Under the rationale that the federal government only has the power to regulate issues that affect inter-state commerce, they've been pushing legislation in states from Florida to Alaska that would exempt guns and ammunition made within the state from federal gun laws. The idea is "the latest crack cocaine for gun-rights advocates," says Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign.Once again, you have to view this in the context of the larger battle: there's a growing movement out there to invalidate as much of the federal government as possible while saying that states have the power to do whatever they want inside their own state. If that means states have the power to ignore federal mandates and regulations, so be it...just as long at the feds continue to send federal taxpayer money collected from blue states to run red state programs for infrastructure, health care, and Social Security.
In seven states, bills have already been passed into law, and they've been introduced in 20 others. (Here's a state-by-state map of where things stand.)
In most cases, say experts, the laws won't have much practical effect, because very few of the guns sold in a given state -- not to mention the ammunition they fire -- were made in that state. They're also likely unconstitutional, according to gun control groups, since the supremacy clause makes clear that federal laws trump state laws when the two are in conflict. In Oklahoma, Governor Brad Henry, a conservative Democrat, recently vetoed the bill, saying it wasn't worth the cost of defending it in court because it would ultimately be struck down. Court challenges have already been launched in Wyoming and Montana. "We will take [the laws] seriously until the federal courts throw them out, as we presume," says Hamm.
But in the context of other recent conservative challenges to federal action, the effort seems as much designed to make a point about state sovereignty as to make guns more accessible. It's in keeping with the conservative challenge to the health-care reform law on similar grounds -- and even with the new suggestion from Arizona right-wingers that states can determine who is and isn't a U.S. citizen.
The hysterical thing is that the Republicans behind the Tenther movement are the same ones screaming that the feds haven't done enough to stop the oil spill in the Gulf or the immigration problem along the Mexican border. Even better, at the national level the GOP is doing everything they can to block both raising liability caps on energy companies for oil spills, and any sort of comprehensive national immigration reform.
In other words, Tenthers want all the federal revenue, and then none of the federal oversight. Republicans aren't serious about solving problems, just serious about pandering to voters with illogical and unsustainable wishful thinking.
Anything to serve as justification to hide their actual agenda.
3 comments:
State gun laws is the same as our nations borders right? Same with an environmental disaster.
Apples, oranges...
The issue is states' rights. Pay attention, son.
Maybe you should take some of your own advice and pay attention boy. (See I can be a condescending prick too! :-P )
Z: "The hysterical thing is that the Republicans behind the Tenther movement are the same ones screaming that the feds haven't done enough to stop the oil spill in the Gulf or the immigration problem along the Mexican border"
First, its not an "immigration problem" its an illegal immigration problem. You make it sound as if we have a problem with anyone with a dark complexion.
Onto the oil spill, ever read the Stafford Act or Federal Authorities for Disaster Response? Of course people are outraged and rightly so at the Feds for taking little to no action aside from finger pointing and bad mouthing BP on an almost daily basis. Where is their plan for cleanup? What have they done? They will surely claim to have been there from "Day 1" but have done little aside from that. Being that this well isn't under state jurisdiction it would fall under the Feds control. Why? Because how many states can potentially be affected by this? Either say "Hey this is BP's screw up and they're cleaning it up" or get in their and take control and ownership. Don't point the finger, come up with no solutions and then claim "We were here from day 1!"
Plus per their own laws the EPA is responsible for oil and hazardous materials response.
Now back to illegal immigration. Make up your mind, either you want the Fed to handle the border security or you want the states to. Obama sends down troops and your complaining because people are telling you the truth, "Its NOT enough." However when the states take control of the situation like Arizona, you throw a fit that they're racist (because you NEVER overuse the race card). See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1984)
In approving a state trooper's arrest of persons who appeared to be illegal aliens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, simply, as follows: "A state trooper has general investigative authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."
Also per Article 4 Section 4 of the constitution it states
"Every state in the union, is responsible to every state in the union, for securing our union against INVASION."
I think millions of people coming into this country would be considered an invastion. Dictionary.com defines invastion in many ways, one of which being "Infringement by intrustion"
In my opinion it should be up to the states to secure their borders, however it is in the Feds best interest to assist them with this because if for instance in this post 9/11 world someone could conceivably comes across the border who wants to do harm.
In conclusion the Fed should leave it to the states to handle their own issues, states will have to work within their budgets and be fiscally responsible. When a disaster happens natural or man made the Fed should offer assistance but leave the states in ultimate control of the situation. Now I do agree if they ask for Fed assistance with something (i.e. building a fence) then the Fed should have limited say in it because ultimately once its built the state is on the hook for maintaining and again, its in the Fed best interest. An investment :-P
Post a Comment