States' Rights and Gun Bans...

General General Discussion
1

Alright, let me preface this with the fact that I am deeply saddened to hear about NY’s new ban and how those members we have in NY will soon be criminals because of that ban.

That being said, I think it would be beneficial if we hear opinions of our members’ (especially those who are proponents of states’ rights) opinions on whether or not individual states have the right to control gun ownership within their state boundaries.

As a states’ rightist, I have felt increasingly lately that I don’t have much of a problem with individual sates implementing their own forms of gun control, even gun control most of us see as truly radical.

Why? Because the fact of the matter is, there are actually very few states that support strict gun control. New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts to name the worst. Those states combined have a population of over 80 million people, a fourth of the U.S. population. Yet, there are 30+ states that have very lenient gun laws, with very pro-gun populations. Quite some diversity.

Allowing extremely anti-gun states to implement their own radical gun laws to make their citizens happy, yet leave the rest of the U.S. alone, would solve a lot of these problems with Federal legislation. 80 million people is a big voice, but they shouldn’t force their views on guns to the rest of the states.

Yeah, yeah, McDonald v. Chicago… the Second Amendment applies to the states under the 14th A. This doesn’t mean that the 2A will no longer to apply to states that wish to implement radical gun control… they won’t be allowed to create total bans. Just allowed create their same stupid AWB’s and mag restrictions. That is A LOT better than federal legislation that rules over the entire country.

Let the radical states have their gun laws, but leave the free states alone.

Any opinions? Please… keep them civil

2

Montana passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) in 2009 and it was signed into law by Governor Schweitzer (a Democrat) on April 15, 2009. The law stipulated that firearms manufactured in Montana which stayed in state were not subject to federal firearms regulations.

The law, with an effective date of October 1, 2012, was immediately challenged by federal authorities. The ATF sent a letter to all FFL holders in Montana asserting federal law supersedes state law, thus the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, along with all of their attendant regulations, were all still in force.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court in support of the MFFA and seeking to prevent federal regulations from being enforced with regard to those firearms covered by the MFFA. The Montana Shooting Sports Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation joined in the lawsuit, which was subsequently dismissed by a federal judge in 2010 “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.” An appeal of that dismissal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act)

In the current 2013 Montana state legislature, there are several bills being drafted to prevent enforcement of any new federal gun-control measures, whether by executive order or legislation. Specifics on these measures are currently unavailable but I suspect there will renewed interest in getting them introduced quickly following the announcement of the Obama administration’s proposals tomorrow.

If state’s rights groups carry the day, I see an intense “balkanization” of the United States based on such issues as gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. The designation of “radical state” versus “free state” will largely be defined by which of the aforementioned issues (and others) is most dear to your heart.

3

I mostly agree. If Nebraska went as full f-ing retard as shitholes like New York or Illinois, I’d leave. I personally believe that was the true intent of states rights, so you can live around mostly like minded people.

The weather here sucks & it’s pretty boring, I won’t argue that, but to me there is no job or scenery that could make me happy enough to live without my rights.

4

The Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states in the McDonald case thus the 2nd has to be adhered to by the states. The 14th Amendment was written to apply the BOR to the states so states could not do things like authorize slavery following the Civil War.

Later on the Supreme Court gutted the 14th and ruled the 14th Amendment does not apply the BOR to the states. Since then they have had to go case by case, amendment by amendment, and incorporate them to the state. Even then there are parts of each Amendment which have not been incorporated. This is why there are different burdens of proof for things like civil cases vs. criminal cases. One reason things like speeding tickets are considered civil fines so the states don’t have to have the same burden of proof to get you to pay up and find you guilty as they would in a criminal case.

When the Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd to the states in the McDonald case they did not set the level of scrutiny which is what the courts use to apply to the case being heard on how far a right can be restricted (since they have also ruled no right is absolute). Under strict scrutiny, which is what we should hope for, the government would have to show the highest level of reason as to why a restriction of a right should be allowed.

Keep in mind the 14th Amendment which first incorporated the BOR to the states was passed by a 3/4ths majority which is what is required to pass a constitutional amendment. Thus the states themselves agreed to it at the time. The only way to take that authority back is to pass another amendment, with a 3/4ths majority, repealing the 14th Amendment, and taking a case to court to get current precedent repealed.

5

I don’t disagree Dave.

However, I find a mild form “balkanization” already occurs amongst certain states. Right now, certain states have gay marriage legal. Others are trying to legalize certain drugs illegal under FEDERAL law. Some already have strict gun laws.

What I see by allowing states more freedoms is to keep with the “Don’t tell me what to do, I won’t tell you what to do” mantra. The citizens of New York and California shouldn’t be forcing their views on guns on me in Georgia. Conversely, I should’t be able to force them to have the same free gun laws that we have, if they don’t want them.

In the end, the main goal here is to limit federal legislation that affects all states.

