We've watched the "carry-reciprocity" bill wander around in the House with some discomfort; when it passed, we were not particularly happy.
Reason? Exactly what JustOneMinute mentions.
...with Heller and the subsequent McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court has backed a right to self-defense in the home and not much more. If libs tried an end-around at the Federal level to limit states rights and advance of their agenda, righties would be furious, so let's have some consistency on states rights. If the good people of the great state of New York want to have strict gun control, feel free to move elsewhere.
The National Rifle Ass'n has been flogging this incessantly--with the usual "End of the WORLD!!!" yappaflappa from LaPierre (who has managed to survive several ends-of-the-world).
The reason for the 10th Amendment (and the 9th) is no less compelling no matter if the NRA wants to ignore it or not. States HAVE rights, period.
By the way, JOM also has a very sensible idea on the question in his post.
Because it's 'sensible,' you can bet that Congress won't pass it.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Well, yes and no. For a long time there was a debate about whether the second protected a state militia power only, or an individual right. The fact is that it seems to do both; the reference to the militia means something, after all, even though it is clearly the dependent clause.
However, Congress is specifically delegated the authority to regulate the militia in Art. I. Sect. 8 ("to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...).
So, while the 2nd strips Congress of any authority to infringe the keeping and bearing of arms, Congress would seem to have authority to require it -- or to establish rules that would permit the carrying of arms across state borders, provided that the arms were to be used for militia purposes (such as upholding the common peace and lawful order).
Umnnhhhh...if Congress wishes that the militia travel, armed and unimpeded, Congress can activate the militia.
By the way, the bill (above) was one of two proposals. This one was based on the 14th Amendment's rights; the other was based on the 2A.
Including the 2A was the Fathers' gravest mistake.
Congress doesn't have to call up the militia into actual Federal service to make use of that clause; it has the power to arm and organize them even while they are not. (That's why the next words in that section speak to what happens when the militia is called into Federal service.)
For now, the militia does have a legal definition: see Title 10, section 311.
You might object to the age 45 cutoff, but almost all men from 17 to 45 would be covered under current law. Nor is there any reason that Congress couldn't expand the definition to "all citizens between the ages of 18 and 88."
Post a Comment