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

Skip to comments.

Gun Rights vs. States’ Rights
National Review ^ | November 10, 2011 | Robert VerBruggen

Posted on 11/14/2011 2:46:06 PM PST by neverdem

Evidently, the House is likely to pass a bill that would require states to respect concealed-carry permits issued in other states — even if the traveler’s home state has very different criteria for awarding a permit.

Concealed carry is a good idea, and so is reciprocity when states enact it voluntarily — but this is a bad idea, as it goes beyond the proper functions of the federal government. The stated constitutional justifications(PDF) for the law are to protect the Second Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment), to protect the right of interstate travel, and to protect interstate commerce, but none is even slightly convincing.

As the Supreme Court noted in its Heller decision(PDF), bans on concealed carry do not run afoul of the Second Amendment — they have a long history in the U.S., and courts have typically upheld them under the Second Amendment and state analogues. Thus, states have every right to decide the criteria by which they’ll grant permits (if they grant them at all), and to decide which other states’ permits they’ll respect. In fact, the exceptions written into the law itself — states that completely ban concealed carry don’t have to respect other states’ permits — show that no one takes this argument seriously; if carrying a gun in a state where you’re not licensed to carry is a Second Amendment right, why does it stop at the borders of the most anti-gun states?

While the Supreme Court has recognized a right of interstate travel, surely it doesn’t protect carrying items you’re not licensed to carry in the states you’re traveling to. And while Congress is notorious for abusing the Commerce Clause, I’m not seeing how concealed-carry permit holders’ not being able to carry while traveling “substantially affects” interstate commerce.

The only other justification for the law I can even think of is the “full faith and credit” clause, which requires states to respect each others’ “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” — but this case would seem to fall under the “public-policy exception.”

And the Constitution aside, this is just bad policy from a conservative perspective, as it tramples on states’ rights. It’s almost an inverse of the Defense of Marriage Act — rather than allowing states to make their own laws and disregard licenses granted by states with different policies, it informs states that out-of-state travelers don’t have to play by their rules.

UPDATE: A commenter points me to Dave Kopel’s defense of the law(PDF). It doesn’t convince me the law is constitutional in the true sense, but it does convince me the law would likely hold up in court — apparently, once a gun moves in interstate commerce, the federal government can regulate it any way it pleases, under Supreme Court precedent.

UPDATE II: Other commenters make a good case for the “full faith and credit” clause. Its second sentence: “And Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” So far as I can tell, not much has been written about the limits on this power of Congress’s. (Here, they have exercised considerable discretion in declaring that all concealed-carry licenses are valid in all states that respect such licenses, no matter how restrictive or liberal their criteria for granting them, and yet are not valid in states that don’t grant such licenses at all.) I’m surprised that the law’s drafters didn’t invoke this clause explicitly, though I still tend to think that states themselves should decide whether other states’ permits are granted according to acceptable criteria.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 last
To: SoJoCo
But in any case, if any sort of restriction is to be placed on who can carry a gun and where I'd rather those restrictions were made at the state level and not the federal. This law goes against that.

I'm concerned about that aspect too. As others have pointed out upthread, the thin edge of the federal wedge is a dangerous thing to let in here for the first time, even if the immediate intent is good. I'm left with the conundrum of what to do in cases where individual states are violating a baseline level of civil rights. Two ideas present themselves.

Do nothing. Let the tyrannical states drive away all their worthwhile citizens into the arms of states that treat them like they are the engine driving the success of the state. (See California)

Or if action (as opposed to inaction) on the federal level is the best way to go, maybe do it judicially, by saying the states are violating the civil rights of visitors from other states and that they're not allowed to do that.

Anyway, I do agree that opening the door to the idea that federal legislation on this issue is even potentially legitimate is worrisome. Hard to get back in the box once you let it out.

51 posted on 11/15/2011 8:28:06 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
Is there some federal law that says Tennessee has to recognize my Georgia drivers license?

Not sure, but I don't believe so. I think that arose because the states wanted it and got together and made agreements between themselves to do it, sort of like professional licensure or CCW reciprocity agreements between pairs of states but on a universal level.

52 posted on 11/15/2011 8:32:38 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
So residents of Vermont, Alaska, and Wyoming who would

Hey, Hey! Don't leave us Zonies out of that elite group!

53 posted on 11/15/2011 8:38:37 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Sorry, the club is growing too fast for me to keep up - which is a good thing!

Does beg the question of how those states handle visitors packing. A tip sheet would be helpful, if only to say “yes, you can do X” and point out anything we might assume is legal which isn’t (ex.: bar carry legal?).


54 posted on 11/15/2011 8:46:14 AM PST by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I went and checked and you are correct. I had been informed that there was a bill in the hopper that did that but seems to have been dropped in favor of this one. I will be happy support this one if for no other reason than it is sure to piss off the cheese eating butt pirates in San Francisco when Ma & Pa from down on the farm come waltzing in packing their shooting irons.

The rest of us here in California's populous counties are slogging it out in the courts here. It is going to be a long protracted fight.

55 posted on 11/15/2011 9:08:17 AM PST by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
From the article: "As the Supreme Court noted in its Heller decision(PDF), bans on concealed carry do not run afoul of the Second Amendment ..."

Anti-gunners love to read a lot into some pretty simple statements from Heller.

Here's what I found:
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

This is a statement which is historically accurate; that is, "concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld". That statement is not a prediction of what would be decided in a future case.

Here in Breyer's dissent IS a prediction:
But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws—prohibitions on concealed weapons, forfeiture by criminals of the Second Amendment right, prohibitions on firearms in certain locales, and governmental regulation of commercial firearm sales—whose constitutionality under a strict scrutiny standard would be far from clear.

What Breyer is saying is that a "strict scrutiny" standard, which is the only standard consistent with such a fundamental right, would likely not permit the banning of concealed firearms. Given that there has been no "blood running in the streets" in any of the majority of states which permit concealed carry, it is ludicrous to suggest that any state, or the federal government, could establish a "compelling interest" in banning such carry.

The anti-gunners, including those on the Supreme Court, know full well that Heller and McDonald spell the death knell of gun control in the United States.

56 posted on 11/15/2011 9:35:24 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Back in 1989, a California Highway Patrolman pulled me over on Hwy 101 north of LA. He had seen me drive through there with Florida plates once before. He started in about needing to have CA plates and DL and was about halfway through writing a big ticket when I handed him my military ID and informed him I was active duty and exempt from his pissant rules. He walked back to his vehicle mumbling to himself for not looking for a DoD sticker on the windshield.


57 posted on 11/15/2011 11:13:25 AM PST by CholeraJoe (Prepare for Armageddon! Buy brass and lead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
-- Or if action (as opposed to inaction) on the federal level is the best way to go, maybe do it judicially ... --

If enough people wise up to what the old Presser case really says, the federal government will face even more loss of confidence and respect.

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the [Illinois parade permit laws] do not have this effect.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

The federal courts have read this backwards ever since, holding that states MAY prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.

Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States. The courts are uniform in this interpretation. See, e.g., Thomas, 730 F.2d at 42 (1st Cir.); Peoples Rights Org., 152 F.3d at 538-39 n. 18 (6th Cir.); Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269 (7th Cir.); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, 965 F.2d at 730-31 (9th Cir.). Just as Presser had no federal constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" with which to challenge Illinois's license requirement, Bach has none to assert against New York's regulatory scheme. Under Presser, the right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation on the power of States.
Bach v. Pataki, 289 F.Supp.2d 217 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

I would emphatically NOT trust a federal court to get a RKBA case correct. Scalia screwed the pooch on the Heller case, creating a presumption of constitutionality for what he claimed were long standing prohibitions; but the "long standing" part is a figment of his imagination. While pretending to uphold it, Scalia actually reversed another old RKBA case, Miller.

Either Congress corrects this (and this pseudo reciprocity is not the way to fix corrupt courts), or the people admit the government is boss. I think the latter has been in place for generations, and it's all downhill from here. The Congress isn't on the people 's side either, it's a self-serving organization that is beyond "out of control."

58 posted on 11/15/2011 12:56:59 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
Then would you also say that laws forbidding convicted felons from owning a firearm or young children or the mentally impaired from owning firearms would be unconstitutional as well? Or laws preventing the carrying of firearms into court houses or police stations or schools?

All free persons have the right to keep and bear arms; statutes, regulations, ordinances, and other rules whose purpose or effect is to prevent or impede the free exercise of that right are illegitimate.

That having been said, not all persons are free. Children are subject to the will of their parents, convicted criminals serving their sentences are subject to the will of the state, and persons adjudicated incompetent are (to a significant degree) subject to the will of their guardians. The carriage of arms by such people may be legitimately restricted by those with authority over them.

If a person has authority over a certain building or geographic area, and if that person may legitimately expel visitors whom he doesn't like for any reason he sees fit, such a person could if so inclined expelling people found to be in possession of firearms. The person could also expel people who refuse to be searched for firearms or anything else he doesn't like. A person without the authority to expel arbitrary visitors, however, would not have any special authority to expel visitors carrying firearms.

59 posted on 11/15/2011 3:38:46 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
If someone goes to jail for shooting someone or for taking a gun and sticking up a liquor store or for any other violent crime then I'm not sure I want them to be able to carry a firearm when they get out.

I'd strike the words "carry a firearm when they". Some individuals will pose a danger to the public if they not kept under very close supervision (as in a prison), whether or not they are legally allowed to acquire firearms. Other individuals will not pose a danger to the public, whether or not they are legally allowed to acquire firearms. While there are a significant number of people who don't pose much a danger to the public without firearms, but would pose a danger if they had them, the vast majority of those people, while legally allowed to buy a gun, are disinclined to do so; there is thus no need to restrict them.

Thus, even if rules restricting firearm ownership by convicted felons would be constitutionally justifiable, it's unclear that any legitimate good they accomplish would outweigh the illegitimate harm caused when they facilitate the denial of the rights of people who are not accused of having done anything illegal, nor of being incompetent to handle their own affairs.

60 posted on 11/15/2011 3:54:49 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: supercat

What you are saying then, I think, is that the right to bear arms is not an absolute right. But you seem to prefer the arbitrary whims of some unidentified ‘guardian’ to a set policy. If any restrictions are to be made then I prefer that they be made at the state level and not the federal level. As the 10th Amendment provides.


61 posted on 11/15/2011 3:54:56 PM PST by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: supercat

So...you’re in the ‘let a felon buy a gun regardless’ category? That’s your right, and if the people in your state agree with you then I don’t have a problem allowing you to set your laws whatever way you choose. But if the people in my state decide that they don’t want to trust those who had been convicted of violent crimes to own a gun when they get out, or allow a person diagnosed with mental issues to own a gun, or allow a 5 year old to buy a gun even if his guardian says it’s OK, then I believe we should have the right to do so. And I don’t want the federal government to say that some other state can override our laws.


62 posted on 11/15/2011 4:00:44 PM PST by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

If a person is inclined to criminally harm others, forbidding that person from possessing some particular kinds of weapons isn’t apt to make much difference. If a criminal who can’t be trusted with a weapon would be inclined to buy one, why is that person being allowed on the street at all?

With regard to children, their parents should be the ones to determine what they are allowed to have. With regard to those who are mentally incompetent, is there any reason that the standard of proof required to disarm someone should be any lower than the standard of proof required to find them incapable of managing their own affairs?


63 posted on 11/15/2011 4:16:18 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
But you seem to prefer the arbitrary whims of some unidentified ‘guardian’ to a set policy.

Subject to Fourteenth Amendment protections, states are free to set their own standards with regard to how people are adjudicated mentally incompetent, and how the affairs of such persons are managed. It would seem that the legal standard for finding someone sufficiently mentally incompetent that they cannot be allowed to do things like make their purchasing decisions should be pretty similar to that required to disarm them on the basis of mental incompetence.

64 posted on 11/15/2011 4:22:45 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
You don't pay for a right,...

Yes, and no. All too often, you pay for a right in blood.

5.56mm

65 posted on 11/15/2011 4:27:29 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The only other justification for the law I can even think of is the “full faith and credit” clause, which requires states to respect each others’ “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” — but this case would seem to fall under the “public-policy exception.”

So then, there's no problem with a state whose handgun carry licenses aren't recognized by another state thereby denying recognition of that second state's driver's licenses and vehicle license plates?

I predict that the tow truck services around Yellowstone National Park may soon be doing a booming business.

66 posted on 11/15/2011 4:32:05 PM PST by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]




Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Gary Got Lost, and Mystery Solved! This Is the Reason!

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!


Sign up to Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor

67 posted on 11/15/2011 4:38:43 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
If a person goes to jail for armed robbery, for example, then should they have the right to buy a firearm once they get out of jail?

If the individual can't be further trusted with the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, to include firearms use and voting, then it would seem unreasonable to set them loose at all.

