As far as posing the legal question of whether the states have rights when it comes to how guns are regulated, you could turn a liberal argument around and say "If militia's are to be regulated in the sense that are subject to laws regarding firearms, it would be a right enumerated to the states since the conventional meaning of "militia" is a collection armed citizens who, when organized, are at the service of the state." The federal Govt would have no jurisdiction over the matter since they -gun owners- have passed the litmus test to be legally armed by the state in which they reside. Its already like that since we all know of the CCW reciprocity and how some states do not recognize other permit holders because of differences in legal doctrine. At a state level, 2A works as it should since it never infringes without due process of law. Federally, well, look at what's going on now. The Federal Govt is dictating to the states how its citizens are to be regulated which does infringe. Case in point, the $200 fee that is charged to owners for registering their semi-autos as a class 3. If $20 bucks for a voter ID card is to burdensome, according to Holder, then what would he call this? A tax? I dont see that bird flying in the Supreme Court as it is imposed on items already owned by the individual.
But this all shouting at the wind as they're going ahead with this anyway. Perhaps a large scale secession isn't beyond the question after all.
Break up the states? If those cadets in Charleston had just deported the Federal troops in Ft. Sumter instead of shooting at them, it might have worked.
Actually, I take that back about the "militia". With "...the right of the people shall not be infringed.", the line is blurred between what constitutes a militia and what is a private citizen. Either way, its up to the state.
At that time, with no "regular" standing army, each state had its own militia, composed of private citizens made available upon call. The state was not responsible for providing arms so each individual was expected to provide his own and to maintain his proficiency. The concept of the "citizen soldier" continues to this day.
Technically we are already set up that way. Throughout history and as you see in Europe, a sovereign land is referred to as a "state." Each nation in the world is its own State, as are our 50 states... how its supposed to work is that other than inter-state and international commerce, and the common defense of the nation, each "state" takes care of itself and is sovereign...hence, The United States of America.. separate but united "States," all in the continent of America..
We have come to think of our 50 states more like territories and provinces than as "States," note the capital S.
But the organization and management of the country has gone to crap... things have changed and not for the better in most cases. The way of our world isnt what it used to be.
To the point of the militia... all able-bodied men between the ages of 17-44 constitute the militia.. even to this day.. but you will never be called to arms to perform that duty. If so, it would solidify your rights as a firearms owner and put you/us into a protected class.. which those in power would not do.
So legally, we have two militias, the organized militia.. which is are modern day military.. and the enrolled militia, which is the body of citizens. It has been this way since the Militia Act was passed in May of 1792, which distinguished the two roles.
From my discussions with my poltical science professor uncle, originally the elctors were awarded by each state's government just like Senators. Each state has the ability to decide how its electors vote.
It seems strange that people from states (like my own) that exist largely at the expense of the federal government. Alabama is only able to balance it's budget and have paved roads and infra-structure capable of supporting a modern economy due to federal welfare.
If a state should really want to secede then it should reform its own tax and payment system first so it can function as an independent nation. Until that is done this is all just fantasy and reminds me of a recent quote I heard.
If the prospect of changing the way you live terrifies you, but the thought of facing the consequences of the way you live terrifies you just as much, daydreaming that some outside force will come along and change everything for you can be a convenient way to avoid having to think about the future you’re making for yourself.
~John Micheal Greer
Sorry but I had to laugh, mainly because of the quality of the people we elect to Montgomery.
But you are right, the tax money collected will go to Alabama, the problem is the Alabama spends more in tax money than it collects (state + federal) and that is the point I was trying to make.
I am for local government and local solutions for local problems. I just find that most people do not realize that the services they want the government to provide for them costs more then they are willing to pay. I am mainly talking about my small town, but it can refer to higher levels of government
Is that just transfer payments, or does it include extra sources of local economic benefit such as military bases?
Federalists and the reality of national defense shifted the balance of power from the states to the federal government by the time of ratification of the BOR, which, for political purposes, set limits on federal power.
IOW, the Constitution establishes federal supremacy. The BOR bars the federal government's superseding any rights not specified to it in the Constitution and lists some such rights, specifically. Read 2A in the context of the times, and it says that, though we shall have federal supremacy and the military force necessary to maintain it, neither federal supremacy or its military shall infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the people shall retain the right.
Interestingly, the McDonald decision says 2A bars states too.