Gunning Against Federalism
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Advocates of universal recognition of state concealed weapon permits failed to get a supermajority in the Senate yesterday. But what’s more interesting is that some opponents of the measure suddenly became advocates of localism and states’ rights. As Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who carried a concealed weapon back in the 1970s, but yesterday led the charge against the measure, insisted:
Concealed-weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas.
What’s good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York.
Precisely—well said, Senator. But how about some respect for this principle of federalism and localism in other areas of public policy?
Support among the GOP was nearly universal for what Democrat Feinstein—apparently a new convert to a robust federalism—deemed the anti-states’ rights position. Even Fox News’ Glenn Beck politely challenged the sponsor of the measure, Senator John Thune (R-SD), on Thune’s claim that broadly interpreted Second Amendment protections were intended to apply to the laws of state and local governments. This issue may soon be decided in the next term of the Supreme Court.
Also notable was how this vote broke along regional divisions. Senators from the south, tornado alley, and most of the southwest are solidly in favor of less gun control, while the west coasters are most opposed to the lifting of restrictions. Here’s a compromise: perhaps the states in the permit-friendly areas ought to enter into agreements recognizing each other’s concealed weapon licenses. This would allow states sympathetic to gun rights to create a large zone unimpeded by what they consider more burdensome restrictions, while leaving the Feds and other hostile states out of it—and is a better option than all parties taking a roll of the dice on a closely divided Supreme Court.
Filed under: Uncategorized
States already have interstate compacts allowing for the mutual recognition of permits. They have done this for some time. My Pennsylvania concealed carry permit is good in Florida where I vacation, as well as Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. So I can protect myself almost all the way down the eastern seaboard. Only Delaware, Maryland and oddly, South Carolina fail to recognize my second amendment right.
I see no reason to compromise on constitutional rights. No one seriously believes their first amendment rights vary by state. The same should apply to my second amendment rights.
Thomas,
The Bill of Rights was instituted to keep the Federal Government from doing certain things. It did not grant us those rights, anymore than it granted us the right to walk on two legs. To the Founders, those rights were so self-evident that no government needed to grant them. What was needed was a formal agreement that this new Federal Government would not use it’s new, unprecedented power to violate basic human rights. For this reason, the 1st amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law” rather than “no-one shall make any law”.
Each state has a constitution that guarantees roughly the same rights to it’s citizens as the Federal one does. By playing the States off against their citizens in matters of rights, the Federal government (through it’s courts), weakens the decentralism that tends to ensure continued freedom.
MattSwartz wrote:
“By playing the States off against their citizens in matters of rights, the Federal government (through it’s courts), weakens the decentralism that tends to ensure continued freedom.”
You know that *sounds* good Matt, and it may well be that decentralization in some way, fashion or form would in the long run result in “continued freedom,” but it doesn’t really say *why* that would be the case. Nor, even more to the point, does it explain why the exact opposite seems to be the main historical truth.
You’re right of course that the Bill of Rights was initially intended to apply only to the Federal government, but you then ignore the consequence of this which is that it was the *states* that had essentially unfettered power over people.
With the advent of the post-Civil Amendments directly aimed at the states however, including the 14th, and the Supreme Court’s “selective but now nigh total) incorporation” of the Bill of Rights into the 14th, the Rights therein have grown to protect us from state power.
And, I would argue, they have indeed done far more protecting of us than having caused any damage to our freedoms by somehow preventing the states from giving us more.
*Should* the states have given us more, especially under their own Constitutions? Sure. But they didn’t. Not nearly at all. Not ever. Until rather recently in fact, with even that still being at a teensy little level, I think you’ll find the jurisprudence of state constitutions an amazingly desolate field.
Southern states and others continued forever practically until stopped by the federal constitution denying or impeding the most basic right which is to vote.
You go down the list of rights listed in the federal bill of rights and go state by state and I think you’ll find the absolute overwhelming truth to be that what protects people is not state constitutions but the federal one.
If there’s an aspect of the federal constitution that is robbing us of our rights it’s not the Bill of Rights therefore and the Feds “playing us off” our states. Instead I think you’ll find it in the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause which, amazingly enough, you will find is the almost only constitutional authority cited for damn near every modern federal social program. From Social Security to welfare to banning private racial, sexual and other discrimination to the Americans’ WIth Disabilities to … you name it practically.
Cheers,
I knew when I made that point that someone would bring out the original intent argument. And you do have a point. But Matt has one too regarding the whole body of jurisprudence based on the incorporation doctrine that is now firmly accepted. Who really believes that your First Amendment rights apply only on federal land? I believe that it is a bit masochistic for us to deny ourselves rights that the Founders assumed to be universal.
In writing/researching Nineteenth Century America, I’ve come across a number of journal entries and letters in which the correspondents wrote of infringements of their “Second Amendment Rights by the Union Pacific Railroad. It seemed that one hundred and sixty years before the TSA, The Union Pacific had its Conductors forcing passengers to surrender firearms to the custody of the railroad for a fee. There was no doubt in the mind of the writers that this was an infringement of right.
Sorry, I weant to write TomB also has a point…
The gun laws are sure getting crazy. Im glad I got my FFL a few years ago. I bet soon you wont be able to get one at all.