National Reciprocity ***Standards?***

[fightingquaker13]

In the spirit of the Second Amendment, national security is more important than states' rights.  Does a state have the right to opt out of military involvement, including the draft?

Actually you pose an interesting question here. (BTW I Agree with the point of your post and think that however much I value state's rights, the freedoms guaranteeded in the Bill of Rights win. ) As far the draft goes it ain't just hippies that didn't like it. Half of New York was burned down by Draft protestors during the Civil War. When Wilson reimposed them in WWI he made sure the Selective Service (and ain't that a euphemism for the ages, screw "collateral damage", that one wins hands down) boards were locally comprised. The reason for doing this was he knew there would be riots if some fed showed up and sent Johnny off to die in a ditch in France. So, he figured he could save money and save hassels by empowering some yokel to do his job for him. It worked. Funny thing happened in Vietnam though. There were  a few (and here I'm relying on memories of a paper that was presented several years ago) communities where the yokels stood up on their hind legs and found no suitable candidates for the draft. Not a single one. These were small rural communities in the midwest and south, not Berkley either. Guess what? The feds did not say a mumbling word. They didn't want the word to spread or have to revamp the selective service system in Congress. Neither Johnson or Nixon were forgive and forget kind of guys, but on this one, they sucked it up.The Constitution is a tricky thing and state's rights do matter.
FQ13

[scott.ballard]

States Rights v. Feds

Are we not a nation of states first?  If so, do we not adhere to the laws of that nation above all else?  The constitution and BoR were ratified and accepted by a majority when they were presented.  We have an amendment process for changing thing if necessary.  The documents which govern us are created by the people.  We probably need to take more interest in those documents and the laws our elected officials keep creating, but that does not mean a state should be permitted to take away federal rights.

I am all for states rights, but only if they do not violate those afforded to us by the constitution and the BoR.

Am I being too naive?


Thanks,

[MikeBjerum]

The Civil War is the most common area that most people have heard of that raises the question of which is more important - The individual state or the collective union.  Lincoln believed it was the union that was more important than the state or the individual.

From that point of view, which is more important - The right of the individual to be armed to protect himself, his family, his neighborhood or to ban together in a malitia to protect the state or the union, or should we through that out to protect the warm fuzzy feelings of the paranoid?

[fightingquaker13]

Scott
Nope, you're not being naive, you're just overlooking dual soveriegnty. In a nut shell this means the states have power over those areas not granted to the Feds. In 1805 in the case of Baron v Baltimore (which involved the question of the 5A takings clause and could it be applied to the states) the Court said that the Bill of Rights applied only to the feds, not the state government. With the interesting exception of Dredd Scott (where Taney effectively reversed Baron and for the first time incoporated a right, though in a perverse manner) Baron was good law until the 1920s when Court started to use the 14A to incorporate. Bottom line is this. The Constitutional safeguards (or limitations) of freedom apply only when the Court says they apply to the states. This is ovrsimplified, but good enough I hope.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

The Federal Govt is sworn to "Uphold and protect" the Constitution which specifies that the "Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That applies to every one in the nation equally.
Therefore, just like if Mississippi tried to re institute slavery, the Feds have a duty to intervene to protect Nationally recognized rights regardless of the desires of a particular state.

[Sponsor]

[ericire12]

The Federal Govt is sworn to "Uphold and protect" the Constitution which specifies that the "Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That applies to every one in the nation equally.
Therefore, just like if Mississippi tried to re institute slavery, the Feds have a duty to intervene to protect Nationally recognized rights regardless of the desires of a particular state.

Tom Bogan for SCOTUS

[Walter45Auto]

I think the only way we will get national reciprocity is if there is some kind of minimum standard requirements set.

[fightingquaker13]

I think the only way we will get national reciprocity is if there is some kind of minimum standard requirements set.

Yep. And therein lies the problem. Is the standard set in Indiana, where the rules seemed to be "You must be at least as tall as this sign, have a clean record and have $25 in your pocket"? Or do we go with Texas, which for a very pro-gun state recquires a fairly rigorous 2 day class that includes a graded practical test? Or do  we go with California where the standard seems to be "Does you local Sheriff like you"? Right now, as best I can see it, there are two unspoken rules regarding reciprocity.
Rule the first: You have to have some sort of permit issued by the state. This is why Vermonters get screwed.
Rule the second: You honor my permit and I'll honor yours. Its piecemeal, but not too bad.
Thing is, if its federalized, do we not only have uniform standards for getting the permit, but uniform laws for carrying? Bars, Churches, schools, no gun signs etc.? I have no real opinion as to which is better or worse, but it is something to think hard about. Just my .02.
FQ13

[MikeBjerum]

How about "You are a legal adult citizen of the United States, and you can legally posess a firearm"?

Just a cent and a half from a northern redneck son of a bitch 

[ericire12]

You would not have to uniform the standards for getting the permit, nor the laws for carrying.

It does not work that way with driving.... There are very few things that are standardized from state to state. Certain states outlaw texting while driving and others do not. States have different thresholds for measuring intoxication. Speed limits (aside from highways) are set by localities. States also have differences in the age at which you can get a license as well as far different tests that must be taken to get the license. The list goes on and on. Its up to the driver to know the local traffic laws and it would be the same thing with concealed carry.

It merely must be a matter of forcing recognition...... Giving things over to the federal government and making them responsible for determining the requirements and enforcement would be a BIG mistake.