This is a discussion on Will the States fight back? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Doodle Oh no! You gave up our state for a woman! I am rapidly losing respect for ya expat! JK JK It ...
It gets worse, she wouldn't travel back so my children could be born there and her OB absolutely refused to let me bring a box of Texas soil in to the delivery room so she could stand on it! It's a sick world we're livin' in...Originally Posted by Doodle
Oh no! You gave up our state for a woman! I am rapidly losing respect for ya expat! JK JK
Now that is funny.
"I don't know who invented Yoga and I don't know who invented pants. But I do know that I'd like to shake the hand of the man who put those two ideas together."
Array
One of the things a state could try is to enlist all of its armed citizens in its state militia or state police thereby exempting those citizens from the AWB. Now that would make for an interesting case in front of the Supremes!
Array
Actually, the legislation being introduced this next term protects firearms mannufactured, sold, and remaining in MS from the Inter-state Commerce clause. I haven't had a chance to read the proposed bill yet, so I'm not sure exactly how it reads, but this is the gist. Some other states have similar bills being introduced.
Array
yes sir!
Array
I think that should anti-gun legislation be passed that this is where the first battles will be fought. I was under the impression that SC was unique in this regard. However, from wikipedia, "Through 2010, resolutions have been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would nullify federal authority over such local firearms".
I think that this goes back to the concept of what the exact role of the Federal govt should be. Even in the context of having a strong federation, it seems as if time and again that Uncle gets in trouble when he tries to regulate activity within the states. I also think that the interstate commerce clause has been abused beyond its intent. Instead of relying on a loose interpretation of interstate commerce, the appropriate method would have been to modify the constitution such that support for desired or needed measures was given. Is this not why we have an amendment process? Of course such actions are not to be taken lightly, which is the intent. On the upside, this would have meant that things like national health care actually received real due process and achieved buy in from the states.As much as I am an O fan, he is now being quite inconsistent in his approach. He needs to either smack the MJ legalizing states down (even though I'm for a liberal drug policy) else he will be giving up too much Federal authority. It will be hard to go to the Supremes and claim Federal supremacy on anything after letting the MJ stuff slide.
This is true, but yet again, I think it speaks to the fact that Uncle may have meddled where it shouldn't have and we are seeing the snowball effect. Let me reiterate, I too am for a strong federal govt but I think that this requires a judicious and limited approach with the focus on ensuring that the states all behave and respect each other and the rights of the citizens. An example of a valid regulation is to say that good and people must be allowed to flow unimpeded amongst the states and that one state can't impose tariffs on another. Interestingly, we are also seeing a form of interstate tariff with union and other manufacturing incentives (South Carolina and Boeing for example).What this means is that Uncle may well have manipulated itself into a position in which states will gain tremendous power from having legalized MJ; and they may gain more if DOMA goes down in the SC, too. These two issues really turn on how The Supremes will ultimately handle the matter. And decisions made on both issues will influence if not directly affect any state laws on guns which might go against Uncle's laws.
Yes, you are correct that "states rights" is the force behind the problem travel states. I also think that this one is akin to the "property rights" claim saying that 'you' can prohibit someone from carrying in your establishment. No matter how you look at it, someone's "rights" are going to get trampled. I think that this is an example of where the Federal govt should step in as it is an interstate issue, I also think that if it were to that it needs to do so in the most limited fashion possible and adhere to Constitution as strictly as possible - in this particular case I think the meaning of the 2nd-A is pretty clear and that these states are violating the articles of federation that they have agreed to and for some reason SCOTUS has been loath to rule on this subject. In this respect, I think that it is also problematic in that SCOTUS has become a partisan entity.Note, I don't much approve of state's rights, wish the 10th were "amended" out of existence etc. and that a stronger supremacy clause were added to the constitution, but that's just my viewpoint. Reality is that DOJ needs to be more consistent in policy and not pick battles selectively. And before you all bop me and flame me, isn't state's rights the reason NY, IL, CA, and NJ are pains in the back side for us when we travel?
The bottom line is that if Uncle tries to regulate the people of the states in a manner that the people do not want that it will lead to a form of rebellion. As you've pointed out, this is happening with drugs, marriage, and now guns.
Posting Permissions
33Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
