States' "Rights".

[savagegunner]

Two comments about "States' Rights".

First, and most important, people's rights trump state powers!

Second, only people have rights.  States have powers.

You don't believe me?  Just ask yourself, "What would happen if a state decided that it would no longer allow some people to vote?  Or to speak their minds?  Or to worship as they choose?"  Of course, the answer would be that there would be attorneys from the various civil rights groups (ACLU, NRA, GOA, Southern Poverty Law Center, and so on) racing each other to the courthouse steps to file suit to strike down the law.  In other words, we're talking about RIGHTS that these people respect and those individual RIGHTS cannot be trampled by the government at any level.  If the 2nd Amendment truly protects an individual right that YOU respect, then you CANNOT sign on to the idea that there are any "States' Rights" or "State Powers" that can trample on it.  So YES!  The Congress of the US DOES have the power (in fact, it has the obligation) to pass laws that require that the states respect that right.

And for the idea of "States' Rights?"  Show me the provision that protects ANY "right" of a "state".  It's not there.  It's always reserving a "Power" to a "state".  The 9th Amendment clearly reserves "rights" to "the people".  And the 10th Amendment only talks about "powers".  (Note that the 10th amendment reserves powers to the states and to the people.)

Let's not let our political opponents (that's opponents, not enemies) use these words incorrectly, or define the rules of the debate.

Thanks for reading!

savagegunner

[Jerome from California]

I am a simple wage earner and not very well versed in Constitutional Law. From what I understand, the Constitution was intended to limit the power of the Federal Government not the States. However, incorporating a Right against the States is possible through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Second Amendment has not been specifically incorporated against the States. This may change soon though if the Supreme Court hears one of several cases regarding state and municipalities restricting ownership of firearms (Nordyke v. King, or McDonald/NRA v. Chicago).

So YES!  The Congress of the US DOES have the power (in fact, it has the obligation) to pass laws that require that the states respect that right.

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. The 10th Amendment specifically forbids the federal government to compel the states to enforce federal statutes. That's why FBI background checks and later the NICS checks are done by a federal entity rather than local/state law enforcement.

[Armed Ape]

I think that you may want this thread over on Mark's section, Gun Rights Advocate Podcast.  This topic is covered in episode #125.


Tony

[savagegunner]

I think that you may want this thread over on Mark's section, Gun Rights Advocate Podcast.  This topic is covered in episode #125.
Tony

Yes, and you had covered it a bit in your episode #24 National Concealed Carry.  That's why I posted it here.  Thanks for the tip, however.  I'm listening to Mark right now.  I'll probably re-post over there.

[savagegunner]

Jerome, everything you said is absolutely correct--as far as it goes.  Just remember that the Supreme Court is not the only body that gets to weigh in on the meaning of the Constitution.  It just gets the final say in a dispute that comes before it.

So YES!  The Congress of the US DOES have the power (in fact, it has the obligation) to pass laws that require that the states respect that right.

I'm not sure this is entirely correct. The 10th Amendment specifically forbids the federal government to compel the states to enforce federal statutes. That's why FBI background checks and later the NICS checks are done by a federal entity rather than local/state law enforcement.

Once again, absolutely correct.  But read Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."  In other words, the feds do NOT have the power to tell states to enforce federal law.  But they DO have the power to invalidate state laws that infringe on the individual rights of their citizens.

And for whatever it's worth, Jerome, I don't think you're as "simple" as you make yourself out to be.  You're like me, slowly working your way through this stuff, trying to make sense of it, and trying to help out others with the stuff you've figured out.  And, at least in my opinion, you're on the right track.

Take care.

savagegunner

[armbar]

I'm glad you recorded this one Tony. I had a domestic disturbance conviction so I was not able to buy a gun. I wined and cried a little but then I called a lawyer and jumped thru the hoops to get my rights back. It wasn't easy but it was sure worth it. I learned alot as well. I got the charge because I was not willing to press assault charges against my then wife, now ex-wife for slapping the crap out of me so we both got domestic violence tickets. I was a dumbass and just to get it over with I pled guilty but I didn't do my homework to see how it would affect me later. So long story short. I agree with you 100%. Great show. (and I was rockin out to the death metal btw.) 

[Armed Ape]

but then I called a lawyer and jumped thru the hoops to get my rights back. It wasn't easy but it was sure worth it. I learned alot as well.

Good for you!!! I'm glad you were able to get your rights restored even though it was not easy and cost you some money.  I'd be willing to bet that you feel the money spent was well worth the cost.

Tony