Herman Cain And Gun Control

[mrjarrell]

Looks like Mr. Cain is just fine with Chicago and DC rules and California depredations, when it comes to gun rights. He was talking with Wolfe Blitzer and when asked whether gun control was OK, he wants to leave it up to states and cities. Considering that, in recent decisions, the 14th Amendment played a key role, he is either painfully ignorant, clueless or a danger to gun owners. The federal level has made it possible for the people of DC to, at last, possess a firearm. Ditto Chicago. Mr. Cain may not be the candidate gun owners are looking for. While he states that he supports the 2nd, he'd leave it up to Chicago to determine whether people should have that right.

Open letter to Herman Cain on the right to keep and bear arms - National gun rights | Examiner.com

(Video at the source. Gun control talk starts about 3:20)

 

[Boiled Owl]

Herman and his Andy Worhol 15 minutes......

I guess if you're going to believe in the constitution, states rights are a big part of it. But, in order to be one of the United States you specifically need to adhere to the constitution and the amendments. IE Shall not be infringed.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't disagree with you, but isn't it a little inconsistent to embrace the 14th Amendment as it relates to the 2nd Amendment protections while railing against it when the Federal Government (ab)uses it to increase federal jurisdiction and impose its will on the states?

 

[dross]

I don't disagree with you, but isn't it a little inconsistent to embrace the 14th Amendment as it relates to the 2nd Amendment protections while railing against it when the Federal Government (ab)uses it to increase federal jurisdiction and impose its will on the states?

Just to clarify, will you give some specifics about the areas you think the 14th has been used to impose on the states?

 

[DocBoCook]

Yes, but under libertarian ideals, that's the way it is. But if you take the handcuffs off of the other states and let them make the changes they have wanted, people will go where the freedom is if the state they live in doesn't get the message.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Just to clarify, will you give some specifics about the areas you think the 14th has been used to impose on the states?

Regulation of intrastate commerce and freedom of religion come to mind immediately.

 

[Garb]

Regulation of intrastate commerce and freedom of religion come to mind immediately.

I have to agree with you here. People have misconstrued the first amendment on the subject of religion I think, and the founding fathers should have been far more specific when writing the commerce clause. It has created more problems then it has solved.

 

[2A_Tom]

Regulation of intrastate commerce and freedom of religion come to mind immediately.

Article 1 section 8 gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Where has the federal govt. abridged freedom of religion.

 

[dross]

Regulation of intrastate commerce and freedom of religion come to mind immediately.

I don't believe the 14th Amendment has anything to do with the Commerce Clause - correct me if I'm wrong. The Commerce Clause applied before the 14th I thought, but the problem there is the broad interpretations that have been allowed over the years.

I understand how the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States, but personally - as a libertarian - I don't have a particular problem with that.

The infringements on freedom that bother me are the interpretations not the incorporation.

 

[Garb]

Article 1 section 8 gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Where has the federal govt. abridged freedom of religion.

Government buildings. Some people claim "separation of church and state" came from the first amendment, and that it means that no one can or should use any form of religious expressions in government buildings in a manner that "imposes" their views on someone else. Not sure how the fourteenth amendment plays into that, but SemperfiUSMC will probably be along to explain himself. After all, I is just a dum collej studint.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Article 1 section 8 gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Where has the federal govt. abridged freedom of religion.

Interstate commerce is the purview of the Federal Government. Intrastate is the purview of the states.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In other words, the Federal government of the United States was not permitted to establish a state religion. However 9 of the 13 original states and commonwealths had Constitutions establishing state religions. This was permissible as the First Amendment restriction was on the Federal, not state, governments. However, incorporation, and the subsequent interpretation, turned that doctrine on its head.

I don't believe the 14th Amendment has anything to do with the Commerce Clause - correct me if I'm wrong. The Commerce Clause applied before the 14th I thought, but the problem there is the broad interpretations that have been allowed over the years.

I understand how the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States, but personally - as a libertarian - I don't have a particular problem with that.

The infringements on freedom that bother me are the interpretations not the incorporation.

Equal protection clause establishes the tenents for Federal laws regulating areas that are clearly state issues under the guise that without Federal intervention equal protection does not exist.

The interpretations are possible because of incorporation. Without the 14th Amendment there is no justification for most Federal activity. With the 14th Amendment all things are possible.

