Whatever happened to the GOP demand of "States Rights"? (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by TiggrToo, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. TiggrToo macrumors 6502a

    TiggrToo

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Out there...way out there
    #1
    All throughout the whole Same Sex Marriage process the one single thing we kept on hearing from the right was about "States Rights".

    In fact, at one point several states were even looking at Nullification as a possibility (despite the fact it's never been tried before).

    This court has been sending a broad and consistent message that it is decidedly anti-states' rights. That the power to self-govern, to manage one’s own life lies increasingly more and more with the federal government and decreasingly with the states. This is a trend which, regardless how one feels about homosexual marriage, we should all find deeply troubling. (American Thinker, June 2015)
    Odd how the left have this pushed down their throats with Same Sex marriage and yet - along comes Congress and the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Here's a Right Wing Congress pushing a bill that would totally block ALL States from having their own Concealed Carry laws being applied to out of state visitors.

    So, whatever happened to States Rights? The right seem to be all over demanding a State should have the freedom to enact its own rules when it comes to the Red States blocking gay or abortion rights, but when it comes to a subject the right are passionate about - guns, then watch out world because they will push this hard and to hell to States Rights!

    The right all seem to be gung-ho when it comes to gun law reciprocity - but anything like LGBT protections and they'll scream out "States Rights!" like a banshee...
     
  2. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #2
    It is actually a very simple answer. Gun rights are a federal issue based on the 2A. How states got involved in the first place is kind of a mystery. It is that pesky 10A that states:

    The 2A is a power delegated to the United States, so they have every right to make laws regarding it.
     
  3. TiggrToo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TiggrToo

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Out there...way out there
    #3

    Way to go on missing the entire point of the post and it's not to talk gun control - it's to talk on how the GOP is all over "States Rights" when it comes to icky gay rights, but then run ram-shod over it when it comes to something THEY want.

    Even after Obergefell v. Hodges (which defined the right of Same Sex Marriage as one enshrined and protected by the United States Constitution) we still had the right complaining about "States Rights".

    I've no desire to talk about gun rights here - there's plenty of other threads about that - all I care about is how the Right seems to totally ignore "States Rights" when it becomes an inconvenience.

    And don't kid yourself that the second is somehow all-reaching - just like the first, SCOTUS has ruled that BOTH have limitations.
     
  4. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #4
    No you are missing the point. The 10A gives the power to the states for things NOT reserved to the Federal Government. The problem is the feds have assumed and taken powers that should belong to the states. That is the beef.

    As it relates to guns and the 2A, that is a power designated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, not to the states. So the feds are well within their rights to make laws regarding guns.

    I know you want this to fit neatly into your narrative, but it won't.
     
  5. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #5
    Why does your thread title mention Concealed Carry?
     
  6. TiggrToo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TiggrToo

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Out there...way out there
    #6
    Simple question; has SCOTUS ruled that Concealed Carry is covered by the 2nd Amendment? Simple yes or no answer will do here.

    If they have NOT then my post stands 100% - if they have then my entire thread is mute and I will withdraw.

    (Helpful tip; last year on their last session, SCOTUS declined to rule on a writ of certiorari thus allowing a lower courts ruling to stand which stated that Sheriffs in the State of California have the right to deny Concealed carry permits)
    --- Post Merged, Feb 12, 2018 ---

    To provide context because the whole issue is that here's a situation where States Rights are being ignored by a bill.
     
  7. chiefsilverback macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    #7
    I think what you miss in your original post is that both parties will alternate between opposing arguments on things they are passionate about. If states are doing something they don't like then they will seek federal means to prevent it, similarly if federal law is against a given position they will argue "states rights".
     
  8. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #8
    Then you may want to change your title.
     
  9. TiggrToo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TiggrToo

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Out there...way out there
    #9
    Er, no - that's exactly my point!

    However the GOP has been EXTREMELY VOCAL about 'States Rights' over the last decade - and now, they don't give a fig because it's something THEY want to push.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 12, 2018 ---
    And remove the context? I do that then I get accused of making an issue over nothing.
     
  10. chiefsilverback macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    #10
    Then you've answered your own question, politicians are hypocrites with all the morals of a rock. Actually that's not fair to rocks, rocks won't pretend that if they smack you in the face it won't hurt and will somehow be good for you!!!
     
  11. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #11
    The Second Amendment doesn't delegate a power to the United States (i.e. the federal government). To the contrary, it limits what the federal government can do when it comes to, e.g., firearms, even assuming that the federal government is otherwise delegated power to do things with regard to firearms. The first eight amendments don't grant powers to government. They limit the powers of the federal government and, through incorporation by the 14th Amendment, state governments.

    The federal government doesn't have general police powers, so it is only empowered to do that which the Constitution grants it the power to do. That's why it must find authority to regulate firearms in, e.g., the Commerce Clause. But that authority, whatever it might be, is still constrained by the Second Amendment. And it doesn't take away from states their general police powers, to include the authority to regulate firearms. That authority isn't delegated to the federal government such that states lose it. However, state regulation of firearms is itself constrained by the Second Amendment just as federal regulation of firearms (to the extent authority for it exists to begin with) is.
     
  12. tshrimp, Feb 12, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018

    tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #12
    Okay, then this will probably go into a gun control debate. And that is fine by me as the numbers and the law support gun ownership.

