sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
I'm putting a very long reply here. The reply is to a post made here:http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=2331&forum_id=54
TEX1N wrote: [/b]
My concern on national reciprocity is three-fold
1 - My biggest concern is that I do not want the federal government to have the precedent to regulate stuff like this. The wonderful thing about federalism is that if you happen to live in a sucky state like Illinois, you can easily hop on over to another state. If we set the precedent that the Federal government can regulate the carrying of guns, it's only a matter of time before McCarthy, Kennedy, et al decide to regulate it the OTHER way. And once there'sa bad national law on carrying, it'll really suck.
I realize that just because they don't regulate it yet doesn't mean that the gun grabbers couldn't do it ANYWAY, but I think having such a sweeping requirement that all states have to allow carry by their citizens would (a) unite the non-shall-issue states together to lobby Congress to regulate carrying, which - since it was now nationalized -would effect ALL of us, not just thepoor sapswho live in states likeIllinois and (b) make it easier to justify nationalrestrictions on carrying in the future.
Summary: I don't trust the feds. Keep them as far away from my gun rights as possible. I feel as if I have no control over what they do...like they have no ears for what the people want. Unlike a state legislature, which can be convinced with grassroots efforts, the Congress is like a wild animal...best just to stay out of its way.
2 - On a more principled note, I do not believe that the power to force states to recognize carry permits can be found anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Carrying a gun is not interstate commerce. I think the federal safe passage law is as far as the feds should go.
We (are supposed to)live in a country of sovereign states loosely knitted together by a federal government for the limited purposes of commerce and common defense. I like it that way (or like the idea of it being that way). I'm not willing to give up on the Constitution just yet.
3 - As far as the 2nd Amendment authorizing the bearing of arms as an argument for federal intervention, as you know, The Bill of Rights does not GIVE power to the federal government to do anything. It merely states the things the federal government cannot do. So using the 2nd Amendment as a justification for government action doesn't work. To look for what the federal government is allowed to do, article I section 8 has an exaustive list and I don't see allowing the carry of weapons there (see #2 above).
Further, although states are definitely infringing on our god-given rights to RKBA, they should be sued individually, since they are infringing on the right. The Federal government is not in the equation unless they are the ones infringing on the right (As in the Heller case).
TEX1N wrote:
I really don't see how taking power away from a more local government that's actually closer to the people and giving it to the distantfederal government implies that the people have more power. The states that infringe on RKBA have done so because their people want them to. I don't think "the people" have the right to regulate my right of self-defense anyway. That's why it's a right.
TEX1N wrote:
Hmmmm...well, I definitely don't believe there's any such thing as"collective right" (it's a contradiction in terms), so let me try to understand how you came to that conclusion.
Are you saying that by saying states can regulate RKBA, that the right is not an individual one, but merely a right vested in certain collections of citizens who live within the borders of certain states? That's a good point!
It's not that I don't believe individuals have this right. It's that I don't think the federal constitution vests the power in the federal government to interfere with the affairs of sovereign states and tell them what rights to protect. States thatinfringe on rights should be sued individually under the state and federal constitutions.
Keep in mind that there's no federal requirement that states recognize each others' drivers licenses. They did it completely on their own. I'd like to work at this from the state level.
I'm putting a very long reply here. The reply is to a post made here:http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=2331&forum_id=54
TEX1N wrote: [/b]
I've heard (the states rights)argument against national reciprocity from a few people. I'm also a states' rights guy, but I also support a national reciprocity bill. Mainly because I believe the RKBA is a natural right recognized by the federal constitution. Therefore, I don't have any problem with the feds taking steps (no matter how small) to force the states to recognize that right (even if it's only part of that right).
My concern on national reciprocity is three-fold
1 - My biggest concern is that I do not want the federal government to have the precedent to regulate stuff like this. The wonderful thing about federalism is that if you happen to live in a sucky state like Illinois, you can easily hop on over to another state. If we set the precedent that the Federal government can regulate the carrying of guns, it's only a matter of time before McCarthy, Kennedy, et al decide to regulate it the OTHER way. And once there'sa bad national law on carrying, it'll really suck.
I realize that just because they don't regulate it yet doesn't mean that the gun grabbers couldn't do it ANYWAY, but I think having such a sweeping requirement that all states have to allow carry by their citizens would (a) unite the non-shall-issue states together to lobby Congress to regulate carrying, which - since it was now nationalized -would effect ALL of us, not just thepoor sapswho live in states likeIllinois and (b) make it easier to justify nationalrestrictions on carrying in the future.
Summary: I don't trust the feds. Keep them as far away from my gun rights as possible. I feel as if I have no control over what they do...like they have no ears for what the people want. Unlike a state legislature, which can be convinced with grassroots efforts, the Congress is like a wild animal...best just to stay out of its way.
2 - On a more principled note, I do not believe that the power to force states to recognize carry permits can be found anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Carrying a gun is not interstate commerce. I think the federal safe passage law is as far as the feds should go.
We (are supposed to)live in a country of sovereign states loosely knitted together by a federal government for the limited purposes of commerce and common defense. I like it that way (or like the idea of it being that way). I'm not willing to give up on the Constitution just yet.
3 - As far as the 2nd Amendment authorizing the bearing of arms as an argument for federal intervention, as you know, The Bill of Rights does not GIVE power to the federal government to do anything. It merely states the things the federal government cannot do. So using the 2nd Amendment as a justification for government action doesn't work. To look for what the federal government is allowed to do, article I section 8 has an exaustive list and I don't see allowing the carry of weapons there (see #2 above).
Further, although states are definitely infringing on our god-given rights to RKBA, they should be sued individually, since they are infringing on the right. The Federal government is not in the equation unless they are the ones infringing on the right (As in the Heller case).
TEX1N wrote:
(A national carry law)would take a little of the power to regulate firearms from the other states and give it back to the people, where it belongs.
I really don't see how taking power away from a more local government that's actually closer to the people and giving it to the distantfederal government implies that the people have more power. The states that infringe on RKBA have done so because their people want them to. I don't think "the people" have the right to regulate my right of self-defense anyway. That's why it's a right.
TEX1N wrote:
The main problem I have with your argument, against the national reciprocity because of states' rights, is that it implies a collective right to keep and bear arms, and not an individual right.
Hmmmm...well, I definitely don't believe there's any such thing as"collective right" (it's a contradiction in terms), so let me try to understand how you came to that conclusion.
Are you saying that by saying states can regulate RKBA, that the right is not an individual one, but merely a right vested in certain collections of citizens who live within the borders of certain states? That's a good point!
It's not that I don't believe individuals have this right. It's that I don't think the federal constitution vests the power in the federal government to interfere with the affairs of sovereign states and tell them what rights to protect. States thatinfringe on rights should be sued individually under the state and federal constitutions.
Keep in mind that there's no federal requirement that states recognize each others' drivers licenses. They did it completely on their own. I'd like to work at this from the state level.