Isn't It Odd?

[farmerbob]

Isn't it odd the complete lack of action of the federal government to make states, like New York, Connecticut, and Colorado, conform their state gun laws to match federal gun laws?

I wonder if the gun laws would have passed in the Senate, we all would be asked to conform to the federal gun laws?  Ok, we wouldn't have been asked, we would have been told.

Odd, isn't it?

[Bucket]

Isn't it odd the complete lack of action of the federal government to make states, like New York, Connecticut, and Colorado, conform their state gun laws to match federal gun laws?

I wonder if the gun laws would have passed in the Senate, we all would be asked to conform to the federal gun laws?  Ok, we wouldn't have been asked, we would have been told.

Odd, isn't it?

How is it odd?  States don't have to conform their laws to the federal government.  State laws need to be Constitutional at both the state and federal level, and federal law has supremacy in the event there is conflict.

We can certainly debate the Constitutionality, the value, or the wisdom of those state laws, but that's a different thing than questioning the individual states' right to pass them.

[farmerbob]

I was trying to be a little sarcastic about how the federal government wants states to enforce some laws, but don't enforce others.

Look what happened the last time Arizona tried to follow federal immigration laws.  How about the last time we had a 10 round magazine limit?  It sure looked liked all 50 states had to follow that law, even though I don't remember Nebraska having that law.

I, like you, do believe the states should be able to make their own laws.  But your being disingenuous if you think the states would not be following new gun laws if the president signed them into law.

One way or another, much like the 55 mph speed limit, they would be beaten into submission.

Maybe someone ought to ask Ernie Chambers if he thinks New York has the right to institute a 7 round magazine limit.  I'm sure he would say of course New York has the right to.  Then hit him with,  I guess you agree states do have the right to make their own gun laws.

Maybe it's been tried and didn't work.

It still is odd!!!

[rudy]

I was trying to be a little sarcastic about how the federal government wants states to enforce some laws, but don't enforce others.

Look what happened the last time Arizona tried to follow federal immigration laws.  How about the last time we had a 10 round magazine limit?  It sure looked liked all 50 states had to follow that law, even though I don't remember Nebraska having that law.

I, like you, do believe the states should be able to make their own laws.  But your being disingenuous if you think the states would not be following new gun laws if the president signed them into law.

One way or another, much like the 55 mph speed limit, they would be beaten into submission.

Maybe someone ought to ask Ernie Chambers if he thinks New York has the right to institute a 7 round magazine limit.  I'm sure he would say of course New York has the right to.  Then hit him with,  I guess you agree states do have the right to make their own gun laws.

Maybe it's been tried and didn't work.

It still is odd!!!

I think this is worth reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

[farmerbob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

Interesting read.  But you're a little off base if you think the powers that are trying to dismantle the Second Amendment could care less about state's rights or what's constitutional. If we don't stand up and fight them on every front, eventually we will have the same gun rights as England.  What's that do for your rights and constitutionality?

[rudy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

Interesting read.  But you're a little off base if you think the powers that are trying to dismantle the Second Amendment could care less about state's rights or what's constitutional. If we don't stand up and fight them on every front, eventually we will have the same gun rights as England.  What's that do for your rights and constitutionality?

You seem to be upset that the federal government can pass laws, yes?  Of course states can pass their own laws, but the federal government can pass more restrictive laws that supersede state law (see federal preemption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption).  On the other hand, states can pass laws more restrictive than federal law, and that is OK, too.  Whether or not these laws are constitutional is decided by the courts.  The Supreme Court has stated in regards to the second ammendment that reasonable restrictions are lawful (D.C. v. Heller).  What you and I consider reasonable is probably different than what the Supreme Court justices think, but that is the way it is.  If you don't like the system, try to change it: write a representative, hire a lobbyist, run for office, or do whatever you think is best.  While the system makes me mad sometimes, I am reminded of a Churchill quote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

[Bucket]

I was trying to be a little sarcastic about how the federal government wants states to enforce some laws, but don't enforce others.

Look what happened the last time Arizona tried to follow federal immigration laws.  How about the last time we had a 10 round magazine limit?  It sure looked liked all 50 states had to follow that law, even though I don't remember Nebraska having that law.

I, like you, do believe the states should be able to make their own laws.  But your being disingenuous if you think the states would not be following new gun laws if the president signed them into law.

One way or another, much like the 55 mph speed limit, they would be beaten into submission.

Maybe someone ought to ask Ernie Chambers if he thinks New York has the right to institute a 7 round magazine limit.  I'm sure he would say of course New York has the right to.  Then hit him with,  I guess you agree states do have the right to make their own gun laws.

Maybe it's been tried and didn't work.

It still is odd!!!

I don't find it so much odd as disturbing how the Federal gov't can basically impose itself on areas that are Constitutionally the prerogative of the states.  I think the 55 mph speed limit is a perfect example, as is the current education funding and the more recent imposition of the 21 year old drinking age.

[farmerbob]

There is one fact about politics, the one with the money
makes the laws. So if you haven't set up a monthly donation
yet go over to "Put your money where mouth is " and tell
On The Fly you would like these laws to work for you with
a monthly donation.
The NFOA is a good organization with your help it could
be a great organization.

[OnTheFly]

So if you haven't set up a monthly donation
yet go over to "Put your money where mouth is " and tell
On The Fly you would like these laws to work for you with
a monthly donation.

Thanks for the plug farmerbob!  In case anyone needs the link, here it is...

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!

Fly

[Phantom]

I don't find it so much odd as disturbing how the Federal gov't can basically impose itself on areas that are Constitutionally the prerogative of the states.  I think the 55 mph speed limit is a perfect example,

Interstate Highways are Federal roads ......paid for with federal funding and controlled by the feds.

Want to see a real fun one read up on Interstate Highways.
 
At times Interstate Highways can be totally off limits to civilian traffic and
open only to Military vehicles and/or offical goverment traffic only!
Thats what they were originaly bulit for. 

[Bucket]

Interstate Highways are Federal roads ......paid for with federal funding and controlled by the feds.

Want to see a real fun one read up on Interstate Highways.
 
At times Interstate Highways can be totally off limits to civilian traffic and
open only to Military vehicles and/or offical goverment traffic only!
Thats what they were originaly bulit for. 

I get that, but travel on the interstates by citizens is governed by the traffic laws of the states.  The money for interstates comes from the Feds, and it is that leverage that allowed them to impose conditions.  They didn't force states to set a 55 mph speed limit, but threatened to withhold transportation money if they didn't meet federal "standards."  What people lose sight of is that the federal money is tax dollars collected from citizens of the states.  (Or borrowed, but that's another issue.)