If a person has been judged mentally incompetent to stand trial, or if they have mental retardation or seriously diminished mental capacity, then do they have the right to own a firearm?

Note that the new diagnostic manual for psychiatry, generally known as the DSM-V, will be coming out in a few months. And from what I've seen of it, many of the included *syndromes* and *mental conditions* are about to be utilized to deny civil rights to a very large percentage of the citizenry.

Oh, BTW: you forgot to include the one American in Ten who's currently on prescribed anti-depression or anti-psychotic medications. Shouldn;t they be included too? And all those poor veterans suffering from the terrible mental anguish of their service? Surely you wouldn't want to trust them with weapons....

68 posted on 11/15/2011 5:15:34 PM PST by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Revocation of natural inalienable enumerated rights MUST happen on a per-case adjudication thereof, to wit you have the right until a judge tells you in no uncertain terms that you’ve lost it. What we have now is the reverse: in most states, the right is preemptively denied UNTIL adjudicated as allowed on a per-case basis - this is, of course, despicable.

Including, BTW, the loss of second amendment rights for traffic offenses.

69 posted on 11/15/2011 5:17:27 PM PST by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xzins

>I have been told that, while “concealed carry” requires permission, “open carry” does not. Does anyone know if this is true?<

Each state makes it’s own laws.
In NY you need a permit to carry period.


70 posted on 11/15/2011 5:41:36 PM PST by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

>Is there some federal law that says Tennessee has to recognize my Georgia drivers license?
Just a curious thought...<

No, some states recognize other states licenses and suspensions and reciprocate with each other. One by one,


71 posted on 11/15/2011 5:43:10 PM PST by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Munz

I wonder if you need a permit to make a speech?


72 posted on 11/15/2011 5:47:46 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: archy
Oh, BTW: you forgot to include the one American in Ten who's currently on prescribed anti-depression or anti-psychotic medications. Shouldn;t they be included too? And all those poor veterans suffering from the terrible mental anguish of their service? Surely you wouldn't want to trust them with weapons....

Do you want my state to tell you and your state who you should decide deserves to be allowed to own a firearm? If not then why should I want your state to do the same to mine?

73 posted on 11/15/2011 5:48:52 PM PST by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: supercat
If a person is inclined to criminally harm others, forbidding that person from possessing some particular kinds of weapons isn’t apt to make much difference. If a criminal who can’t be trusted with a weapon would be inclined to buy one, why is that person being allowed on the street at all?

Then why have any laws at all since a person inclined to criminality isn't apt to follow them anyway?

With regard to children, their parents should be the ones to determine what they are allowed to have.

And if they decide it's fine with them for their 5 year old to pack a Glock to day school then the rest of us just need to smile and say, "Ain't that cute?"

With regard to those who are mentally incompetent, is there any reason that the standard of proof required to disarm someone should be any lower than the standard of proof required to find them incapable of managing their own affairs?

Wouldn't that require some sort of standard to judge them by? If so, then shouldn't the state decide that and not the feds?

74 posted on 11/15/2011 5:52:41 PM PST by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Subject to Fourteenth Amendment protections, states are free to set their own standards with regard to how people are adjudicated mentally incompetent, and how the affairs of such persons are managed.

The 14th Amendment says that the state has the right to deprive a person of liberty or property so long as it is done with due process of law. So shouldn't that include the right to decide that a person convicted of a violent crime shouldn't be trusted with a firearm?

75 posted on 11/15/2011 5:55:53 PM PST by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“...out here in farm country, especially this deer season time of year, folks walk around openly better armed...”

This afternoon in Amish country (Holmes County, Ohio) I saw an Amish fellow walking along Rt 241 carrying a rifle on his shoulder (barrel down, butt on his shoulder)


76 posted on 11/15/2011 6:28:02 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: archy

The Sullivan Act/Law was passed around 1911 requiring New Yorkers to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms.


77 posted on 11/15/2011 7:31:40 PM PST by wastedyears (11/11/11 is National Metal Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
If a person has been judged mentally incompetent to stand trial, or if they have mental retardation or seriously diminished mental capacity, then do they have the right to own a firearm?

You'll find the government making up every excuse they can to make the pool as large as possible in that case.

78 posted on 11/15/2011 7:53:01 PM PST by wastedyears (11/11/11 is National Metal Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: supercat; SoJoCo
If a person is inclined to criminally harm others, forbidding that person from possessing some particular kinds of weapons isn’t apt to make much difference. If a criminal who can’t be trusted with a weapon would be inclined to buy one, why is that person being allowed on the street at all?

