Who favors unified guns laws?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YankeeFlyr

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
409
Location
Catonsville, MD
What I mean is...we have 50 states...with varying gun laws.

Why not eliminate the firearms laws at the state level and just federalize it and make it uniform?

Here's why...

1) We live in a HIGHLY mobile society...with a world-beater interstate highway system, air transportation network, etc. Americans in the post-WWII era are more mobile than they could have dreamed would be the case for our first 170 years as a nation...it would ease a lot of travel/residency/moving headaches.

2) Philosophically, why would/should the laws of one state be different than for another; we are all one country, with one overall cultural identity/exchange...so...why would laws in one state be "good" for the people there but in another state require another set of laws to be "good" for the people in that region?


Yeah, I understand the Constitution...I know it has provisions for 'States' Rights'. I realize that, so I don't need to be schooled on it.

But think about it. Why should the need/benefit for a people of one state to be different than for another. It's just a hassle.

BTW, I support unified driving laws, too. "Right on red" here, but not there? Why? Are the lane layouts/driving considerations different in state X than in state Y?

C'mon...

Eliminate the hassles, folks.

It doesn't have to be that hard. :scrutiny:
 
Why not eliminate the firearms laws at the state level and just federalize it and make it uniform?
Click to expand...

Only problem with this is "uniform"- uniform by what standards? Everyone gets Arizona's laws? Sure! I'm all for it. But if everyone gets stuck with California's?

You get the idea.
 
Yeah, but "which ones" is another subject...

Given the populations of the "several states" and all the diverse opinions...it wouldn't be CA's...or AZ's.

I could live with Oklahoma's, or Minnesota's, or Georgia's.

Or most of them, actually.
 
We have a unified firearm's law. It's the Second Amendment

You'd think so, but apparently not.

(Besides, that's not a statute, strictly speaking.)
 
The problem with unified firearms law is that dirtbag leftist states like California would have a say in it.

California wouldn't have much of a say in it, overall. And yes, I know they are a state with a large population/representation. Still...


BTW what is a "dirt bag leftist"?


Is that anyone who isn't a Right-Wing Fascist?
 
You know, there was a time when this nation was known as "these united States," not "The United States." This topic confirms the erosion of state identity and sovereignty that's been happening since the Civil War.
 
Here's the problem: you then get one set of people at the national level who can screw it up for everyone in the country much more readily than they can now. Unlike the system now where it gets tried in certain areas and people see what they do and don't like, and what does and doesn't work.
 
You know, there was a time when this nation was known as "these united States," not "The United States." This topic confirms the erosion of state identity and sovereignty that's been happening since the Civil War.

Yeah, I know. Is there still a need for state identity and sovereign status? I mean, really...in the colonial times, the various colonies had markedly different interests; tobacco here, metal working there, shipping at the ports in Baltimore and Boston, New York, etc.

Now that it's a interstate economy, with daily trade across state borders and the electronic frontier, with UPS and FedEx...well, you get it.

Is there really any good reason to have all these variations in state laws? Like what questions are illegal on job applications? Like different tax exemptions for income? Like liquor import laws and all that? Really?

BTW, I left Georgia about 6 months ago. I lived there for a cumulative 7 or 8 years over different intervals since the late 70's. I also lived in Alabama. Seems like some states needed, historically, to have a little "identity" eroded in order to join the civilized world. Too bad it took federal troops to do it.

I wouldn't claim that as a good reason to have "States' Rights"; that's more of an excuse for "ah don't need no outside people tellin' me wut to do with mah Negros...".

I have heard this from college-educated men. Recently. I kid you not.

But that's kind of another discussion, isn't it? And one we won't have here, I suspect. And that's fine.

I asked the question primarily in regard to firearms laws.



Here's the problem: you then get one set of people at the national level who can screw it up for everyone in the country much more readily than they can now.

That is not an insurmountable problem. We are Americans.
 
As much as I would like to see some consistency in the laws from state to state, I don't want any part of the US Congress being the sole authority (Think Schumer, Boxer, Piloci, etc.) [Yes I know I probably misspelled their names but I don't care]. At the state level, there's some accountability for the scumbags, Oops, politicians to recognize the wishes of their constituents. Have you ever experienced a US senator or congressman paying much attention to the electorate once they get to DC?

At least at the state level there's recalls and, in most states, ballot initiatives by the people, one of the biggest Constitutional omissions by our founding fathers.
 
Federalize?

YankeeFlyr said:
What I mean is...we have 50 states...with varying gun laws.

Why not eliminate the firearms laws at the state level and just federalize it and make it uniform?
Click to expand...

Because it's not a federal issue. That authority is not conveyed to the FedGov by the Constitution.

Their jurisdiction, for things like "who can carry what, and when" is confined to D.C., where, you'll be shocked to know, they effectively banned firearms for decades.

Here's why...

1) We live in a HIGHLY mobile society...with a world-beater interstate highway system, air transportation network, etc. Americans in the post-WWII era are more mobile than they could have dreamed would be the case for our first 170 years as a nation...it would ease a lot of travel/residency/moving headaches.

