Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)

Jeff Dege wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:36:06 -0700, Homespun Inc. wrote:

I'm all for the states making their own laws--
consistent with the spirit of the model.

How, exactly, do you think that you're going to get the power to do that?

Do you understand _how_ politics works?

When was the last time you sat down across the table from a legislator and
had a chat?

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house.
- Robert Heinlein

I do understand how our system of government works-- and the politics
that go with it.

I've never "sat down" with a legislator and had a chat. The few times
I've met with legislators have been stand-up events. I've also been
talked TO-- which isn't quite what you're talking about, I don't think.
Letters to my elected officials (and others who weren't even in my
district) also don't qualify as a chat-- although there have been many.

Since I don't have _the power_ to do anything other than speak my mind,
the power is in the choices presented to the states. I believe the
states would choose to preserve their state sovereignty when faced with
the possibility of a federal mandate. Allow me to explain:

I believe it would be consistent with our system of government for the
federal government to pass a law-- much like the Civil Rights Act- that
provides protection to all Americans for their right to keep and bear
arms. But at the same time, the "right"-- insofar as it has existed--
has been inextricably tied to state sovereignty. The second amendment
was-- at least-- a prohibition against the federal government
"infringing" the right to keep and bear arms in the several states.
And the states have attempted to preserve their sovereignty by making
separate laws on the issue-- as well as in some states allowing local
governments to create ordinances about it. The states want to believe
they can do what they want about it.

If you put that all together-- and compare to the situation of civil
rights-- the federal government could protect the rights of citizens as
long as those protections were not a restrictive infringment on the
right of the people in a state to keep and bear arms. In other words,
the feds could legitimately pass a law that protected your right to
carry a concealed handgun for self-defense throughout the U.S. And no
state could claim it was an "infringement" on the right even where they
might say it's an infringement on state sovereignty. Were civil
right's laws an infringment on state sovereignty? At least one
governor argued so. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't agree.

I would suggest that my right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.
And it deserves protection.

Anyway, if the states were faced with a choice-- a model to use in
formulating exactly how firearms possession, carry and use would be
regulated within their state and that would effectively amount to a
"reciprocity" where the several other states would be doing things
consistent with that-- I think the states would choose to keep the
appearance of state sovereignty even where there isn't any in practice
and to reinforce their state sovereignty where they can. The model
does that.

I think it can be argued, rather strongly, that "full faith and credit"
shouldn't have to apply where "full faith and credit" can't be applied
to anything of substance. Allow me to explain:

Vermont has a very unrestrictive carry law that requires no license.
What exactly is it that Vermont's neighbors, say, are expected to give
ful faith and credit to? That Vermont has passed a law that affects
people within their borders? The state itself has not issued a license
to the person saying to the rest of the several states that certain
minimum measures were taken to ensure the person is safe (or at least
not in a class of people that might be unsafe). So, there's nothing to
give "full faith and credit" to. Similarly, a state that was
shall-issue but didn't verify the person's identity thoroughly and
conduct a thorough background check but still issued a license to carry
wouldn't be acting in a way that entitled "full faith and credit." An
effective "reciprocity" requires minimum standards-- standards that can
be imposed from the top down or voluntarily applied acorss the several

The model sets out to provide those minimum guidelines as a foundation
for that kind of "reciprocity" arrangement. The dumbasses here who
haven't thoroughly read the model don't seem to see that each state
makes it own laws-- EXACTLY AS IT HAPPENS NOW-- and that under the
model no state is required to make any limitation whatsoever-- in
regards to types of weapons, manner of carry, etc. In other words, the
model provides for what exists now but also ensures the right to carry
a concealed handgun in states and municipalites that currently prohibit
it. (And the right to own and keep in the home any weapon that the
regular state militia would be given or one similar to it in form and
function-- for example, the M-16 rifle.) Additionally, the model
assumes licensure endorsement for collectors and dealers and such that
provides for the ownership and possession of other weapons. That is--

(I do admit that the federal government would be entitled to restrict
the transport (and sale, etc.) of weapons interstate. And just as the
federal government now requires that certain forms be submitted to the
ATF for movement of certain weapons, I would be supportive of the same
in the future. However, I believe that transport within a state is the
state's business and that the federal government would not have
jurisdiction over those matters.)

Is that any clearer?