Defensive Carry banner

Who Should Protect/Guarantee our 2A rights?

Who Should Protect Our Rights...Federal or State Government

6K views 109 replies 42 participants last post by  Bark'n 
#1 ·
I have been reviewing many post on other threads and it seems opinions vary. So I am curious to see overall if we as a group think the Federal Government or State Government should be the leader in protecting our 2A rights as guaranteed by BOR.
 
#2 ·
I think Federal law trumps state law ( maybe I'm wrong ) so I would say Federal law. If the feds say no more handguns, can a state NOT follow the rules?
 
#3 · (Edited by Moderator)
I think Federal law trumps state law ( maybe I'm wrong ) so I would say Federal law. If the feds say no more handguns, can a state NOT follow the rules?
Ask California with regards to marijuana, Federal laws say no and California says yes, so they don't enforce the Federal laws.

I voted Federal, but wanted to vote both. I feel it's both their jobs to protect our rights.
 
#4 ·
I voted Federal. State law only controls what happens in that particular states borders. NY/CA/NJ/IL can outlaw whatever they want in the way of so called assault weapons and it does not have any affect here in VA. But if the Federal government bans them that does affect all states.
 
#5 ·
It is a flawed survey; the documents outline our protections. It is our duty as Americans to elect officials who are honest statesmen to ensure that we retain the rights as outlined. These people are elected to both State and Federal offices. My answer: it is our collective respnsibility as voters.
 
#6 ·
You are somewhat correct. It really comes down to an understanding as to whether you want a federal conceal carry law or leave it up the states. IN the end, our responsibilty can only carry us so far. I have writing over 200 letters and emails in the last month, and can do little to influence the elected officials of Virginia. Look at our law regarding concealed carry in restuarants that serve alcohol.
 
#8 ·
Neither should lead at the expense of the other following, in that sense. I'd prefer that honorable elected representatives in all areas fight tooth and nail. The good fight can be fought in both places. Now, if anything, the states are showing the leadership role. The past 20yrs has seen a remarkable increase the ability of upstanding citizens to arm themselves. IMO, that's mostly to the push in key states, not due to some guiding, shining beacon sitting on Capitol Hill.
 
#9 ·
I said the Feds and my only reasoning is to keep the States from defining their own interpretations making it difficult to follow from state to state and having consistancy in the CCW laws and rights to protection. I also didn't want to say the Feds to keep them from repressing rights of every state with the stroke of a pen. To be honest, the only thing I'd like to see from the Feds is a National Right to carry. Reciprocity for all!
 
#10 ·
The responsibility begins with the feds, so I voted feds. The Constitution of the United States of America is a federal document. I agree with others that it is everyone's responsibility to ensure our rights are safeguarded.
 
#14 ·
I think all states should be the same.
"United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands..."


-B
 
#15 ·
Our elected officials are sworn to "uphold and defend" the Constitution. They conveniently forget that these days. They should be held accountable for their negligence.
 
#17 ·
Article VI

...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ....

I believe that clearly makes the federal govt. the protector of the Constitution & BOR.
 
#19 ·
I voted state but it should be federal. But i do not want the federal government to get involved at this point in time cause it would be quite week and not very good interpretation. I am content to drive down the street and lobby my state rep or senator who has more of a say than my representatives at the federal level.

I guess what i am saying is that (atleast the way i see it) the federal government will make laws that will make more states more restrictive then the ones it will loosen up on so it would be a net loss for the Americans in general.
 
#20 ·
I don't think "Protect" so much as "Stop :banned: with them".

Uphold and defend, not modify and interpret. If the founding fathers could come back, there would be an awful lot of pimp slapping going on at Capitol Hill, and I don't doubt that some people would be shot outright as traitors to the Republic.
 
#22 ·
Living is a pro gun state....

and with a anti gun President, for now N Me my state is my present best bet.

However with every election cycle that can change, and not every state has has pro gun Representatives (yes it is their own fault).
So for the good of the majority, and as we already have in the "Bill of Rights" a written guarantee at the federal level. Despite how violently the liberal left may distort and disagree.
This is our one true document proclaiming your, mine and our right, that of the individual, to keep and bear arms with out restrictions based upon cosmetics, cost, availability, or any other limit they may attempt to impose. This as it is written must be enforced despite any hardships, we are all responsible for this document and need to keep it whole!
 
#24 ·
Having the individual States define our rights is contrary to the Constitution.

The Constitution grants us the right to interstate commerce. It grants us the right to travel. It grants us the right to the privileges and immunities of the several states. These are NOT "states' rights" they are federal guarantees.

On top of that, the BOR specifically prevents the gov from taking our weapons and the supreme court has upheld that (Heller) it is an individual right. The 2nd has not been incorporated via the 14th yet but that is in the works and will be done soon.

Firearms legislation is NOT a matter of "states rights." It was a right ceded by the States to the Federal Government by the signing and ratification of the Constitution.
 
#26 ·
The Constitution grants us the right to interstate commerce. It grants us the right to travel. It grants us the right to the privileges and immunities of the several states. These are NOT "states' rights" they are federal guarantees.
Your description is flawed. No constitution in the United States, including the US Constitution, grants rights to anyone for any reason. The constitutions grant certain authorized powers to the government body they are written for, with certain exceptions explicitly described in both the federal and state constitutions. No government body in the United States possess rights.