 

[Garb]

Interstate commerce is the purview of the Federal Government. Intrastate is the purview of the states.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In other words, the Federal government of the United States was not permitted to establish a state religion. However 9 of the 13 original states and commonwealths had Constitutions establishing state religions. This was permissible as the First Amendment restriction was on the Federal, not state, governments. However, incorporation, and the subsequent interpretation, turned that doctrine on its head.



Equal protection clause establishes the tenents for Federal laws regulating areas that are clearly state issues under the guise that without Federal intervention equal protection does not exist.

The interpretations are possible because of incorporation. Without the 14th Amendment there is no justification for most Federal activity. With the 14th Amendment all things are possible.

So do you think the Bill of Rights applying to the states is a bad thing?(honest question, not reading into your post at all) Personally, I don't have a single problem with the BOR applying to the states, citizens need protection from state governments too.

 

[rambone]

Let me clarify this. So before the 14th amendment, the states could ban speech, religion, assembly, press, guns, privacy, and trials. They could torture people, impose trillion dollar bails, search you any time, and enter your house without a warrant.

...So long as their state constitution allowed it. Am I right?

The federal constitution originally only protected you from the Feds and their non-existent enforcement agencies. Yes??

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't disagree with you, but isn't it a little inconsistent to embrace the 14th Amendment as it relates to the 2nd Amendment protections while railing against it when the Federal Government (ab)uses it to increase federal jurisdiction and impose its will on the states?

Well, dross pretty well covered my position on the 14th. I have no issues with incorporation, but if it were used otherwise, I might have an issue with it. I'd have to see it on a case by case basis. Not sure what the commerce clause has to do with Cain's position on gun control, tho. Politicians have used the CC without even mentioning the 14th for decades. Can't even think of a case, off the top of my head, where it's even played a role in anything.

Cain's position is worrisome to me, as a gun rights advocate.

 

[chraland51]

Other than his position on gun rights, I generally like Mr. Cain. Contrary to the advice of the NRA, I would not have voted for Harry Reid on his voting record on gun rights (probably due only to the majority of his constituents and not his own personal views). I generally do not let only one issue determine my vote. However, I kinda feel like he is ducking the questions about gun ownership when he says that he would leave it up to the various jurisdictions to make those decisions. That makes me feel like he may very well be anti-gun, but just won't say it so as not to lose a ton of votes. He would really have to well represent all of my other positions for me to consider voting for him.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So do you think the Bill of Rights applying to the states is a bad thing?(honest question, not reading into your post at all) Personally, I don't have a single problem with the BOR applying to the states, citizens need protection from state governments too.

I don't think it's a bad thing. I don't think it's a good thing. There are pluses and minuses.

I think that if you believe in a republic you accept that the state is sovereign. If you believe in a democracy you view states as protectorates under the control of a single federal government. The 14th Amendment changed the nature of the relationship between the Federal and state governments from a republic to a democracy.

The federal government is the protector of the citizenry from evil state governments? Isn't that a pretty leftist idology?

Let me clarify this. So before the 14th amendment, the states could ban speech, religion, assembly, press, guns, privacy, and trials. They could torture people, impose trillion dollar bails, search you any time, and enter your house without a warrant.

...So long as their state constitution allowed it. Am I right?

The federal constitution originally only protected you from the Feds and their non-existent enforcement agencies. Yes??

Before the 14th Amendment the states were sovereign and could establish, or not establish, any laws they chose fit to, subject to the power and authority granted the state by its citizens through the state's Constitution. You can read into that whatever little gov hate thought is rolling through your head right now.

Well, dross pretty well covered my position on the 14th. I have no issues with incorporation, but if it were used otherwise, I might have an issue with it. I'd have to see it on a case by case basis. Not sure what the commerce clause has to do with Cain's position on gun control, tho. Politicians have used the CC without even mentioning the 14th for decades. Can't even think of a case, off the top of my head, where it's even played a role in anything.

Cain's position is worrisome to me, as a gun rights advocate.

I have huge problems with incorporation. It changed the nature of the US from a republic to a democracy, and 14th Amendment rulings are what have if not initiated the decline of America has certainly sped it along its way.

Gun control itself is enabled at a federal level using a combination of police powers (which doesn't exist at the federal level) doctrine / equal protection / commerce clause laws and decisions.

 

[Bond 281]

Yes, but under libertarian ideals, that's the way it is. But if you take the handcuffs off of the other states and let them make the changes they have wanted, people will go where the freedom is if the state they live in doesn't get the message.