6

It’s unfortunate but the Commerce Clause was intended to only apply to commerce between the states not commerce within a state. I’m sure you know, but SCOTUS ruled commerce within a state is under Federal control as well because it effects interstate commerce. A bunch of BS but that case came with their 1939 string of terror rubber stamping SS, NFA, and a bunch of other shitty cases where they gave the Fed gov a host of powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

Then to top if off, SCOTUS would rather decide constitutionality of law based on what previous SCOTUS judges have said not what the Constitution says. Deplorable.

7

My opinion. While I could live with a compromise saying the Feds would back off and get rid of all federal gun control and the states would have all the power. However I live in a very pro gun state. Thats not so good for New York.

Also the bill of rights is there to protect everyone from the federal, state and local government. It is supposed to ensure that no one has less rights anywhere in the USA. Would it be right if we let states take away the freedom of speech or religion. I bet most of us wold say no. So there can be no compromise we need to win this battle.
Pat

8

Most if not all States have State Constitutions. I would assume all of them mirror the U.S. Constitutions with slight differences (more amendments ect.)

All of those Constitutions have the 2nd amend. within them. As seen in the Texas State Constitution in Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Your pro-ban stance is wrong again. I guess since you’ve tried the “states can do that” arguement and it failed, maybe you should move on to your next bullshit arguement.

We get it, you are loving this. Now go stand in line to be the first to register.

9

Pat,

While I would rather see no laws passed anywhere, the fact is, its a pipe dream. There are a LOT of Americans out there who want tougher gun laws. And a LOT of those Americans live in just a few concentrated states.

The Second Amendment is a far more controversial right than the First. So I think the slippery slope argument you mentioned wouldn’t go as well because I don’t think even the liberals would wish to do that to the freedom of religion/speech.

I don’t see it as a compromise. I see it as giving them what they want, to do it in their own states, and leave the rest of the country alone. Otherwise, we all will be victims to THEIR agendas.

10

I asked for this discussion to remain civil, J-Dub.

11

I am being civil. I am not expressing my true disgust for your provocateur-esque postings.

You have made it clear you WANT registration and/or all semiautos to be NFA items…on m4carbine no less. That leads me to believe you are a provocateur.

12

While that would make sense to us, that is not how Progressives think - and right now they are on a huge roll.

The Battle for the 2A is on now, in every state.

13

…and decisions like that are the reason states need to take a stand and tell the feds where to shove their intrusive unconstitutional Bureaus, Administrations, Commissions, Agencies, et al.

The states need to take a stand and make it abundantly fucking clear that they maintain a high level of sovereignty, and that if forced to they will exercise it. We’ve lost the states’ rights battle, inch by miserable inch, for 200-some years, we need to start winning it, in yards and not inches.

14

Flawed assumption is that 100% of these 80 mil are anti gun. There is a large pro gun population in Illinois and California, I know that from personal experience. They can’t and won’t win because they have to deal with same or larger number of antis, a ton of indifferent, and, above all, entrenched anti-gun political establishments; that doesn’t mean their numbers are insignificant.
By the same token, there are enough anti gun people in pro gun states, just not enough to change status quo.

15

I think we can on a national level block the most important parts of the proposed gun regulations namely being a new AWB and a magazine capacity limit. Personally I am all for background checks that include information on the mentally ill. Frankly if your dangerous if you don’t take medication then you should not own a gun. I am also for having to do back ground checks on private sales. I don’t see that as gun control rather as people control to just keep people who are otherwise forbidden from owning guns to get them.
Pat

16

Everyone simmer down now or I will start passing out knife hands. Either keep it civil or step out of this conversation and go get some fresh air.

17

[QUOTE=Alaskapopo;1506922]I think we can on a national level block the most important parts of the proposed gun regulations namely being a new AWB and a magazine capacity limit.

I hope you are right Pat.

Along the same lines as states rights - several sheriffs have publicly stated they will: Not support the 2A infringements BUT also state they will block federal action within their counties.

Example Here: (and God Bless the courage of this Sheriff)

http://www.kval.com/politics/Sheriff-to-VP-I-wont-enforce-any-new-gun-laws-187043401.html

18

I think one of the best defenses to federal legislation is to have state legislation making it illegal for state and local LEO’s to enforce federal law. There are not enough federal cops to do what they want to do.
Pat

19

My major problem with the whole concept of incorporation of the BOR is this:

The first 8 Amendments deal with the natural rights of man. The Framers, and more importantly those who voted to ratify the Constitution believed that all humans were born with rights that predates all governments. The right of self defense is one of those.

The BOR does not grant rights, but FORBIDS the Fed government from infringing on them.

That being said, if our rights are given to us by God, why should ANY government at any level be able to interfere with them? This concept contradicts the theory of Natural Rights.

Also, there is a valid argument that the 14th Amendment was never legally passed to begin with.

20

This is simply not true. There are states that do not offer 2A protection in them.

PA is very strongly worded “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”, many others are very weak, and if memory serves there are a couple or few, that don’t mention it at all.

This is one of the best brief synapses of 2A on a state level I’ve found.
http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm