Big Federal Government is Bad, Big State Government is Good

[mikeb302000]

Indy Star reports http://www.indystar.com/article/20110701/NEWS08/107010342/Tully-New-gun-law-prime-example-bad-legislation?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

"This new law has been eerily and accurately titled: "Preemption of local firearm regulation." This unnecessary law, pushed by Republicans but endorsed by many Democrats, tells cities and towns across the state that the General Assembly and the National Rifle Association know what is best for them. It also tells the state's urban centers that they must adhere to the wishes of lawmakers who in most cases don't live in those cities."


The idea is not that a city like Indianapolis doesn't know what's best for itself and the state of Indiana does, it's simply a matter on not inconveniencing gun owners. Let's say there's a guy from Gary Indiana who carries a gun everywhere he goes, you know, just in case. If Indianapolis is allowed to prohibit guns in its parks, that poor guy from Gary would be faced with a terrible dilemma if he had some reason to go to the Indianapolis park. He'd either have have to decline to go, that's bad, or leave his gun in the glove compartment of the car, that's really bad, or LEAVE IT HOME IN THE GUNSAFE WHERE IT BELONGS. Naturally, we can't expect gun owners to have to face such choices so we depend on the State to govern.

Of course, the gun enthusiasts in Indiana, and everywhere else for that matter, have no proplem with Federal laws that support their cause too.

(cross posted at http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[TheWraith]

1. Do you support local municipalities being able to ban abortion? Gay marriage?

Even when the state's own laws say that those things are legal?

Then you support preemption too.

[Abq_Sarah]

2. Once again...

Preemption protects the rights of citizens. The Second amendment and the Indiana constitution affirm the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean "unless you live in Indianapolis".

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

4. The problem with allowing each county and hamlet do its own thing

is that it traps law abiding people who are not familiar with the county next door's laws. It will not deal with the real problem. Not all gun buffs are CCW, and I would not describe all or even most CCWs as gun enthusiasts. Some have real threats to their lives. I have a county commissioner was such a person. He got in trouble with Florida's open carry law, because the wind pushed his jacket back enough to expose the pistol grip for a second. State assembly finally passed that accidental exposed is not a crime. The only decent thing Walker did so far.

That poor guy from Gary could very well be a woman who is the target of an abusive ex husband with violent intent. In such cases, leaving it home in the safe could be a very poor decision on her part.

[WCGreen]

5. Until there is a Republican President then big government

is better at the federal level...

[peace17]

6. thats so ironic!

they keep screaming that they want the big federal government out of their lives , and yet on state level, they like to decide for women's right to keep/abort her baby, decide who you are allowed to marry ....

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. It provides uniform laws across a state and that is a good thing.

It would be a real hassle to know the firearms laws of every municpality and county that one may go through in a given day. Some things, such a speed limits, local taxes are best handled at the local level. Some things need to be uniform across the state. Imagine if each city could completely decide their own traffic laws. Right-turn-on-red would be illegal in some cities and the driver would have to know the traffic laws of all cities that he may drive in. So the traffic laws are uniform across a state while the speed limits are allowed to be local. The state pre-emption law does for guns what the traffic laws do for cars.

[mikeb302000]

13. no, it's not a good thing

when the state next door has a totally different idea about what proper gun control laws should be.

Lax gun states feed the others with illegal guns because they're easier to get in Arizona than California or Virginia than New York, for example. Gun control laws properly written, enforced and applied federally would severely cut down on the gun flow from the law-abiding to the criminal gun owners.

But the problem is, the NRA and many gun-rights activists don't care about that. They just want to ensure they themselves are not inconvenienced, damn the consequences.

[gejohnston]

14. You are talking about interstate now instead of intrastate

two totally things.
The average gun costs $500 new and some used are not cheap. The typical criminal can get his off the street for 110-200. That is true in LA and Toronto. That creates a problem for your conventional wisdom since who is going to risk prison time to sell at a loss. But that has been a standard talking point for years, ignoring the fact that one can not buy a pistol in other than their state of residence without a FFL since 1938, and tightened in 1968. Also, the typical crime gun is at least ten years old. Straw buying across state lines are not the problem. I don't think any ATF study shows any evidence of that being the problem.

Actually, the NRA and gun rights people do care. In fact, I think we care more than some on your side because we care about all violent crime and not just ones committed with guns. We are also more interested in real solutions than feel good theater.

At the risk of being deleted, I submit many of the leaders in the prohibitionist lobby like VPC and Brady culture warriors that know crime will not be affected. For example, in Illinois:

The FOIA amendments in HB 3500 became necessary after an opinion on February 28 issued by anti-gun Attorney General Lisa Madigan in which she declared that the Illinois State Police (ISP) must release the personal information of every law-abiding gun owner in Illinois to the Associated Press

In Illinois you need a permit to own or possess. Would she be logically consistent about drivers licences? What legitimate reason would the AP want some target shooters name, address, and telephone number? What does this have to do with violent crime?

[PavePusher]

16. Cool, we can bring back "seperate but equal"!

And about damn time, too.


:sarcasm: , for the impaired.

[NewMoonTherian]

29. You've jumped to a subject completely different from state preemption of local laws.

And in the process it seems like you've completely reversed your position. State preemption of local laws is unacceptable, but federal "preemption" of state laws is the proper solution. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it sounds as if you're taking whatever position best supports your larger ideology on guns, rather than discussing the ideas on their own merit.

[east texas lib]

9. The law does not force you to own or carry a gun...

It affirms your right under Indiana state law to make your own decision on that matter. It prevents local wannabe Boss Hoggs from restricting your right to choose. Laws like these would not have been passed if the Anti-2A crowd respected the Constitution. But the Anti-2A'ers can't just let people run around willy-nilly exercising their Constitutional freedoms and making their own choices now, can they? Why what kind of country would that be?

[slackmaster]

10. We have a preemption law like that here in California. As bad as the state's gun law are...

...the preemption law has stopped a lot of local abuses, such as San Francisco attempting to ban handguns altogether (except for those in the hands of government employees, of course.)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. welcome to DU. n/t

[X_Digger]

12. Should different counties be able to honor (or not) different counties'..

.. Driver's license? Should a guy from Benton county have to learn a whole new set of traffic laws when he travels to Shelby county? Laws that aren't reflected on signs, either..

How about Marriage licenses? Jay and Marsha were married in Vermillion county, but Marsha was only 17 at the time. Should Kosciusko county get to ignore their marriage because they say someone has to be 18 to be married?

[S_B_Jackson]

15. Where is the benefit to allowing each county, city, village, etc to set their own rules?

As an illustration, let's take a look at my daily drive to and from work. In total 12 miles each way.

I live in Houston, and so that is where my brief drive begins, I then pass into an unincorporated stretch of Harris County, and then into the City of Friendswood, and from there I pass into the city of Webster, into another short expanse of Houston, and finally into Nassau Bay.

Without state preemption statutes, I would be subject to 5 separate laws concerning how, where, and under what conditions, I would be allowed/permitted to carry or transport a firearm. This type of a patchwork quilt of laws and regulations is unacceptable and impossible if applied statewide to any type of uniformity and fairness in the law. State preemption, therefore, is the only reasonable solution - as it harmonizes the laws so that compliance with the law is not overly burdensome and so that the citizenry, who largely does desire to conduct themselve in a lawful manner - may do so with a reasonable degree of certainty. Too, it makes the job of the police whose job it is to enforce the laws, simpler and clearer.

[mikeb302000]

17. Why then is it OK to have a patchwork of State laws?

Let's try this. Let's take the strictest state gun laws, California, and apply them federally to all the states. Everyone will be on the same page.

Better yet, forget about California. Let's start from scratch. Background checks, licensing, registration, safe storage in the home - apply that everywhere and you'll see gun violence plummet.

[S_B_Jackson]

18. Becuse that is that manner that our nation has been established?

Our country is The United States of America. The states preceeding the country which they united to form, but retaining - as much as was possible - their own sovereignty. I would not that in the last 25 years, as a result of Shall-Issue Concealed Carry adoption - that the states have been quietly adopting more harmonious gun laws such that many states. Attempts to adopt more strict gun laws - such as those of California - but those seeking to do so have been unable to meet the persuasive burden incumbent upon them in our democratic system of government.

Background checks? Check.
Licensing? Most states do, under the same conditions that one must license a vehicle.
Safe Storage? What, like DC used to do? Not readily usable for self-/home-defense, unloaded, and if possible disassembled?

[Glassunion]

20. I would like to hear your opinion on exactly how

your opinion on starting from scratch would cause gun violence to plummet.

You have some nice ideas, however for the most part they would be ineffective and costly, but most importantly would have zero effect on gun crime.

#1. We already have background checks.
#2. There are several states that have licensing(CA, Ill, NY, NJ), could you specifically cite where this has reduced gun crime in those states?
#3. Registration has been proven not to work(Australia, Canada, NY), what is your plan to make it work? You do realize that you can not prosecute a felon for failing to register their firearm?
#4. How would you enforce "safe storage in the home"?

[gejohnston]

23. #4 by giving up your fourth amendment rights

Since Japan has none, safe storage works. In Canada, you actually sign away your rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms about searches and inspections.

[gejohnston]

22. Canada has safe storage and licensing federal laws since 1977

Handguns since 1934. Registering machine gun since 1952, registration of long guns since 1995.

