Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Gun control' advocates suddenly embrace state sovereignty
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 26 October, 2011 | Kurt Hofmann

Posted on 10/27/2011 5:03:39 AM PDT by marktwain

Yesterday, H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011," introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), passed a House Judiciary Committee vote, and thus now goes to the House floor. The bill's prospects there look bright, given the fact that even if 27 of its 245 co-sponsors failed to vote for it, that would still leave it with bipartisan majority support.

This, as one might imagine, has put the anti-self-defense lobby in a state of hysterical outrage. The Brady Campaign, for example, has renamed it the "Packing Heat on Your Street Act" (named, perhaps, by the same not very gifted intern who renamed full capacity magazines "assault clips," or the even more ludicrous "Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes"), and has been shrieking (and lying) about it for weeks.

Yesterday, H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011," introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), passed a House Judiciary Committee vote, and thus now goes to the House floor. The bill's prospects there look bright, given the fact that even if 27 of its 245 co-sponsors failed to vote for it, that would still leave it with bipartisan majority support.

This, as one might imagine, has put the anti-self-defense lobby in a state of hysterical outrage. The Brady Campaign, for example, has renamed it the "Packing Heat on Your Street Act" (named, perhaps, by the same not very gifted intern who renamed full capacity magazines "assault clips," or the even more ludicrous "Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes"), and has been shrieking (and lying) about it for weeks. Advertisement

In Brady Campaign Acting President Dennis "What People?" Henigan's latest Huffington Post column, he brings up the "states' rights" (since states have powers, rather than rights, a more accurate term would be "state sovereignty") argument:

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; secondamendment; statepower
Kurt has it right about state power, not state "rights". States do not have "rights". States have powers; people have rights.
1 posted on 10/27/2011 5:03:40 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Even if it passes, it will NEVER be brought up for a vote in the Senate, never.


2 posted on 10/27/2011 5:10:03 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Eh, Handgun Control inc. , may have a point, as much as I do not enjoy saying that, a State should be able to organize their affairs as they see fit.

Then again, the same people who hypocritically advocate for State Sovereignty on this issue, have no problem tossing that overboard when the issue is something they support.


3 posted on 10/27/2011 5:11:52 AM PDT by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; Joe Brower

ping


4 posted on 10/27/2011 5:13:07 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"States have powers; people have rights."

I think that you will find, on examination, that the people have both rights AND powers (...reserved to the states respectively, or to the people...). The innate powers of the people aren't mentioned much these days, and have been much usurped by all levels of government, but the individual citizen absolutely has legal powers under law (to make arrests, as one example).

5 posted on 10/27/2011 5:17:30 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
SSDD. Typical liberal hypocrisy -- when the law's on their side, they're all for it, and when it's not, they want it tossed out the window.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

6 posted on 10/27/2011 5:32:52 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: padre35
I have an analogous hypothetical question for you: Should Maryland be able to refuse to recognize the Idaho driver's license of a person visiting or passing through Maryland from Idaho?

Setting aside the constitutional issues raised by ANY branch/level of government in this country restricting the Peoples' right to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Constitution certainly appears to give congress the power to decide various 'licensing' issues between/among the states:

Article IV, Section 1 - Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

7 posted on 10/27/2011 5:33:02 AM PDT by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: padre35
“Eh, Handgun Control inc. , may have a point, as much as I do not enjoy saying that, a State should be able to organize their affairs as they see fit.”

Not if it is to deny a right expressly spelled out in the constitution. They no more power to do that than they do to bring back slavery.

8 posted on 10/27/2011 5:34:15 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

If communists have to embrace Christianity in order to advance communism, they’ll do so, and have.

It’s no wonder they selectively support state sovereignty and federalism - the end goal is still the same.


9 posted on 10/27/2011 5:36:38 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Of course. You can’t expect a horse like that to change it’s stripes. They have one goal, our subjugation.


10 posted on 10/27/2011 5:49:21 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

MD has reciprocity agreements with other states to accept thier drivers licenses, the people of the state of maryland accent to it.

What folks may not realize about this effort is, what the Federal Govt is involved in, they control, a future Admin could make the laws so restrictive that the CCW process becomes unpalatable.

Wereas if there is no federal meddling in this, each state is then open to activism, you fellas are only seeing what you want to see in this effort.


11 posted on 10/27/2011 5:50:31 AM PDT by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: padre35
...a State should be able to organize their affairs as they see fit.

A State should, right up until it starts infringing on our Rights. The Bill of Rights applies to all US Citizens living in US Controlled territory. Regardless of "home rule" cities or State "powers".

12 posted on 10/27/2011 5:52:16 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Slavery was specifically abolished in the 13th and 14th amendments, your analogy is offbase.

Each state has been free to set it’s own laws about the RTKBA, if one read the article one would see that Boxer or Feinstein already tried a backdoor CA style CCW permitting system imposed by the FedGov, who is to say 10 yrs from now, with this precedent set, that such an effort would not prove successful?

You cannot do so.


13 posted on 10/27/2011 5:53:10 AM PDT by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

By putting this issue under the federal umbrella, do you think further increasing of rights is likely, or less likely?

