What About State's Rights?

[oneounceload]

I don't see a problem with that at all. No one is saying a state should have the right to BAN guns, nor religion, but each region has differing values from a social, religious, and moral perspective. Making you do a check or similar is not banning, nor infringing on your RKBA - it might be a little inconvenient - but then again - I find highway speed limits that way as well. If those folks TRULY believe that gun-free zones and magazine restrictions make them feel safer, than the people, not the legislature should have the right to vote for what makes them sleep safer at night

 

[Bushpilot]

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)

It should draw some "flak." Local and state governments should have no authority to infringe upon the "rights" of an individual regardless of how many local knuckleheads are in support of it. This is the Bill of Rights we’re talking about here, not driving privileges, zoning or intrastate commerce… The Supreme Court has already determined that local or state governments can't interfere with 2nd amendment rights by enacting laws that prohibit the possession of certain types of firearms such as handguns. Leaving gun laws up to the states is a very dangerous proposition. It is far easier to enact (or in other words restrict your freedoms with) local or state ordinances/laws than it is federal…. Would you really want your local or state governments “tweaking” the other rights you posses such as those guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th or 6th amendments? No, although it may not currently seem like it, our collective 2nd amendment rights are much safer with the Federal government and much more difficult to tamper with than in the hands of locals.

 

[oneounceload]

Compared to what? What the last few administrations have done with even greater lethality? A distant government does not listen to the populace - evidence now - the WH got tired of our online petitions, so now you need 4X the signatures

A government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything you have. A small government is not.

My comment was not about banning guns but about a locale's rights to self-determination, and that any minor restrictions that may make sense in their locale, shall be up to them to decide and have the populace determine through a vote. magazine restrictions, or a background check to see if you are not a prohibited person does not take away you 2A rights - it might make it a little inconvenient to wait a few minutes, or you might need to buy an extra magazine, but that has nothing to do anything else.

 

[Bushpilot]

A government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything you have. A small government is not.

My comment was not about banning guns but about a locale's rights to self-determination, and that any minor restrictions that may make sense in their locale, shall be up to them to decide and have the populace determine through a vote. magazine restrictions, or a background check to see if you are not a prohibited person does not take away you 2A rights - it might make it a little inconvenient to wait a few minutes, or you might need to buy an extra magazine, but that has nothing to do anything else.

Tell that to the guys from New York, California or Illinois... All it takes is a local incident or two and reactionary or otherwise motivated local lawmakers can start tampering with your rights... Background checks and magazines; you say you want small federal government but then you want them involved every time you buy or sell a firearm? If it’s only a matter of buying another magazine then why bother with a restriction in the first place? Then, the next time someone commits another terrible crime with some other type of gun that type will be on the chopping block until slowly all of our rights are eroded away. It wasn’t all that long ago that handguns were considered the “evil” guns, now it’s semi-auto rifles, although they amount to only a small percentage of the weapons used in crime… What’s next pump shotguns?

 

[gossamer]

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..

And if those voters express that opinion at the ballot box, within the law, it means it is law. That's what a Democratic Republic is.

To extend your substitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What does your example propose a state law could do that would violate that?

As it applies to 2A, the Courts have found that restrictions of certain types of weapons or attachments is not a violation of 2A. So, a state law restricting those in NYS does not violate the 2A or US Law. It is still legal within OUR current Democratic Republic.

Alternately, a state law in TX specifically allowing 30-round mags and AR15 platforms is also legal and not in violation of 2A within our Democratic Republic.

 

[oneounceload]

All it takes is a local incident or two and reactionary or otherwise motivated local lawmakers can start tampering with your rights

I guess you missed the part about it needing a vote by the entire populace and NOT left up to the politicians?? That prevents willy-nilly tampering, especially when it would take a super majority...............

 

[ssyoumans]

As long as the Federal government doles out the money to the states, they will "control" the states. If states don't fall in line with the Federal Government's agenda, they get cut off. Simple as that. Their state's citizens would be paying into a system that they wouldn't get their money back in the form of grants, construction, services, etc.

