TXBO wrote:I can't argue with much of what you state. However, we have spent decades fighting for the recognition of the Second Amendment as a fundamental individual right. Any suggestion that it is a state's right would be detrimental to the movement....And, in my opinion, just plain wrong.
I don't know that it
should be a state's right (I'd be happier if it was all federal and the Constitution was followed to the letter), but I do know this: at this time in our history, the right is for the most part
safer with the states than it
has been with the feds. Yes, there are states that suppress it almost entirely, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. The ONLY way I can see going forward at the federal level would be if Congress were to pass legislation simply stating that:
- the 2nd Amendment says what it says, the courts have determined it to be an individual right, and therefore under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), all laws regulating firearms at the state and local level are null and void,
- the 2nd Amendment says what it says, the courts have determined it to be an individual right, and therefore under the Bill of Rights, all federal gun control laws are null and void, and
- the 2nd Amendment says what it says, the courts have determined it to be an individual right, and therefore it shall be deemed unconstitutional and unlawful and treasonous to attempt to pass any further legislation controlling or restricting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, and
- the 2nd Amendment says what it says, the courts have determined it to be an individual right, and therefore it shall be considered an impeachable offense for a sitting president to in any way circumvent, refuse to enforce, or fail to protect the 2nd Amendment via executive orders.
....and then have the sitting president sign it.
That's never going to happen, and we both know it. Name me ONE president, even a fairly
conservative president, who would have signed away federal power like that. Ronald Reagan wouldn't have signed it. We can
hope it will some day happen, but realistically it just isn't going to happen because there are too many other citizens who disagree that it is a right at all, let alone a right that cannot be infringed in any way. They are
wrong, but they vote, and "elections have consequences", as Emperor Obama is fond of saying. It would take the election of a pretty committed Libertarian POTUS to sign such a bill.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but there it is, and I fear that trying to pass this national reciprocity legislation would bring forth a greater loss of the RKBA than it would save. We can certainly invest our
hopes in what
SHOULD be, but if we fail to take into account what
IS when we do so, then we are doomed to nothing more than bewildered frustration; and THIS is exactly why it is that, despite the understandable desire for instant and massive change, from a tactical perspective, the preservation and advancement of firearm rights is best tackled piecemeal. A national reciprocity bill would be a fairly sweeping change, and I suspect it would be impossible to pass - let alone to get any of the rodeo clowns currently running to sign it into law - for the simple reason that it would burn up a TON of political capital, when there
are more pressing issues..........like keeping Hillary Clinton from turning us into Australia.......
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
The fundamental threat to the 2A is the Federal government, not the state governments (taken collectively). Most states have done a wonderful job as stewards of the right to bear arms.
Philippians 2:3-4
