Gun Rights vs. States’ Rights

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

“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.

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.