 

[gossamer]

Tell that to the guys from New York, California or Illinois... All it takes is a local incident or two and reactionary or otherwise motivated local lawmakers can start tampering with your rights...

Did you miss the part where oneounceload and I both said these questions should be put to a referrendum of that locale's populace, and NOT the votes of local legislators? It reads as if you did.

Background checks and magazines; you say you want small federal government but then you want them involved every time you buy or sell a firearm?

They are, and it's legal.

If it’s only a matter of buying another magazine then why bother with a restriction in the first place?

To continue the example: because my fellow citizens in my state deemed that the law. and I prefer their judgement to the 536 well-heeled mosquitos in DC who spend all their time sucking money out of donors.

Then, the next time someone commits another terrible crime with some other type of gun that type will be on the chopping block until slowly all of our rights are eroded away.

Only if the people in my state deem it so. And if - forbid it - that tragedy happens in another state, one far away with completely different circumstances, there is less likelihood that my fellow citizens will allow that firearm to be restricted here.

It wasn’t all that long ago that handguns were considered the “evil” guns,

On a national level, yes. But not in my state.

now it’s semi-auto rifles,

On a national level, yes. But not in my state.

although they amount to only a small percentage of the weapons used in crime…

In which state?

What’s next pump shotguns?

Not in my state.

(are we detecting a theme here?)

It's called the insulation of diversity. If we drink from various, dispersed, different wells, poisoning one will not make us all sick.

 

[Bushpilot]

I guess you missed the part about it needing a vote by the entire populace and NOT left up to the politicians??

I don't want locals limiting or tampering with my rights whether by "direct vote" or by elected local lawmakers. Any small group can be easily influenced and reactionary.

 

[Bushpilot]

Background checks and magazines; you say you want small federal government but then you want them involved every time you buy or sell a firearm?

They are, and it's legal

.

Not with local sales between individuals they weren't and it was legal although it may not be any longer...

 

[Halal Pork]

And if those voters express that opinion at the ballot box, within the law, it means it is law. That's what a Democratic Republic is.

Even if 55% of voters or legislators decide certain rights protected under the Constitution should be revoked, the law is still unconstitutional. As Milton Friedman said, "No one believes in democracy." That is, a majority voting to violate the civil rights or property rights of a minority is not a desirable result in spite of being democratic; and most people, given several examples, would recognize it. You're right in that it takes the courts stepping up to weigh in when voters and legislators go overboard. Certainly judges have been known to make decision based on political activism rather than their understanding of the law.

 

[oneounceload]

I don't want locals limiting or tampering with my rights whether by "direct vote" or by elected local lawmakers. Any small group can be easily influenced and reactionary.

YOU would BE one of those locals deciding - what's the best chance do you think you have of persuading folks? At your local level with folks you know, or at the national level with bigger groups who do not share your views?

 

[Bushpilot]

It's called the insulation of diversity. If we drink from various, dispersed, different wells, poisoning one will not make us all sick.

gossamer, You keep refering to "your state" or "not in your state"... My state is just about as conservative as they come as far as gun rights are concerned. I'm concerned about everybody's gun rights, not just mine. In the current political environment if we all don't stick together we will all lose... If you think your rights will some how be safer by letting those in other states fall by the wayside you are wrong...

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." B. Franklin

Divide and conquer

 

[Bushpilot]

YOU would BE one of those locals deciding - what's the best chance do you think you have of persuading folks? At your local level with folks you know, or at the national level with bigger groups who do not share your views?

It's not a matter of those in my community sharing my views, it's a matter of the ease or difficulty in limiting my rights. There is a reason NY enacted it's new law so quickly and easily, it's because it could. It's a much more difficult thing to do on a national level...

 

[Bushpilot]

Even if 55% of voters or legislators decide certain rights protected under the Constitution should be revoked, the law is still unconstitutional. As Milton Friedman said, "No one believes in democracy." That is, a majority voting to violate the civil rights or property rights of a minority is not a desirable result in spite of being democratic; and most people, given several examples, would recognize it.

Exactly..... Well put Halal Pork...

 

[Zardaia]

Problem is libs/obama don't really care that much about pot. Try state nullification of a fed gun law on the other hand I bet the feds'll choose to fight that one.

