Saturday, March 26, 2011

Powers of Congress and the Second Amendment

Given the decisions in Heller and McDonald, and the precedent of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, is there any reason that Congress could not require legislatively require states to permit carriage of firearms by non-prohibited persons?

4 comments:

  1. Well, Congress (the opposite of "progress) made states change the drinking age to 21 on the threat of losing highway money and covering this and that on threat of losing Medicaid money, so I see no reason that Congress couldn't do the same thing for SHALL ISSUE gun licenses once we kick out the remaining libtards and O-BOMB-MAO.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They don't even have to threaten "this or else." Incorporated under the 14th amendment (As McDonald did) grants Congress "the power to enforce by appropriate legislation."

    Wasn't it for many years that LA did not take the money and kept their drinking age lower, IIRC

    ReplyDelete
  3. That was my thought, too. The 14th Amendment gives a suitably motivated Congress the legitimate authority to force New Jersey to allow Constitutional carry and paperless OTC machine gun sales. And McDonald does away with any concerns over "incorporation" silliness.

    It's always fun to watch how guns invert the usual party self-images. Want to see a bunch of hardcore liberals who believe the Federal government has the authority to make you buy medical insurance suddenly start arguing passionately for states' rights? Propose a law that would weaken NYC's gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "State's Rights" are one of those things that only exist in the first person; the right "I" or "we" like. The rights "you" or "they" like that we don't, well, those don't really exist.

    It'd be a lot less controversial if a large chunk of the population hadn't embraced victimhood as a political tactic.

    ReplyDelete

Please keep it civil