On top of that, the BOR specifically prevents the gov from taking our weapons and the supreme court has upheld that (Heller) it is an individual right. The 2nd has not been incorporated via the 14th yet but that is in the works and will be done soon.
The Second Amendment has always been understood to be a right of the people, not a right of the "state". No court case indicates otherwise. Having witnessed the states overall move towards much friendlier laws concerning firearms and firearms ownership without any "assistance" from the 14th Amendment, I'm quite happy with the 2nd Amendment's lack of "incorporation".


-B
 
#28 ·
Because the federal government will screw it up, accidentally or on purpose. Imagine this. The feds create a national CHL. They then set the rules the states have to follow. One is you can't carry in bars but you can carry in restaurants that have a bar in them. There are three things this does. One, it might make it nicer for me in Ohio as we can't carry at Applebees. Now we can. But, it makes it stricter in Indiana as they can carry in bars. Also, this makes people in states like Vermont and Alaska, where they don't need CHLs to carry, illegal without the CHL.

Two more things. Who in the federal government do you want making the laws on this? The democratic leadership we have now? I sure don't. What agency is going to regulate them? The BATFE? With their track record? I sure don't want them in charge. Plus, all gun grabbers would have to focus on is the federal government to get stuff passed. Right now the states are in charge and there are very many more state reps they have to bribe to get changes than federal reps.

it only took two years for the House, Senate and the Presidency to swing to the anti side.
 
#29 ·
"Incorporation", or case law declaring that the provisions of the Bill of Rights in question apply to the States as well as to the federal government, was only hinted at in the 1890s (in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Chicago), and only truly began in the mid 20's with Gitlow v. New York (1925). Keep this in mind.

Slavery was a legal practice in the United States from the date of the Constitution's ratification, and the practice wasn't officially outlawed until 1919 with the passage of the 18th Amendment. The courts condoned slavery for almost 150 years. After this, the United States condoned "Separate but Equal", an invention of the Courts, I should add, until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The courts condoned institutionalized segregation for 60 years. Women could not vote in the vast majority of United States until the passage of the 19th Amendment. The courts condoned barring women from voting for almost 150 years.

Do you have any guarantee that the Courts won't reverse their opinion on "incorporation"? Do you have any idea how many long-standing positions the Supreme Court has reversed in its history?

The shift from less to more friendly laws towards firearms and firearms ownership is already in play, and has been for a very long time. States have been moving in this direction for nearly a century, a quarter of that before "incorporation" ever came to life, and three quarters of that after it came to life and without the Second Amendment ever being "incorporated".

Think about that.


-B
 
#50 ·
I still don't understand your point. Incorporation of the 2nd amendment doesn't give the federal government any additional power to violate our rights. They can continue to fail to protect our rights from state infringement. I don't see how that empowers the states to violate our rights.
 
#32 ·
You missed two answers in your Poll..... the Judicical Branch, and

------------------------------- US -----------------------------------------

that's who needs to really make sure our rights are protected.

While you are debating the glory of the Fedl Govt... you might also debate the fact that in the 21st Century we still have a Natl Guard that is controlled by the STATES, another element of the Constitution.... and State Rights are also in there... .....

including the right to secede from the Union.
 
#34 ·
Say what?

While you are debating the glory of the Fedl Govt... you might also debate the fact that in the 21st Century we still have a Natl Guard that is controlled by the STATES, another element of the Constitution.... and State Rights are also in there... .....

including the right to secede from the Union.
My goodness!!!!!!
You can't be serious.
Can you say," squished like a bug. " Even if the question of secession had not been settled 150 years ago, there is no way it could happen in today's world. SPLAT. There is no state that could stand up to the Federal government.
 
#51 ·
Your premise is almost correct. The original purpose of the BOR was to limit the federal government.

That original purpose was changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment. At that point in time, the individual states GAVE UP their rights to legislate the rights enumerated in the BOR.

You can argue until you are blue in the face (and hold your breath and kick your feet too) but you cannot conclude that states rights continue to include the original amendments to the constitution and that the federal gov has no ability to legislate there. That position fails to include the 14th amendment which is a duly enacted and ratified part of the Constitution within its rationale.

This is why the "States' Rights" argument fails completely when discussing the RTKBA. Just as it does when discussing speech, religion, search & seizure, self incrimination, etc. The issue is moot because when the 14th was ratified, the individual states ceded that power.
 
#40 ·
Why would any government want to protect the individual rights of citizens? It serves no purpose to them. We are in a constant battle, one side trying to protect its rights, the other tryin to usurp them.

Its the individual that is responsible for protecting his rights. When the government passes a law they further restrict your rights. Sometimes this is good, but its the people that must make sure the government never gets to powerful.

Michael
 
#46 ·
Of the people

By oath officials must uphold rights as they have sworn
To preserve a d protect our constitution

It is also in their best interest to do so.

Of course we would not be having this discussion if
Things worked as well in practice as in theory.
 
#41 ·
I say Federal; for some reason it makes more sense to me.
 
#44 ·
The rights should be protected on a federal level by we the people. The federal level is the baseline by which all the states must play by, and if they don't, then it's not valid, however, this should be "self-governed" by us, to ensure the safekeeping of our constitutional rights.
 
#45 ·
I didn't vote, because the correct option wasn't listed.
Who should protect our rights?
Well we should.
We can do that by being educated intelligent voters, quite a rarity these days.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top