 

[joecil]

I guess I will be in a minority here but I find states and local laws the biggest restriction on my rights and not just gun rights but all of them. Now as for the 2nd Amendment there seems to be a word over looked by most that Scalia based his recent opinion on in DC v. Heller that said basically a militia is an individual but does not stop regulations on guns. The word is highlighted below in the copy of the 2nd.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[oneounceload]

It's not a matter of those in my community sharing my views, it's a matter of the ease or difficulty in limiting my rights

Who said it was going to made easy? Right now, the FEDS are the ones having it easy with EOs, and other BS. Most states have in their own Constitution, what it takes to change it - it takes years, several votes, petitions with signatures - this isn't like deciding whether Joe gets to put his McDonald's on one corner or another; but it does allow folks to better control their own destiny when the laws are made at the lowest level possible, especially those regarding individuals

 

[Bushpilot]

Who said it was going to made easy? Right now, the FEDS are the ones having it easy with EOs, and other BS. Most states have in their own Constitution, what it takes to change it - it takes years, several votes, petitions with signatures - this isn't like deciding whether Joe gets to put his McDonald's on one corner or another; but it does allow folks to better control their own destiny when the laws are made at the lowest level possible, especially those regarding individuals

The executive orders issued were comparatively weak. Any measures of significance will need to go through congress. You obviously have never experienced how easy it is to pass a local ordinance prohibiting guns in one way or another. Prior to the Heller case, while I was in college, I lived in a city where a prohibition on the possession of so called "assault rifles" was brought up before the local town council. Most gun owners weren't even aware that it was being brought up for a vote until it was almost too late. The ordinance was narrowly defeated. But, anyone who thinks that their gun rights are best served by local or even state governments needs to talk to gun owners from California, Chicago, New York, Illinois or Washington D.C.

 

[k_dawg]

"States Rights" was never meant to allow violations or denial of basic civil and human rights.

Violation of either is repugnant in a free society, regardless of the level of government engaged in it.

 

[Bushpilot]

This whole idea and argument is (fortunately) purely hypothetical and for the most part a waste of time because this isn’t how our government works in matters that pertain to individual rights. Prior to the Heller case state and local governments had far more leeway in gun related laws and since Heller many of those laws have been deemed unconstitutional. Any laws relating to guns made on the local or state are almost always more restrictive.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The executive orders issued were comparatively weak....

They appeared comparatively weak because as has been said repeatedly on this board there is a limit to what can be done by executive order.

 

[Viottato]

As long as the Federal government doles out the money to the states, they will "control" the states. If states don't fall in line with the Federal Government's agenda, they get cut off. Simple as that. Their state's citizens would be paying into a system that they wouldn't get their money back in the form of grants, construction, services, etc.

You hit the nail on the head. Sooner or later the state/local politicians will cave in. Mama Fed holds the purse strings.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

States rights? According to the provisions of the 10th Amendment, the county sheriff has the supreme authority for law enforcement in his county in all states. Municipal and federal LEOs derive their authority from him. Here is a letter several county sheriffs in Oregon have sent to Joe Biden in the last couple of days:

From the desk of

Sheriff Tim Mueller

Linn County, Oregon

1115 SE Jackson St.

Albany, Oregon 97322

January 14, 2013

Vice President Joe Biden

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am Sheriff Tim Mueller, elected twice by the citizens of Linn County Oregon who have entrusted me with a noble cause: to keep them and their families safe. My deputies and I take that responsibility very seriously and, like you, have sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath equally as serious as protecting our citizens. I have worked for the people of Linn County for over 28 years as a member of the Linn County Sheriff's Office as well as serving three years active duty as a Military Police Officer in the US Army, where I also swore a similar oath.

In the wake of the recent criminal events, politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines. We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.

Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County Oregon.

In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians.

Respectfully,

Sheriff Tim Mueller

Linn County Oregon

 

[Bushpilot]

They appeared comparatively weak because as has been said repeatedly on this board there is a limit to what can be done by executive order.

I know... but apparently others still consider this significant...