Replies

Actually, he’s right in a way. This is because there is more to guns than just personal ownership.

Right now, States are asserting that guns and ammunition *manufactured* in their State, and solely for use in their State, are outside of federal jurisdiction.

“States or local government [should] be allowed to control guns.”

At the State level, for example, there should be regulations that guns and ammo must be made to some quality standard, so they don’t blow up and injure the user. There are also regulations that guns cannot be sold to felony criminals and the insane. Likewise, States and municipalities can determine where shooting is permitted or prohibited for safety reasons. Owning is not the same as using.

There are also rules for the safe storage of ammo, and its proximity to compressed gases, solvents and fuels, paints, etc. States might even set up proper disposal rules for discarded guns and ammo.

Perhaps his error is in calling it “gun control”, but the confusion would exist just the same with other expressions.

Herman Cain's downfall on this issue (and others) is that he actually knows what he's talking about, and takes it for granted others know also.

States clearly have the right to regulate firearms in some fashion:

the issuance of licenses
ban the purchase of firearms by felons
ban the purchase of firearms by the insane
regulation of dealers (in the same way a grocery is regulated on the sale of food)
regulation of the types of weapons that may be possesed in a state (is a ban on bazoka ownership an infringement on the 2nd amendment?)

We may not agree on every state regulation (I know I don't), but that doesn't mean there aren't some areas where a state does have some legitimate control.

The 2nd amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does not say: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the government shall pass no law that has anything to do with firearms.

Can a state can pass laws that regulate guns within their state that doesn't infringe on the 2nd amendment rights? If they can (even in the slightest, most insignificant way), then you've established that states can "control" guns.

The question then becomes how much control is allowed under the 2nd amendment. I happen to think we've gone way too far to the left in this country--the founders envisioned owning a gun to be as common as owning a horse; on the other hand, I don't think it's accurate to say the founders envisioned states having absolute zero say as to firearms within the state's boarders.

I there anyone here willing to say state laws against owning a bazoka or the criminally insane from owning a gun is an infringement on their 2nd amendment right to bear arms? If not, then you are admiting (publicly) that there is a state right to gun control.

Cain's position seemed pretty clear. He strongly supports the right to bear arms and doesn't believe the federal government should be regulating arms, but understands there is some ability for states to regulate arms.