I think the real question concerning this legislation is........
Whether or not the congress has the power to enforce Aritcle IV section 2 of the Constitution.
We can all agree, I think, that most of theh legislation passed under the judicially expanded commerce clause is a major usurpation of power which is why I don't like that angle.
As for the power to enforce IV sec. 2, I don't think that they have it. Besides, there is a much more direct route in codifying the 14A which is also brought up in the "findings" of this bill. I think that's the angle that should be concentrated upon.
The Declaration of Independance may not have legal force behind it but it is looked upon, along with many other founding era documents, as a guide in interpreting the intent of the Constitution and BoR so it is definitely valid in the conversation. In reading the Declaration and the other documents I believe that incorporating the BoR was surely the correct thing to do. If the states abridge a citizens rights, it gives him/her a way to fight it. If governments are instituted among men to secure unalienable rights, there must be power with which to enforce that if nothing else.
The enforcement of peoples real and actual rights; eg. any rights that don't abridge the equal rights of others, should not be inherrently dangerous to liberty. In fact, the opposite should be true in that it is the very reason for government to exist in the first place. In that light, this bill should be very short and simple. It should really just enforce true 2A constitutional carry. Instead of this poor excuse for a bill, the congress should one-up the courts and just do it. "All citizens; their rights, privileges and imunities gauranteed under the 9th amendment and 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, have the right; and may carry and bear arms, in the manner of their choosing in any place they have the right to be." Plain, simple and easy to understand.
Take that SCotUS!
