[Balota]

The thread "Countering Gun Control" recently received a post with a link to an extremely well written discourse on the importance of protecting the 2nd Amendment. Following is a quote from that article:

"In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.” "

I believe that the Federal government has no right to require States to pass specific laws and has no right to demand that States enforce Federal law.

By the same token, I believe that States have no right to pass laws on subjects beyond "their proper sphere of authority" and they have no right to enforce such laws.

If a State were to pass a law forbidding people to speak publicly about some subject, it would certainly be challenged immediately and struck down rapidly. If a State were to pass a law allowing slavery or denying people the right to trial by jury or representation, that law would also be struck down. In each case, the State's ill-conceived law clearly violates the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights.

How is it, then, that both Federal and State laws violating 2A are allowed to stand? We don't need more gun legislation. We need less. A lot less.

2A is, by any objective standard, all the permit any law abiding citizen needs to carry any kind of arms, concealed or openly. All other legislation on this subject is either unconstitutional or redundant.

Just my opinion. What's yours?

[Balota]

Here's another quote from the same article.

"7. We believe that Border States should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that Border States will be far more competent at this mission.
"
I happen to disagree with some of this particular point, though I recognize the importance of accomplishing this mission. After correctly observing that the Federal government does NOT have the right to require States to enforce Federal laws, the article goes on the require exactly that. I think it's a little ridiculous to require Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to bear the cost of controlling smuggling for the benefit of all other States.

There is no doubt that the dismal failure (I would call it a disgrace, if not conspiracy with the drug cartels) of "Fast & Furious" reflects poorly on the Federal agencies involved in it. However, it is unclear to me whether that failure is the result of incompetence at the operational level or the executive level (I am inclined to believe the latter). I believe that properly led and managed Federal forces (perhaps some of our military forces) could accomplish the mission.

Another possibility is to provide funding from all States to support active use of Border States National Guard units for the same purpose. That would gain the benefit of local knowledge without imposing the entire cost on the Border States.

Please understand that I have the highest respect for the author(s) of the referenced article and agree with virtually everything in it. I believe there are alternatives as described above that may be worthy of consideration.

Respectfully,

Jeff White

[1911love]

Balota: I've always said that if the first, third, forth or any other amendment was under attack the people wouldn't stand for it and would revolt if not corrected at once. I guess the second is diff than the others, not as valuable. What total BS.

[Flat Tire]

Originally Posted by Balota

I believe that the Federal government has no right to require States to pass specific laws and has no right to demand that States enforce Federal law.

The feds had nothing to do with New York passing the laws they just passed. The State of New York did this on their own without any influence from the feds. Any state can pass laws for that state if they get the votes. The two are not the same. Fed laws are for all and state laws are for each state, it is that simple.

[TNFrank]

A lot depends on the State Constitution and what it says.
If there's nothing in their Constitution about Firearms Rights then they can pass restrictive laws banning firearms BUT you always have the choice to move to a State that is more in line with YOUR views on firearms and liberty in general.
This is what the original intent was when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and gave Most if not ALL of the power to the States and very little to the Federal government.
In a Constitutionally run government like we're suppose to have the Feds should have very little power and there should be very few if any Federal laws on the books.
States would have the freedom to run themselves as they see fit and by the Will of their people.
Unfortunately after the War of Northern Aggression it all went to hell in a hand-basket and the Feds took total control over the States and forced the States to accept Federal laws that were in many cases Unconstitutional and unlawful.
Hopefully some day soon the States will rise up and take back their power from the Feds so we can get our Country back on track.

[Trez]

Originally Posted by TNFrank

A lot depends on the State Constitution and what it says.
If there's nothing in their Constitution about Firearms Rights then they can pass restrictive laws banning firearms BUT you always have the choice to move to a State that is more in line with YOUR views on firearms and liberty in general.
This is what the original intent was when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and gave Most if not ALL of the power to the States and very little to the Federal government.
In a Constitutionally run government like we're suppose to have the Feds should have very little power and there should be very few if any Federal laws on the books.
States would have the freedom to run themselves as they see fit and by the Will of their people.
Unfortunately after the War of Northern Aggression it all went to hell in a hand-basket and the Feds took total control over the States and forced the States to accept Federal laws that were in many cases Unconstitutional and unlawful.
Hopefully some day soon the States will rise up and take back their power from the Feds so we can get our Country back on track.

I agree with this, you were suppose to have the ability to "vote with your feet" if you didnt like the way the majority in your area was voting, and live somewhere that was more to your liking.

[JimRau]

No, states do not have the right to 'infringe' on ANY of the civil rights listed in the 'Bill of Rights', nor do cities or counties. If they did the Jim Crow laws would still be in effect and we would not be required to read the Miranda Warning to those we arrest for state or local offences. State, county, nor city 'rights' can trump individual civil rights!!!
For some unknown reason it would appear that MANY people seem to think our individual civil right to be armed is different than our right to free speech or our right to worship as we please, BUT IT IS NOT!!!
And every person who took an oath as part of their government service, elected or appointed, is in violation of that oath when they pass laws, enforce laws, prosecute, or adjudicate, any one for simple being armed.

[Yunus]

Incorporation is the term you are talking about. I am on my phone and can't search well but Google "2A incorporated constitution" and i think you will find some legal opinions on the issue.

[Sonic82]

Originally Posted by Flat Tire

The feds had nothing to do with New York passing the laws they just passed. The State of New York did this on their own without any influence from the feds. Any state can pass laws for that state if they get the votes. The two are not the same. Fed laws are for all and state laws are for each state, it is that simple.

If you're talking about this last go round 2 weeks ago, there was no vote...the Gov did it on his own with the stroke of a pen.

[Balota]

Originally Posted by Flat Tire

The feds had nothing to do with New York passing the laws they just passed. The State of New York did this on their own without any influence from the feds. Any state can pass laws for that state if they get the votes. The two are not the same. Fed laws are for all and state laws are for each state, it is that simple.

Well, it's almost that simple. You are correct that Fed laws and State laws are not the same. Fed laws are for all. State laws are for that State.

However, States cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution. I maintain that 2A overrules all of the other legislation the restricts arms for law abiding citizens. The recent NY laws are an example of what I believe are unconstitutional legislation.

That is just my opinion. Others maintain that the States have the right to restrict firearms.

What is your opinion on this? And why?