2) Philosophically, why would/should the laws of one state be different than for another; we are all one country, with one overall cultural identity/exchange...so...why would laws in one state be "good" for the people there but in another state require another set of laws to be "good" for the people in that region?
Click to expand...

Sure. No problem. We've actually had something like this . . . oh, what . . . 200 years ago? I'm cool with going back to that.

On the other hand, if the Several States wanted to get together and hammer out some kind of uniform code and individually agree to adopt that, then that would be okay, too.

The "fact" that it's somehow "easier" for the Feds to do it, in that cool kind of "centralized command and control" way that they so love, is not what I would call a ringing endorsement for the idea.


Yeah, I understand the Constitution...I know it has provisions for 'States' Rights'. I realize that, so I don't need to be schooled on it.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you do. You say "I know how it's supposed to be" and then you propose doing something that's proscribed by the document in question.

But think about it. Why should the need/benefit for a people of one state to be different than for another. It's just a hassle.

BTW, I support unified driving laws, too. "Right on red" here, but not there? Why? Are the lane layouts/driving considerations different in state X than in state Y?

C'mon...

Eliminate the hassles, folks.

It doesn't have to be that hard. :scrutiny:
Click to expand...

You're right. It doesn't.

Just roll back all that infringing legislation to, oh, say, 1901 or so, and then hold an interstate conference on gun carry etiquette, adopt -- at the state level -- a template law agreed to by the Several States, to the effect that gun safety shall be taught in schools, practical gun handling shall be a requirement of graduation from high school, and each home shall have at least one firearm for each adult of gun bearing age.

Hell, I could write that myself. Nothing hard about it.

But in any case, the Feds don't get to play.

 
If it led to a liberalization of firearm laws nationally, I'd of course support the cause. However, I live in one of the "more free" states, that being South Dakota. I am comfortable with MY state's gun laws, but not those of say New Jersey, Illinois, or California, and is typical with ANY power grab by the government, I fear the trend would be towards stricter controls rather than weakened ones
 
As the above poster stated the 50 state CC provision.:scrutiny: Seems we can't even agree on what the states that DO allow for CC will end up with and adopt it with any uniformity yet.:banghead:
 
Unified to the least restrictive.
It would be liberating for those that live in restrictive states to have the same freedoms I enjoy.
 
We don't need the federal government mandating "uniform" firearms laws throughout the US. Which states firearms laws would you use as the "uniform" model?

My home state of OK has very reasonable firearms laws. i do not want NJ, IL or CA style firearms laws imposed on OK citizens.
 
Are all these ideas of a Federally written gun laws from people in states with restrictive laws in the hope it would be less onerous?
We've all seen how well the "one size fits all" stuff from the Feds works!
No thanks. We in Wyoming wouldn't want to live with the best of what's from the populous states.
 
If you follow the writings of H.L. Mencken in the the 1920s through Carl Bakal in the 1960s, there has been a strong advocacy toward federalizing gun control at the level of the New York 1911 Sullivan Act. Mencken was against the idea, Bakal was for it. Enough people have commented on it that it is undeniable that there have been for over a century people advocating federal law shoving Sullivan Act style restrictions, particularly the New York City version (see Bloomberg & MAIG) on all states, counties and cities in America in total disregard of state constitution RKBA provisions. Quite frankly, the 1934 National Fiream Act was an attempt in that direction (it originally targeted conventional pistols and revolvers). Most states have an individual right to keep and bear arms in their constitution. Gun control crusaders like Chuck Schumer and Mike Bloomberg see a federal law as superceding state gun rights' protections.

Would a unified federal gun act, overriding state differences, protect gun rights or would it be used to fulfill gun control dreams like Carl Bakal's vision of deaths due to shootings receding to the vanishing point as all guns are rounded up?
 
We have a unified firearm's law. It's the Second Amendment

You'd think so, but apparently not.

(Besides, that's not a statute, strictly speaking.)
Click to expand...

It is a statute preventor - or is supposed to be.
 
BTW what is a "dirt bag leftist"?


Is that anyone who isn't a Right-Wing Fascist?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. I think a dirt bag leftist (or rightist) is one who wants to take away the rights of others based on his or her philosophical views. It just seems the lefts spend more energy trying to eliminate the rights of others than the rights do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Strange Question on Conceal Carry in Delaware
Replies
66
Views
3K
General Gun Discussions
hermannr
H
K
  • Locked
How to unify CHL holders
Replies
9
Views
433
General Gun Discussions
greyhawk178
G
F
  • Locked
Give gun owners uniformity
Replies
0
Views
280
General Gun Discussions
funnybone
F
O
  • Locked
California State Senate votes to exempt its members from gun laws
Replies
9
Views
2K
General Gun Discussions
Sam1911
S
Old Dog
  • Locked
Why does discussion of how gun laws vary state to state …
Replies
20
Views
1K
General Gun Discussions
Robert
Robert
Top Bottom
Back