The U.S. is primarily intended to be libertarian, and it is agreed that there are certain rights that every man has, and that no man has the authority to take away. Speech, religion, etc. come to mind. However, one of the most important of these is the right of self-preservation. That right I would say trumps the others. Inherent in that right is the right to arm oneself. This is what the 2nd amendment specifically protects, the right to self-defense that nobody, nobody, has the authority to take away.

You also misconstrue libertarian ideals. Infringing upon somebody's right to own property is completely unjustified, in this case a gun is that property. In addition, states have never been allowed to have laws contrary to the constitution. They can certainly claim powers the constitution didn't give the federal government, but they can't make a law directly opposing the constitution. This would be the case with gun control; "shall not be infringed."

For Herman Cain to say that gun control should be left up to cities and states shows the weakness of either his intellect or his character. Because he either can't understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed" or the basics of U.S. government, or he understands and chooses to ignore them so he can pander. Either way, mark against him.

 

[Wink and the Gun]

Interstate commerce is the purview of the Federal Government. Intrastate is the purview of the states.

That's how it was intended, but not how the current judicial interpretation is in practice. Basically, anything that affects interstate commerce is within the purview of the commerce clause, to include most intrastate commerce. See Wickard v Filburn, where the court found that a farmer growing wheat for his own personal use - not for sale - was affecting interstate commerce (because by growing his own, that was x amount of wheat that he wasn't buying on the open market, which affected the price.) That's why so many laws that are passed use the commerce clause as their authority, because Congress can pretty much justify anything they do as affecting interstate commerce (scaled back a hair in US v Lopez, but even that was a 5-4 decision).

 

[finity]

I don't think it's a bad thing. I don't think it's a good thing. There are pluses and minuses.

I think that if you believe in a republic you accept that the state is sovereign. If you believe in a democracy you view states as protectorates under the control of a single federal government. The 14th Amendment changed the nature of the relationship between the Federal and state governments from a republic to a democracy.

The federal government is the protector of the citizenry from evil state governments? Isn't that a pretty leftist idology?



Before the 14th Amendment the states were sovereign and could establish, or not establish, any laws they chose fit to, subject to the power and authority granted the state by its citizens through the state's Constitution. You can read into that whatever little gov hate thought is rolling through your head right now.



I have huge problems with incorporation. It changed the nature of the US from a republic to a democracy, and 14th Amendment rulings are what have if not initiated the decline of America has certainly sped it along its way.

Gun control itself is enabled at a federal level using a combination of police powers (which doesn't exist at the federal level) doctrine / equal protection / commerce clause laws and decisions.

I personally don't get the whole issue with "state's rights".

If you claim that it's "bad" that the federal government exercises some amount of control over the states you must believe that it's equally "bad" that the states exercise some amount of control over cities & counties. Then you must similarly think it's bad that cities & counties exercise some amount of control over over individuals. Ultimately, there would be no "rule of law" because every person could make up their own "laws" as they see fit.

Since you think that "the federal government is the protector of the citizenry from evil state governments" is "a pretty leftist idology" then wouldn't the fact that the state is a protector of the citizenry from evil local government also be a "leftist ideology" only on a smaller scale?

Did you support the latetst pre-emption bill that says that local jurisdictions can't regulate guns? If so, why? That's a very "leftist" position isn't it?

"States rights" only breeds what we complain about in relation to gun laws for EVERY OTHER LAW THERE IS - namely it's all a patchwork of local (state) laws such that no one can really know if they are breaking a state law since those laws could theoretically be (& in many cases actually are) completely different from state to state.

"Before the 14th Amendment the states were sovereign and could establish, or not establish, any laws they chose fit to, subject to the power and authority granted the state by its citizens through the state's Constitution. " Yeah, like the power to enslave an entire race of other human beings. I'd say we've made some progress after the 14A. Wouldn't you?

It's all a matter of degree. The degree to which we are willing to allow a political entity to have some amount of control over each of us as individuals. Some people think that it's OK for the federal government to exercise that control. Others think that it should be the state. Still others think that there should be no one in charge of them at all. Some of those people would call that "libertarianism" others would call that anarchy.

As I said in another thread - states don't have Rights. The only unit that can have any Rights at all is a person. WE grant the states the authority to govern us. At any moment WE can take that authority away & give it to the federal government. Then WE can take any power that WE grant to the federal government back & give it to our local governments.

Since those so-called "rights" can be taken away & given at will - OUR will - they can't be considered Rights at all. At least not in any pure sense of that concept. Once we accept that a state somehow has "rights" that can be taken away on a whim then we allow for the idea that OUR Rights can also be taken away on that same whim.

