[–] NonyaBidness 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
It always has been. The feds job is to insure that the states don't violate the inalienable rights of the individual, and vice versa. The state's each have their own Constitution, some of which respect right that the feds fail to.
There were a few states a few years ago that voted to respect the individuals rights to suppressors, and any kind of unlicensed carry.
Decentralize all the things!
Edit: And vice versa
[–] NonyaBidness ago
States are sovereign, and have their own Constitutions. They must adhere to the national Constitution, but the state government must also adhere to its own. You can find many examples of states guaranteeing rights that the feds have violated. There isn't any lawful foot for the feds to stand on to insist that states violate rights they recognize. They usually just deny funds. If a state decided to violate rights guaranteed by the national Constitution, than it would be the role meant for the feds to step in.
[–] slwsnowman40 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Nonsense, the one law that should be followed with regards to weapons is the 2nd Amendment. If the feds went back to only enforcing that and suing states like Commiefornia, Jew York, etc and cities like Jew York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and winning those cases, a lot of crap changes and changes quickly.
Since the states barely look and act like they did when they were a territory and voted to join and sign the US Constitution, perhaps we should have a do over and vote again? That could really shake things up...
[–] JewnnyAppleSeed ago (edited ago)
The States are (almost) as restricted by the Bill of Rights as the Federal Government. As of 2010 SCOTUS has ruled that all but the Third Amendment apply to the states in part (that is, excluding the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment) or in whole. The Second Circuit has ruled that the Third also applies in full (and, interestingly, that national guardsmen are soldiers, not militia.)
The fact is that the States have no more Constitutional authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms than the Federal Government, and the federal government has none ("shall not be".) They would have to first amend or repeal the 14th to have the authority and anyone willing to do so would surely target the Second instead, lest Alabama round up all the niggers and ship them to Africa.
"Constitutional authority" is actually the wrong way of looking at it where states are concerned, come to think of it. The only body that derives its authority from the Constitution is the Federal Government. The States (as well as local governments) are expressly prohibited from infringing on any of the rights (excluding the four mentioned above, at the moment) enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
[–] totes_magotes 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
All gun control is infringement. Period.
Instead of arguing against this particular gun control, he basically argues that we should just be fine when every state passes this exact same bill (which they would after Congress forced them, just look at how 21 became the drinking age in every state).
This is a bullshit argument since guns are explicitly listed in the Constitution, which is also incorporated against the states meaning they can't infringe either. I would rather fight this at the national level than at the level of every city and township.
[–] undertheshills ago
Its not federal you can open carry ARs in some states and can't have a flint lock in some cities.
[–] Diggernicks 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Are you unaware how federal laws function or are you genuinely mentally challenged?