it -- not all states are the same. What's wrong with letting each state tweak the laws to best suit the citizens of their state? I know that hard-core RKBA will slam me with "what about the poor California guy who wants to own a .50 BMG"? (Don't know if citizens of CA can currently own .50 BMGs, so it could be a bad example). If your state laws cause you enough discomfort to leave the state, at least you could.
In my opinion, it's a joke to say that all states are "united" over RKBA. Why keep pretending? What's wrong with updating the constitution to guarantee a minimum level of rights that must exist in all 50 states and then let each state individually fight out what's best for them?
This would allow anti-gun states like California and Illinois to add as many restrictions as they want, so long as none of their state-level restrictions violate the updated Constitution. By the same token, more gun friendly states could potentially say that "we have no state-level restrictions".
Your thoughts on how things will play out long term?