States v. Locals
We conservative sorts tend to like to allow the states to handle things as opposed to the feds but that pipe dream died long ago. Another issue is states v. cities:
Some new changes being considered at the statehouse would call for statewide gun laws only, and no city gun laws.
[…]
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jim Aslanides of Coshocton, said that if gun laws are made only at the state level, gun owners will be better able to be aware of them and comply.
“Because you have a modge-podge of different ordinances that vary from place to place, it becomes confusing and almost impossible to adhere to,” Aslanides said.
The much-debated Columbus assault weapons ban would no longer apply if the state legislation
While I’d be happy with the result (i.e., no lame ban on weapons that look like assault weapons), it takes the authority from the locals which sets my little l libertarian feelers into a bit of tizzy. Thoughts?
May 19th, 2006 at 10:45 am
I support a limited national government with most of the power in the hands of state and local authorities, but the federal government, under the 14th amendment, has a role to play in protecting our rights as Americans. I wouldn’t have any issues if the feds decided to start doing their job regards to the 2nd amendment as applied to the states through the 14th.
I don’t have a problem with the principle being used at the state level, restraining local governments.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:55 am
I’m conflicted in situations like this as well. I believe that people should be governed on a level as close to where they live as possible. This means that most laws should be local, then state, then with few things falling to the feds.
I think I’ve resolved that conflication by changing my view such that most laws should be local with the exception of our basic rights. Our basic rights should not be able to be limited by local governments (or state or fed). I consider self defense the ultimate human right that no government has the right to take away.
May 19th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I’ve tried to come up with a win-win scenario. I can’t do it. Any attempt to protect a person through state law without trampling on local law (outside of what is described above) would be a long drawn-out mess.
The flipside to this is if the state enacts a more restrictive law than the city does. What fun that would be!
May 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I’ve got an easy win-win answer…at least in terms of gun laws. Ready?
Repeal all gun laws.
Then, we wouldn’t have to worry about it. If you think I’m kidding, I’m not. If government would stop infrining on our Rights in the first place many of these quandries would simply disappear.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Your libertarian feelers are off. There’s nothing “libertarian” about allowing cities and counties to run amok. Local governments can be just as oppressive as any other level, and if anything, their track record is worse. Think New York State’s gun laws are bad? Try New York City’s. Think California’s are bad? Try that Frisco ordinance, in the unlikely event it is upheld, and I hear D.C.’s gun laws are a tad more stringent than those of either of the states bordering it. Want to own a pit bull in Colorado? No problemo – unless you’re in Denver. Etc.
Granted, one can make the same kind of argument state to federal, but most states are big enough and diverse enough to prevent any one particular type of a-hole from getting the upper hand. Besides, it’s not clear from a libertarian perspective that federalism is the best way to go. It’s the constitutional way, but that’s another matter.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Also, as a legal matter, county and municipal governments are created by the state, which, legally anyway, means the state sets the definition of what powers those subordinate governments have.
The .fedgov, on the other hand, was created by the states, and thus the states set the limits on the power of the feds. Or at least, that’s the way it was supposed to work.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Think of it this way..How many localities in your state? How many battles with them can you fight?
May 20th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Another thing to think about is where does the ‘political weight’ of a state reside?
Usually in and around the biggest cities.
Which are usually the most liberal, dangerous, and anti-gun.
May 20th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
I’m not too keen on the locals. I live in a suburb of Portland Oregon. Most of Portland is in Multnomah county. If I travel thru any part of Multnomah county with an “assault weapon” I have to have it dissassembled and the parts locked up. It’s not easy getting around the metro area without travelling thru Multnomah county. Buy an AR-15 at the local gun shop? Better break it down and lock it up when you drive home or you are committing a felony.
Technically Oregon is an open carry state. However, if I open carry in Portland, Beaverton, or Salem my ass will end up in jail and my gun confiscated and melted down.
The rule of lawyers *SUCKS*.