quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Against. Our federalist system should allow the states to regulate for themselves subject to the limits of the Constitution.

We shouldn't have national standards on much of anything.

Those Constitutional limits seem fairly straightforward. “Shall not be infringed.”

I always thought the 14th settled the idea that states can selectively restrict rights, especially in light of Heller/McDonald. Should any other enumerated right be subject to a federalist system? Should a state be allowed to regulate and license churches?

I do not see how an honest reading of the Constitution can find a difference between the prohibitions placed on Congress in the first and second amendments. When we have states actively restricting enumerated rights, I thought it was Congress’ duty to intervene and enforce the provisions of the Constitution. We would never today allow a federalist argument to justify a state’s police to search an out-of-state traveller’s car without PC or a warrant, or deny a traveler any other due process. Why is the second amendment treated so differently?

Your post contains some errors.

One example:

All of the enumerated rights are subject to limits. ALL of them. Your right to free speech is not unfettered. You cannot slander people. And certain kinds of commercial speech are limited - look at all the regulations the FDA can impose on advertisements for medical advertising. Square that with "make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." You can't, free speech can be abridged in certain ways.

The 4th amendment requires that no warrant issue but upon probable cause, yet the police may search your person and car in some circumstances with no warrant at all, never mind one supported by probable cause.

Even in Heller, Scalia acknowledged that some limits on the 2d would be permitted. So talking about no limits on the 2d makes no sense and would not be expected by even the most hard-core. (No one seriously doubts that a state, or the feds, can prohibit the possession of 120mm mortars.)

So, as I said, subject to the floor levels guaranteed by the Constitution, the states should be able to regulate carry permits as they choose. That will not mean that there are no limits on gun regulation. The Feds shouldn't abrogate a state's constitutionally proper regulatory scheme. Federalism is a critically important component of our system and we should not abandon it.

If you do, you will find the feds mandating all sorts of things that are better left to the states. Educational requirements for example.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
Anyone else listening on C-Span?

Alcee Hastings cracks me up. Where can I get an "AK-47 multiple firing gun"? Sounds like a blast.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
It's (2A) already being abused by state and local governments, law abiding citizens cannot traverse freely through NY or NJ without fear of imprisonment when transporting a firearm, much less carry of that firearm.

Each state should be able to set its own rules and laws, just as they do for a drivers license now, hours of instruction, age, where and how, speed limits on state and local roads, all are subject to state laws, however they cannot prohibit a non state resident from driving through their state, in so far as they are in concert with the laws of that state.

Right now you can't even try and be in compliance in NY if you are not a NY citizen, and that is one thing this bill would address forcing states to create regulations that can be followed allowing people to carry through all states.

I'm sure NY will make it next to impossible to comply, and we'll end up with a 2A lawsuit however this would give us the platform to legally force NY to adopt laws that do not restrict lawful carry.

I agree that politicians are not to be trusted, right now we have 50 states full of local politicians that refuse to agree, and in doing so place many of us at risk for becoming a felon simply by crossing a state line.

Fixing the reciprocity issue doesn't mean we're in for having to restrict everyone to the rules of the worst state.