The Constitutions of the Several States applies to RTKBA..for that state, as the DC v Heller case showed, States may impose reasonable limits on the State, but cannot outright deny the RTKBA.

By expanding the scope of the FedGov one is merely opening the door to yet more restrictions, though I doubt one realizes it.


14 posted on 10/27/2011 5:56:03 AM PDT by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: padre35

Can a State regulate freedom of Religion or Free Speech as they please????? The 2nd has been incorporated and is the be enforced aganist State infringement.


15 posted on 10/27/2011 6:02:01 AM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: padre35
By putting this issue under the federal umbrella, do you think further increasing of rights is likely, or less likely?

I think it's a clusterf*ck of epic proportions cobbled together to try and redress other even f*ckier clusters perpetrated by previous legislators and court Justices.

All we need is for RKBA to once again be regarded as "the Supreme Law of the Land, the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" and stupid stunt legislation like this one wouldn't need to be attempted.

As long as this legislation sticks to making Carry licenses akin to marriage/driving licenses... It won't do additional harm. I ain't holding my breathe that the current crop of GOP-ers can get that clean a bill past Dingy Harry's Senate or Zero's veto pen.

16 posted on 10/27/2011 6:05:01 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: padre35; basil
What folks may not realize about this effort is, what the Federal Govt is involved in, they control, a future Admin could make the laws so restrictive that the CCW process becomes unpalatable.

BINGO!!! What the government giveth.....the government can taketh away!!! The only "style" of law that I want is constitutional carry like VT/AK gun laws.

17 posted on 10/27/2011 6:21:00 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“assault clips,”

They should rename to Ignorance Incorporated. Its bad enough ‘hicap magazines’ is still being used...they’re regular capacity. Its the Clinton 10rd mags that should get the nickname.


18 posted on 10/27/2011 6:29:38 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; everyone; All

19 posted on 10/27/2011 6:47:37 AM PDT by onyx (You're here on FR, so support it! Compiling New Sarah Ping List. Let me know if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: padre35

Actually “slavery” was not abolished. It was merely restricted by legislation. A person can be sentenced to slavery if duly convicted.


20 posted on 10/27/2011 7:15:50 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Forced diversity causes dissent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Even if it passes, it will NEVER be brought up for a vote in the Senate, never.

Correct, but only until we can take firm control of the Senate next election, just a year away. If we get the right combo: A real conservative for POTUS and a solid conservate majority in BOTH houses of the Congress, we can do so much damage to the antis agenda that it will take them until the tricentenial to get back to square one. They'll all have to move to France with the rest of the surrender monkeys.

21 posted on 10/27/2011 8:17:02 AM PDT by ExSoldier ("Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil: It has no point.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Well, here is one of the pratfalls:

Say this legislation passes, the FedGov will have to then put some bureaucratic agency in charge of it...who will it be?

Assume it is the ATFE, what happens if some Admin, or Senate, or more drastically, House, then charges the ATFE with collecting fees/taxes to support the scheme?

Like Class II weapons?

They could make the fees, duly regulated under the Commerce Clause, 1,000 per yr, or more.

Far better to take a Heller v DC approach and to pick off the reluctant/hostile states in court then to stick this under the federal umbrella.


22 posted on 10/27/2011 12:12:13 PM PDT by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: padre35
Ok. So what is your alternative? Keep in mind the current political climate.

As a side note, please also keep in mind that I believe the system is 100% incapable of fixing itself and that we will need to take up arms to get our Constitutional Republic restored.

23 posted on 10/27/2011 12:23:35 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Activism and performance and facts, the same way the pro abotion argument was turned on it’s ear, it may seem impossible, but killing babies in buckets of water was acceptable even 10 yrs ago, and that was fully protected by corrupt leadership.

There is no power quite like an idea whose time has come.


24 posted on 10/27/2011 2:33:48 PM PDT by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: padre35

>Eh, Handgun Control inc. , may have a point, as much as I do not enjoy saying that, a State should be able to organize their affairs as they see fit.
>Then again, the same people who hypocritically advocate for State Sovereignty on this issue, have no problem tossing that overboard when the issue is something they support.

You are generally correct; however, most of the amendments [in the Bill of Rights] are written in the passive voice which indicates that the actor is irrelevant but the action is.
The sixth, for example, says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation[...]”

Therefore any prosecution, whether by federal or by state, should be covered, no?
Likewise, the second says: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The non-general ones specify who is to be bound from doing what; like the first: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Oddly enough, what we see in jurisprudence is an inversion of sorts; they use the 14th amendment to justify a doctrine of ‘incorporation’ which, by their usage, is some magical process which transforms the text of the various amendments. For example, though Congress is specifically named in the first amendment, it has been used to justify prohibiting State legislatures from enacting laws as would be prohibited to Congress.


25 posted on 10/27/2011 5:07:16 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u; padre35

>Actually “slavery” was not abolished. It was merely restricted by legislation. A person can be sentenced to slavery if duly convicted.

Very true.
I think one possible answer to illegal immigration is to make the punishment of conviction slavery, for no more than the [cumulative] time illegally present in the US if greater than one year, but in no wise less than one year.


26 posted on 10/27/2011 5:13:30 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson