All Gun Politics Is Local
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 1 month ago
Maryland is sued in federal court over recent gun laws:
Gun-rights activists in Maryland have filed a federal lawsuit to block the state’s new gun law before new requirements on assault weapons and large magazines go into effect Oct. 1.
In the lawsuit in filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Maryland, the plaintiffs argues the the Second Amendment and case law protect their right to own assault rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, The Baltimore Sun reported.
The plaintiffs include the Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, and several other organizations, individuals and gun shops, according to the report.
Maryland responds that it’s too little, too late. I question this move on both a tactical and strategic level. First of all, the tactics of a challenge in federal court is like turning to the Leviathan to defang the Leviathan. It’s unlikely, and a bit strange.
Strategically it might also be a mistake. As I’ve said before, the Second Amendment doesn’t speak to states. It frames the federal planners to restrict their actions. The best option would have been to deal with this issue locally and within the state of Maryland. If Maryland is too far gone to turn the tide of totalitarianism, then it’s time to move.
David Codrea notes some activism in Ohio.
An email sent by the president of the League of Women Voters of Hudson (Ohio) to its membership yesterday recruited support to overturn the state’s preemption laws on guns.
“If you are concerned by gun violence, you may be interested in Oberlin’s request for help on getting legislation to allow home rule with regard to banning firearms in city parks,” President Karen Swedenborg advised members. “This is a grass roots effort, if you are interested, contact me.”
Read the rest at Examiner. Goof grief. The League of Women Voters still exists? David is right to have been involved in fighting attempts to overturn state preemption laws. North Carolina still has a form of those on the books for cities and municipalities, as well as CLEO approval of handgun purchases. We have our demons to deal with as well.
But the state is the right place to fight the fight until we secede from the union, after which it will be the only place to fight the fight.
On October 1, 2013 at 4:27 am, McThag said:
You’re right, the bill of rights was a restriction on the federal, not state governments.
The 14th brings those restrictions to the state level.
On October 1, 2013 at 7:29 am, Herschel Smith said:
And that argument is so compelling that after Heller and McDonald New York and New Jersey were forced to become “shall issue” states.
Oh, wait …
On October 1, 2013 at 8:38 am, Chuck said:
Yeah, about that Incorporation Doctrine thingy…it’s only upheld when its convenient. In other words, gay marriage? It’s incorporated! Right to keep and bear arms? It might be…but we have a whole bunch of other things that are more important to deal with…we’ll get to it later. And by “later,” we mean when hell freezes over. Oh, and let’s not forget about abortion! We can’t leave something as important as “choice” (as in choosing to slaughter unborn babies…) to the states! Oh, but marijuana legalization? Why that’s a states’ rights issue!
Yeah, abuse and hypocrisy involving the 14th Amendment is probably only surpassed by Congress’ use of the Commerce Clause to legislate every facet of our lives.
On October 1, 2013 at 9:04 am, Herschel Smith said:
Well said Chuck. I was going to mention Roe v. Wade, but I guess I left my snark incomplete.
The point is that it is a mistake to turn to the feds to protect your rights. Best do that at the state and local level.
On October 1, 2013 at 10:12 am, Paul B said:
Abuse and hypocrisy. Sounds like you are describing congress.
On October 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm, GoneWithTheWind said:
“the Second Amendment doesn’t speak to states”? The constitution spelled out the rights of the citizens, the limits of the federal government and gave the rest to the states and the citizens. The rights under the 2nd amendment or any of the amendments are not the states to alter.
On October 1, 2013 at 11:44 pm, Ed said:
Letting states like California, Illinois, Colorado, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts “protect” your 2nd Amendment rights or any other of your other civil rights is a mistake. You have a right to free speech and to keep and bear arms in any and all of the United States, yet many states continue to deny you your civil rights. Where is the Federal Department of Justice on this abuse of our civil rights? Today President Obama said “One faction of one party in one house of Congress in one branch of government shut down major parts of the government all because they didn’t like one law.” Well, Mr. President, why is your Attorney General and the Department of Justice not going after these states that violate the our 2nd Amendment civil rights? In this case, one party (the Democrats) in Congress and the executive branch have denied us our rights through legislation, executive order, and executive inaction. This must end, now.
On October 2, 2013 at 9:18 am, Herschel Smith said:
@ Gone and Ed,
I understand that’s what you believe. You believe it because you’ve been taught it your whole life. We turn – even reflexively and pitifully – to the feds to protect our liberties, and the Leviathan scoffs and laughs. Ed, see your final statement: it is an appeal to the very usurpers of your liberties to stop the outrage, even after you have advocated turning to them.
We all follow in the footsteps of Marbury v. Madison, even though we didn’t go to law school. We’ve been taught to think the same way as lawyers who go to Yale, Harvard and Emory.
It isn’t the way the colonial fathers thought. They didn’t turn to the feds for delineation of their rights. And for every appeal we make to the feds, we justify and advocate a power they don’t have in these matters.
The corollary, of course, is that every law – EVERY ONE – about guns by the federal government is unconstitutional. @ Gone – “not the states to alter …,” implies a top down approach to rights. That’s exactly what the taskmasters want. Onward and upward, brave slaves of the Leviathan.
Ed, don’t ever believe that the totalitarians in Washington are any different than the ones in New York or California or New Jersey. They are all of the same ilk. If you live in New York, you should change things or move to a free state.
On October 3, 2013 at 9:12 am, MamaLiberty said:
[quote]
Ed, don’t ever believe that the totalitarians in Washington are any different than the ones in New York or California or New Jersey. They are all of the same ilk. If you live in New York, you should change things or move to a free state.[/quote]
Herschel, do you truly think that ANY politician or bureaucrat, cop or meter maid in any of those places is materially different than those anywhere else? They all work for the “state” and that state is run on the premise that it owns and has every “right” to control everyone and everything. And the actual penalty for resisting that is death… no matter where you are or, ultimately, who you are.
There is no such thing as a “free state.” Some states simply are not yet able to destroy the liberty and lives of the people who live there completely – yet. But they are all working on it.
When people take back their natural sovereignty, self ownership with self responsibility, and determine to live in voluntary association without theft or coercion, then we can be truly free.