To complain that somehow the federal government is "evil" but the state governments are "good" is a false distinction. Would any of us here like to live in Illinois as far as gun laws are concerned? Didn't we celebrate the recent Heller & McDonald US supreme court decisions as a step in the right direction for freedom?

We have respresentation in both governments. Both governments are what WE make them to be. It just depends on which WE we are talking about - WE as people from IN or WE as people from the USA.

I don't know about you but I consider myself first an AMERICAN not a Hoosier. As a matter of fact, my identity as a person from IN is one of the very last things that I feel defines who I am.

I also think you're confused on your definitions of a "republic", "democracy" & "federalism".

In the US we have (& always have had) a Constitutional representive republic as our form of government. Our representatives are voted on by us through a direct democratic process.

Our national organization is "federalism" - in our case, a group of states bound together by an agreement (or not, as the case may be).

Even in the days of our Founders there was a hot debate over the role that the federal government should play. Some wanted a strong federal government. Others wanted a weak one.

I don't think the passage of the 14A had much if anything at all to do with that system.

Besides WE were the ones, through our elected representatives (republicanism) who actually passed the 14A into law. It wasn't forced onto us by some act of the federal government as if they were some foreign power. WE had to ratify the Amendment before it took effect. That right there is a prime example of US taking power from the states & giving it to the federal government. How can there be any states "rights" if they can be taken away?

In addition, states have never been allowed to have laws contrary to the constitution. They can certainly claim powers the constitution didn't give the federal government, but they can't make a law directly opposing the constitution. This would be the case with gun control; "shall not be infringed."

Not exactly.

You see it all depends on which "constitution" you are referring to: the federal or the state.

Until the 14th Amendment the states WERE allowed to pass laws that were contrary to the "constitution" - the federal Constitution. That was the whole purpose of the 14A in the first place.

Subsequently most of the Rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution have been "incorporated" against the states. Thankfully, the most recent one was the Right to keep & bare arms outside of militia service.

There are several states that don't have that protection in their Constitutions. IL & CA are two notorious ones that come to mind.

We can see how that's turning out for the citizens of those states. So much for "Gun control itself is enabled at a federal level".

For Herman Cain to say that gun control should be left up to cities and states shows the weakness of either his intellect or his character. Because he either can't understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed" or the basics of U.S. government, or he understands and chooses to ignore them so he can pander. Either way, mark against him.

Until the Heller decision "shall not be infringed" didn't mean what you thought it meant. It only meant that it "shall not be infringed" by the federal government. The states were free to "infringe" away.

To say that gun control should be left completely up to the states is a "states 'rights' " position. That position would make the Heller decision completely inconsequential & would be a HUGE step backward in our gun-Rights.

Yes, a definite mark against him but for a different reason.

 

[Bond 281]

Not exactly.

You see it all depends on which "constitution" you are referring to: the federal or the state.

Until the 14th Amendment the states WERE allowed to pass laws that were contrary to the "constitution" - the federal Constitution. That was the whole purpose of the 14A in the first place.

Subsequently most of the Rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution have been "incorporated" against the states. Thankfully, the most recent one was the Right to keep & bare arms outside of militia service.

There are several states that don't have that protection in their Constitutions. IL & CA are two notorious ones that come to mind.

We can see how that's turning out for the citizens of those states. So much for "Gun control itself is enabled at a federal level".



Until the Heller decision "shall not be infringed" didn't mean what you thought it meant. It only meant that it "shall not be infringed" by the federal government. The states were free to "infringe" away.

To say that gun control should be left completely up to the states is a "states 'rights' " position. That position would make the Heller decision completely inconsequential & would be a HUGE step backward in our gun-Rights.

Yes, a definite mark against him but for a different reason.

Actually, the 14th only reinforced what was already in the Constitution.

From the Constitution:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And from the 14th:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

The right to bear arms was one of those, imo. I think the second also guarantees rights to every citizen. I don't believe states have the right to stifle the press, or freedom of speech, or any rights really. In addition, the wording of the 2nd makes no mention of specific bodies of government, e.g. "Congress shall make no law..." or what have you. It simply is a guarantee that there would never be an attempt to disarm people. Regardless of what the douchebags in SCOTUS or Congress think, they have no legal authority to enact any form of gun control, whether at a state or federal level. Every single form of gun control is unlawful. Too bad the scumbags routinely ignore parts of the Constitution they don't like.

Additionally, Heller didn't change s--t, and it was a deeply flawed decision. "Shall not be infringed" is exceedingly clear and universal. That really isn't up for debate.