    I am all for keeping this at the state level, but I understand why some would not. The 2nd amendment is clear, and some states are blatantly ignoring a federal law. Currently many states already have reciprocity, and hope more will sign on. However, you can't really compare this to gay marriage as it was explicitly controlled by the states. The 14th amendment argument never held water as it was not meant to be about marriage at all. It was also written at a time when it was a felony to be gay. So we therefore know the 14th amendment was not about backing a gay person much less marriage in general. The 2nd amendment on the other hand is a federal law that they allowed the states to control. Also there is a "supremacy clause" and if there is a discrepancy between state and federal then federal wins out. As we know the 2nd amendment supports the right of the federal govt to do this. With gay marriage it took blatant misinterpretation of the law to back it. Again, the 14th amendment was not written about marriage at all, and was written in a time where being gay was not legal.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    And also some restrictions.
     
  14. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #14
    Dude...you can’t provide context in a post and then fire back at someone who tries to discuss your context.
     
  15. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #15
    It goes beyond just states rights. Conservatives like to say that local communities rather than a more centralized government know best what's good for them. But in some states the legislature has prevented local communities from enacting laws against fracking for natural gas, their supposed principles being overridden by their even deeper allegiance to large corporations. There are also state laws restricting what local communities can do to regulate guns.
     
  16. TiggrToo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TiggrToo

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Out there...way out there
    #16
    er, yes I can. The issue here is at what point to the GOP admit that this cry they keep having for "States Rights" is nothing more than sheer hypocrisy?

    It's not just here, there's other places - just a couple of weeks ago Congress also tried to push a Federal mandated limit of a 20 weeks on abortion - despite the fact that other States had other limits. Again, States Rights be damned.

    The GOP in the last 10 odd years (since around about the parasitic Tea Party attached itself to the GOP and transformed it) has become horribly hypocritical, pushing for all the things THEY wanted, despite States having other rules, then backing up states like Tennessee and Mississippi etc. when they took stands against Same Sex marriage because - "States Rights".
     
  17. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    I think there are two possible explanations for this. The most likely is that they are being politicians and don’t believe a word of what they say, but use what they can to get their ideas pushed through.

    The other possibility is that when it came to gay marriage the right would have been fine with a law requiring all states to recognize marriages that were legal under the laws of the state they were performed in but not requiring every state to perform gay marriages.

    My suspicion is it is a mixture of both.
     
  18. TiggrToo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TiggrToo

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Out there...way out there
    #18
    WHAT? You said that with a straight face?

    Wow... Just wow...

    The fact that we're STILL debating this after all these years shows just how opaque the second amendment is. So, since it's so clear, you'll have no issues at all directing to me when they ruled that Concealed Carry is a right guaranteed by the second amendment. After all, if it's clear, they'd have ruled long ago and we'd all be totally transparent on this, right?

    Right?

    WRONG.

    District of Columbia v. Heller 2008, Where SCOTUS made a 5/4 ruling striking down a District of Columbia law that banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns, Justice Anton Scalia stated in his ruling:

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. 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.
    Yet YOU feel that the Second Amendment is clear and all reaching. Why is that?
     
  19. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #19
    Republicans do like more states rights then Democrats. However, this is not to say they don't think the Federal Govt should do nothing at all. I support smaller government, but don't think there should be non at all. I would not see this as hypocritical.

    But I guess you don't see the same when the Democrats do it? "States should not be able to dictate this, the federal govt should". Yet they tend to support states rights when it goes in their favor. Example: Drug legalization, and Large Cokes :).
     
  20. TiggrToo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TiggrToo

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Out there...way out there
    #20
    I'm not the one screaming "States Rights" here. Personally I think there's multiple times where one has to look very carefully at what's being pushed - and personally I feel there's way too much complexity in today's modern America for individual states to have so much confusion.

    Listen, I hate guns, I despise them, but I get the potential need for thinking about legislation such as this, as abhorrent it may be to me personally. Again, I'm not the party screaming "States Rights" though.

    I assume based upon your silence on the other subject that you challenged me on that you concede that the issue about if Concealed Carry is a clear right under the second amendment is far from clear and, in fact, has not been confirmed as being covered?
     
  21. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #21
    i just read that post as I am working, and cannot read a message board any time I want to, and that post wasn't even that long ago. And there was nothing really to respond to. But I will here....What part of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is not clear? Some like to argue what is meant by "militia", but it is actually spelled out right there in the amendment, in the very sentence...."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms....".
     
  22. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #22
    So, you just realized that politicians are liars and hypocrites? Welcome to planet Earth, enjoy your stay.
     
  23. TiggrToo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TiggrToo

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Out there...way out there
    #23
    And which part of Scalia stating that the rights were not all bearing is not clear to you? You quoted personal belief, I quoted a Supreme Court Justice ruling on a second amendment issue where he explicitly addressed the subject.

    Know who I'm more likely to give credence to, and, with all due respect, it ain't you...
    --- Post Merged, Feb 12, 2018 ---
    Don't know if you've noticed, but PRSI is replete with posts like this. It's called having a discussion on the subject.

    Just saying. I now return you to your snark...
     
  24. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #24
    I guess I don't get where you are going here. I thought it was ruled that DC was breaking the law. You backed what I was saying when you brought up Scalia earlier. As you probably know Scalia also said it was an individuals right to own a gun.
     
  25. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #25
    It's hard, if not a stretch to compare rights enumerated in the constitution (2nd amend) with marriage. I mean that's a pretty far stretch, like pull a hammy type stretch, and I'm not exactly a gun advocate.
     

Share This Page

31 February 12, 2018