A Discussion About Gun Laws

The gun store guys discuss gun laws, ordinances, etc.. in different states:

The point they are trying to make is that the laws should be the same for every American, no matter where they live.  I totally agree with that.

Thoughts?  Do you think ownership, purchase, carry, etc… restrictions are for the greater good?

15 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Frank June 3, 2012 at 02:15 am

State sovereignty anyone?

Reply

frank II June 3, 2012 at 05:53 am

agreed… 10th amendment.

Reply

hydepark June 3, 2012 at 10:41 am

Yeah I agree with the Franks here, but if you guys will notice our Federal Government only accepts states’ rights when the laws lean in their favor. They will never allow the Firearms Freedom Act ( already passed in several states since 2009 ) to take full effect yet they never tried to stop Chicago, New York, DC, etc. to outright ban handguns until the Supreme Court Heller decision.

States’ rights is what makes this country special (yes among many other things) and for the most part I believe we are coddled into believing we really have a 10th Amendment when in actual reality it’s just another example of our government always seeming to be able to “have it both ways.”

Reply

Bilbo June 3, 2012 at 09:35 am

Be careful what u wish for….

Reply

Charlie June 3, 2012 at 09:47 am

The name of the country is the “United States of America,” not “America With a Supremely Powerful Central Government and Fifty (57?) Insignificant Political Subdivisions.” This indicates that the people who constructed the Constitution thought of the individual states as the sovereign entity who would work together to the benefit of the country (eg., each other) and their citizens. A certain degree of interstate uniformity was established with the Bill of Rights, including maintaining sovereignty with the 10th Amendment. For more info, research the concept of “federalism.”

That said, it is reasonable to presume that avoiding the infringement of exercising certain rights should entail a certain degree of uniformity among the states. I am very leery, however, of that sentence being interpreted as carte blanche for the federal government to wade in with the creation, application and enforcement of whatever standards Washington deems necessary, whether those standards come from the citizens, the government bureaucracy, Congress or the courts.

I think that it is up to the states to establish uniformity among themselves, and accept the use of Constitutional means to do so. Amendment 14, paragraph 1, states: ….”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (emphasis mine). That language would seem to allow for lawsuits in federal court(s) against states which abridge rights established in other areas of the Constitution. It would seem that by agreeing to be part of the United States of America each state thereby also agrees to conform to the letter and intent of the Constitution; since each state after the original 13 had to petition to become one of the United States, acceptance of that premise would be established.

The hard part is getting each of the infringing states to rectify their infringement.

Reply

SiGraybeard June 3, 2012 at 10:13 am

It really can be hard to balance the 10th and 14th amendments, for sure, but how about this analogy?

All 50 states recognize a Uniform Motor Vehicle code, so that if you drive through any state, your drivers’ license is valid and the same laws basically apply. It applies uniform standards to traffic lights, traffic laws, and even the number and placement of lights.

Why can’t we have the same thing for guns? A valid concealed carry permit from one state works in any other state, and if you follow the rules for handling a firearm to fly across the country, you don’t end up in jail in New Jersey if your flight gets cancelled (look it up). The states pretty much do this – but you can still end up in trouble over things like being allowed in the bar area of a restaurant or not. Around here (Florida), in my county, private gun sales at a show are like selling your used lawnmower; as long as you’re OK with the buyer, it’s done. In the next county over, you have to take your private transaction to an FFL and pay them to do the transfer for you – to “close the gun show loophole”.

And I’ve said it before, but the FFL system doesn’t add any security that can’t be done with online purchasing now. There’s technology to digitally sign a “e-4473” online that’s just as secure as signing it in a store. It protects the small local seller (their incentive to oppose change) but doesn’t improve security. There’s no need for this system any more.

Reply

Jim P. June 3, 2012 at 10:51 am

If you haven’t heard S.2188 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 is in front of the Judiciary Committee. Apparently Feinstein is trying to hold it up.

Reply

Jim P. June 3, 2012 at 10:49 am

Well the video of the week that is my favorite is this one.

He was stopped for OC and basically told the cops to go to hell.

Reply

Church June 3, 2012 at 02:50 pm

Bravo to that gentleman.

Reply

paul kimble June 3, 2012 at 07:52 pm

yah because all of these bipartisan laws like the nfa act of 1943, gca of 1968, firearm owners protection act of 1986, the 1989 semi-automatic firearms importation ban, and the 1994 assault weapons ban have kept guns away from criminals and other people who would have used them to hurt innocent people. we should thank our duly elected officials for having the foresight to protect us from these bad people and ourselves.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

R-I-T-E?

Reply

Mark June 4, 2012 at 11:49 am

As others are saying, the law should NOT be the same in the whole country. Aside from a few enumerated powers, the rest belong to the people and to the states. Federalism is a great idea. Competition amongst 50 diff. states.

Reply

PJ June 4, 2012 at 09:12 pm

I agree with the rest. Federal government shouldn’t get involved at all. Constitution is pretty clear on that.

Reply

Jeremy June 4, 2012 at 09:50 pm

I’m going to have to side with state sovereignty.

Reply

Fill Yer Hands June 12, 2012 at 11:08 am

The analogy to motor vehicle codes comes up very often, and then people conveniently forget that they are quite different from state to state. Consider the California emmissions regulations. Also, driving ages and licensing requirements differ from state to state. Yes, they are similar in a lot of ways but that is the Fed asserting itself through threat of withholding of road money.

We are and should remain a confederation of sovereign states because all the states are not the same. If we force the same gun laws everywhere we will surely end up with the worse common denominator – especially if the signer of the Massachusetts gun laws gets in the White House, or the current president remains. (Yes, that covers all options.)

Reply

Jim P. June 12, 2012 at 03:48 pm

Actually there is a difference. The right to travel or depart was considered so inherent and fundamentally implied, the founders never spelled it out explicitly in the Constitution. At the same time they didn’t have cars back then so licensing, etc. wasn’t considered.

But then you get to arms — you have a different and very specific written right that was spelled out. SCOTUS with the McDonald and Heller decisions distinctly said that 2nd applies to the states just like the 13th and 14th. There is no tenth amendment finding that can be done.

I do agree with the idea that we remain a confederation of sovereign states. But there some things that do need to apply to all states as a part of the compact. Those are federal constitutional rights; and responibilities.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: