I've already gotten prior approval from Doc to post this so :flipoff2:.

I'm currently enrolled in American Gov't online. My first topic is Federalism (refers to the relative distribution of power between national and each of the 50 states). I have to pick a "hot" topic of debate for our discussion this week. Mine is on "Gun laws and gun control--who should hold the power Federal or State Authority.

Any information based on FACTS, even your opinion, links, URL's, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

Discuss please!

the 10th ammendment prohibits the federal gov't of regulating anything not expressly defined in the constitution. No where else does it say that regulation of guns has been given to the federal gov't. I'm not a lawyer so it seems pretty clear to me.

Pennsylvania has a constitution which also states very clearly that the rights cannot be infringed, it goes on to say that local and county municipalities cannot create laws regarding firearms.

The Feds think they rule all... But hopefully that will change. Utah Senate has passed the Senate Bill 11 (Similar to Montana's Firearm Freedom Act) and now it has passed onto the House.

S.B. 11 Introduced on Senate Floor (http://senatesite.com/blog/2010/02/sb-11-introduced-on-senate-floor.html)

UTAH STATE-MADE FIREARMS PROTECTION ACT (http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/sbillint/sb0011.htm)

Sound suppressors would be legal under this law. :smokin:

Hopefull enough states push this issue and the Feds will back down.

the 10th ammendment prohibits the federal gov't of regulating anything not expressly defined in the constitution. No where else does it say that regulation of guns has been given to the federal gov't. I'm not a lawyer so it seems pretty clear to me.

Pennsylvania has a constitution which also states very clearly that the rights cannot be infringed, it goes on to say that local and county municipalities cannot create laws regarding firearms.

Since when do the feds care about what the constitution says? (unless it helps them)

the 10th ammendment prohibits the federal gov't of regulating anything not expressly defined in the constitution. No where else does it say that regulation of guns has been given to the federal gov't. I'm not a lawyer so it seems pretty clear to me.

Pennsylvania has a constitution which also states very clearly that the rights cannot be infringed, it goes on to say that local and county municipalities cannot create laws regarding firearms.

Most state constitutions specifically prohibit infringment upon the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment is thre as a preemption to ALL governments under the United Staes of America. So technically it's the states purview to govern firearms laws, there are numerous statutes on the books at the federal level. Many of those stem from a taxation standpoint, which IMO is infringement via excessive taxation and a back door control of ownership.


Would people gripe if the right to keep and drive vehicles was subject to a $200 tax stamp in order to purchase a vehicle with an automatic transmission?

Most state constitutions specifically prohibit infringment upon the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment is thre as a preemption to ALL governments under the United Staes of America. So technically it's the states purview to govern firearms laws, there are numerous statutes on the books at the federal level. Many of those stem from a taxation standpoint, which IMO is infringement via excessive taxation and a back door control of ownership.


Would people gripe if the right to keep and drive vehicles was subject to a $200 tax stamp in order to purchase a vehicle with an automatic transmission?

The majority of people would mutter under their breath but few would speak out against the all powerful govenment.

the 10th ammendment prohibits the federal gov't of regulating anything not expressly defined in the constitution.

that's not what the 10th says. It says "powers not delegated..." It doesn't say "can't regulate anything not listed here."

as far as who holds the laws. With the 10th amendment in mind, read Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article one, section 7 of the TN State Consitution states, paraphrased, that the state consitution affords us more protection than the US Consitution, but it does not say how much more nor how it is more.

The topic title should be "Gun Law -- who holds the MONEY; Federal or State"

Most States pass the laws that they do to get Federal money. The Feds withhold money if a State does not have certain laws passed to fit the Fed agenda. Its just a carrot/stick thing.

If the state will not pass the laws desired the Feds funnel that money to a National organization, like NHTSA so that NHTSA will go into the state and encourage programs that will mold the state into passing the laws once they see that it will be a "good" thing. Like open container laws in vehicles, DUI's and such.

So far this awesome guys...Rocktoy--the Utah link are AWESOME and will be perfect for my discussion. I really hope I have some anti-gun folks:shaking: in my class :D:laughing::mr-t:

Article one, section 7 of the TN State Consitution states, paraphrased, that the state consitution affords us more protection than the US Consitution, but it does not say how much more nor how it is more.

The topic title should be "Gun Law -- who holds the MONEY; Federal or State"

Most States pass the laws that they do to get Federal money. The Feds withhold money if a State does not have certain laws passed to fit the Fed agenda. Its just a carrot/stick thing.

If the state will not pass the laws desired the Feds funnel that money to a National organization, like NHTSA so that NHTSA will go into the state and encourage programs that will mold the state into passing the laws once they see that it will be a "good" thing. Like open container laws in vehicles, DUI's and such.

Very good point, such was the case with Reagan rasining the drink age to 21 if I recall. If states didn't raise the drinking age they wouldn't get their fed. highway $$$

technically The People hold the laws, but it has not been actually run that way for a long time.