That is exactly correct. It doesn't matter if the person has a Barrett M82, AR15, 1911, a sword, an ax or a fork. If the will is there, the tool will not matter for someone that wants to harm others.

79 posted on 11/15/2011 7:58:13 PM PST by wastedyears (11/11/11 is National Metal Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: archy

Does it include medication for endocrine disorders?


80 posted on 11/15/2011 7:59:59 PM PST by wastedyears (11/11/11 is National Metal Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

Oh no! Not the Terrorist Amish again!

Who’s got that pic?


81 posted on 11/16/2011 4:04:00 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

I agree 100% with the notion that gun control legislation is a state’s power, not a federal power. The only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are:

1: Importation of foreign manufactured firearms; not parts, but fully assembled pieces.
2: Denial of rights in all 50 states to people convicted of federal crimes. States should be able to nullify this on a case by case basis.

There is a third instance that I am not 100% sure about and that is the interstate commerce issue. Personally, I think if a state wants to allow or ban firearms sold from other states that’s their business. I am not solid on how the interstate commerce clause (as interpreted constitutionally, not in the liberal manner it is today) would affect these types of transactions.


82 posted on 11/16/2011 4:37:02 AM PST by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Az, it is already in the mail.


83 posted on 11/16/2011 6:22:41 AM PST by oldenuff2no (Rangers lead the way...... Delta, the original European home land security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
So shouldn't that include the right to decide that a person convicted of a violent crime shouldn't be trusted with a firearm?

Indeed it would, if such restriction were specified as an explicit part of the sentence for the crime. That's not how such restrictions are usually imposed, however.

84 posted on 11/16/2011 4:23:40 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Indeed it would, if such restriction were specified as an explicit part of the sentence for the crime. That's not how such restrictions are usually imposed, however.

Such restrictions are specified in state law. In my state anyone convicted of certain specific felonies within a set prior period of time cannot own a gun. Anyone convicted of a felony involving involving a gun cannot own a firearm period. Why should another state's laws override ours?

85 posted on 11/16/2011 4:34:17 PM PST by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
Then why have any laws at all since a person inclined to criminality isn't apt to follow them anyway?

Among other things, to indicate which people the government may legitimately imprison for the purpose of protecting the reset of society.

And if they decide it's fine with them for their 5 year old to pack a Glock to day school then the rest of us just need to smile and say, "Ain't that cute?"

A person who observes a five-year-old doing something that they would not expect a parent would permit may in some cases reasonably attempt to uphold what they reasonably believe to be the will of the parent. In practice, this will often mean that minors will be prevented from doing a lot of things in many situations when their parents are not present. What is important to note, however, is that such restrictions exist for the purpose of upholding the presumed will of the parent; evidence which would overcome the presumption voids the restriction.

Wouldn't that require some sort of standard to judge them by? If so, then shouldn't the state decide that and not the feds?

The standards for judging incompetence are set by the states. My question remains: is there any reason that the standard of proof required to disarm someone indefinitely should be any lower than the standard of proof required to find someone incapable of managing his own affairs?

86 posted on 11/16/2011 4:34:46 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
Such restrictions are specified in state law. In my state anyone convicted of certain specific felonies within a set prior period of time cannot own a gun. Anyone convicted of a felony involving involving a gun cannot own a firearm period. Why should another state's laws override ours?

I wasn't saying they should. Federal statutes, however, forbid firearm ownership by anyone convicted of a crime for which they could have received 366 or more days in prison, as well as by many people who aren't even alleged to have committed any crime but who have sufficiently vindictive ex-spouses.

87 posted on 11/16/2011 5:00:39 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: wizzardude

Then by your reasoning a State can pass laws limiting my free speech or allow cops to enter my home without search warrants or probable cause. The amendments also apply to the States. Anything not outlined in the constitution is left to the States and not the federal government to decide.


88 posted on 11/17/2011 1:20:36 PM PST by And2TheRepublic (People like freedom of speech, but only when it's sweet to their ears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wizzardude

“STATES are to have reserved to them the several rights not reserved or declared by the federal government.”
States agree to uphold the US Constitution prior to statehood. Which means the states cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution. Gun control laws violate the right to bear arms.


89 posted on 11/20/2011 10:46:50 AM PST by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 last

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