Their violent crime, gun and otherwise, did not plummet. Jamaica's complete ban on private ownership did not cure anything, nor did it in UK. The rest of Europe remained the same after passing their post World War One laws did not see a drop in what little crime they had. What makes you think it will work here?

[RSillsbee]

24. I have a better idea

Let's take the least strict state (Vermont)and one w/ a rather lower rate of crime that California and apply Its laws to the entire country.

Federal background checks , private sales remain private , no registration and if you can legally own it you can legally carry it.

Background checks, licensing, registration, safe storage in the home - apply that everywhere and you'll see gun violence plummet.

What do you base this theorytale on?

[SteveW]

25. Some problems with your approach...

First, we live in a federal system; that is, states can pass laws as long as they do not negate/interfere with federal laws. This was re-enforced by the 14th Amendment (1866) which prevents states from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Since country/parrish governments are arms of the state, and since incorporated cities are creatures of the state J(with varying degrees of home rule), it follows that the lesser entities cannot pass laws/ordinances with negate or interfere with state law. The upshot, local cities cannot pass laws governing firearms which negate the laws of the state, or for that matter, the United States (the 14th). This is why on numerous occasions during the 60s local (city) officials who tried to "ban" a march by tagging on fees to pay police overtime, or said that marchers must walk two-abreast on a sidewalk (when 20,000+ were expected at the party), were quickly overruled -- by the Feds, if the state didn't act.

"Background checks, licensing, registration, safe storage in the home - apply that everywhere and you'll see gun violence plummet."

We have (federal) background checks because the Feds have authority over the operations of gun shops or retailers who trade in guns. So, those with Federal Firearms Licenses must follow the current BG checks. Those who sell firearms a few at a time are NOT under federal regulation, and neither, for that matter, or gun shows: Individuals here are under no more regulation that a buyer-seller transacting over a kitchen table, and the FFL-holders present at gun shows must do the usual BG test.

Licensing is a state matter; they can choose to enact fair legislation in this area if they so choose. Registration (whereby the government(s) will know everyone (including those who do not carry concealed), is an entirely different matter, and defeats the intent of the Second Amendment: The government has no business registering anyone who exercises freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As far as safe storage in the home, check out the Nat'l Safety Council's data on childhood deaths. They show that gun-related accidents among children have fallen below those of the other measured categories (falls, drownings, electrocutions), and have continued to fall, faster than those other categories. Look, Ma, no laws!

[TheWraith]

26. "apply that everywhere and you'll see gun violence plummet" No, you won't.

Because it's had exactly no influence on gun violence in California, New York, Illinois, or the other places with such requirements. The idea that requiring everyone to have a license will automatically stop murder is absurd on the face of it.

[mikeb302000]

27. I'm afraid that's not true

Wraith. You're just repeating what you've heard others say.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Kindly demonstrate *why* your claim of plummeting crime rates is true

More than one person has pointed out that California has what you advocate, and +/- 80% of seized guns in that state

were sold in that state- IOW, they were registered.


Yet California has a high violent crime and murder rate, and some of its cities are among the most violent for their size

in the United States (per the FBI's Crime in the United States).



To put it bluntly: Yours is a faith-based argument.

[gejohnston]

31. Ummm hate to tell you, but you are the one repeating what you have

heard others say.

[gejohnston]

32. Besides California's gun laws do nothing what you claim

a national law would do, I also submit that safe storage could cost as many or more lives than they save.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/deaths_in_merced.htm

[ileus]

19. Civil rights should be respected by all levels of government.

[MicaelS]

21. Based on the comments in your blog

And your Profile here, what you really want is Gun Prohibition.

Given the fact that:

(1) Alcohol Prohibition was a failure because people wanted to drink. All it did was create a new segment of organized crime.

(2) Drug Prohibition is a failure because people want to use drugs. All it did was create a new segment of organized crime.

What makes you think Gun Prohibition will work?

[mikeb302000]

28. how did you get that?

Gun prohibition? Really?

Why do you have to exaggerate what I say and then argue against that? Isn't what I do say bad enough for you, that we need extremely strict gun control laws enforced federally in every state?

[Blown330]

33. Go to his Facebook page...

...you'll know very quickly that he's very anti-gun. No exaggeration.

[gejohnston]

34. because you will be when

the strict gun control laws fail to do as advertised, as they always do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. IOW, you want gun laws like Mexico, Jamaica, and Russia have...

...but expect different results. How is that supposed to work?

[Glassunion]

37. If I may quote you from your blog...

"All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go. " http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-pro-gun-folks-wont-be-reasonable.html

A comment like that would lead me to believe that you have a propensity towards gun prohibition. Just sayin...

[jpak]

36. GOP/NRA Nanny State gun law

yup