So far this awesome guys...Rocktoy--the Utah link are AWESOME and will be perfect for my discussion. I really hope I have some anti-gun folks:shaking: in my class :D:laughing::mr-t:

If you listen to her talk about the bill she's pushing it more because of states rights than gun control. I say it's about time. :smokin:

Very good point, such was the case with Reagan rasining the drink age to 21 if I recall. If states didn't raise the drinking age they wouldn't get their fed. highway $$$

So what if the feds pull funding... the states could just say that their residents no longer have to pay federal taxes and keep the money in state. What could the feds do?

What could the feds do?

take over the state

take over the state

Not if several states took a stand. It would never happen anyhow, politicians care to much about other's approval, not enough about peoples rights.

didnt read any posts...

As a country the feds should control firearms. This is to allow equal access to all citizens with in its borders. This right was given to its citizens by the forefathers in the constitution and and by the blood spilled in creating and protecting this nation. Because of that no state should impair the rights of its good wholesome citizens to free speech and the right defend their property and rights themselves.

With that said the State is the embodiment of the citizens and is to reflect the social conscious found within its borders. It is that social conscious that establish laws in order to establish the rights and the wrongs. Those rights and wrongs establish how the state will protect the order within the borders. To protect the order the states may establish laws that protect the young, the old, and the indigent needy from those who may prey upon them. Which means the have the right to establish firearm limited zones, just as a common business owner can require that their clientele have their firearms right restricted while on the premises.

In short that state can not limit what is purchased by a decent good hearted citizen as that is impeding on the blood given rights. But since the state is in charge of the protection of its citizens it can establish areas that the _common_ citizen should have a firearm. Uncommon citizens such as those that serve the greater good of the citizens (LEO,EMS, Government Officials, etc), and citizens deemed worthy should be allowed to carry concealed in those areas as to not alarm others.

This also means the only feds can limit how or what can be purchased by good citizens.

didnt read any posts...

As a country the feds should control firearms. This is to allow equal access to all citizens with in its borders. This right was given to its citizens by the forefathers in the constitution and and by the blood spilled in creating and protecting this nation. Because of that no state should impair the rights of its good wholesome citizens to free speech and the right defend their property and rights themselves.

With that said the State is the embodiment of the citizens and is to reflect the social conscious found within its borders. It is that social conscious that establish laws in order to establish the rights and the wrongs. Those rights and wrongs establish how the state will protect the order within the borders. To protect the order the states may establish laws that protect the young, the old, and the indigent needy from those who may prey upon them. Which means the have the right to establish firearm limited zones, just as a common business owner can require that their clientele have their firearms right restricted while on the premises.

In short that state can not limit what is purchased by a decent good hearted citizen as that is impeding on the blood given rights. But since the state is in charge of the protection of its citizens it can establish areas that the _common_ citizen should have a firearm. Uncommon citizens such as those that serve the greater good of the citizens (LEO,EMS, Government Officials, etc), and citizens deemed worthy should be allowed to carry concealed in those areas as to not alarm others.

This also means the only feds can limit how or what can be purchased by good citizens.
You may want to go and re-read the Constitution. You may want to have Webster's dictionary handy when you do.

You may want to go and re-read the Constitution. You may want to have Webster's dictionary handy when you do.

point it out cause I dont have time for your shit

Under the Constitution, no .gov has the right to exercise any control over fire arms. Your rights are endowed from your creator. The .gov didn't give them to you, therefore the .gov can't take them away. Now go find the definition of "Infringe".

Under the Constitution, no .gov has the right to exercise any control over fire arms. Your rights are endowed from your creator. The .gov didn't give them to you, therefore the .gov can't take them away. Now go find the definition of "Infringe".

The topic was federalism, and who should hold the power. I gave a viewpoint for a debate in government class. It wasnt Law

Go ask the people in the UK who gives them their gun rights? God doesnt rule people, men and women do. When our forefathers framed the constitution and the bill of rights they realized that firearms were a commanding weapon in defending the rights of the common citizen and that why we the people still have the right.

"Now go find the definition of "Infringe"." No thanks I'm not your bitch

The control goes to whoever's law are more strict.

The control goes to whoever's law are more strict.

That's only because the fed has legislated that those states lowering the law would be in violation of the fed law and they would not get any money from the fed if they are not in compliance.....

That's only because the fed has legislated that those states lowering the law would be in violation of the fed law and they would not get any money from the fed if they are not in compliance.....

Which is extortion and extrortion is illegal. :flipoff2:

The topic was federalism, and who should hold the power. I gave a viewpoint for a debate in government class. It wasnt Law

Go ask the people in the UK who gives them their gun rights? God doesnt rule people, men and women do. When our forefathers framed the constitution and the bill of rights they realized that firearms were a commanding weapon in defending the rights of the common citizen and that why we the people still have the right.

"Now go find the definition of "Infringe"." No thanks I'm not your bitch

The subjects of the UK never had "gun rights" that were recognized by the crown.

This is what made the Constitution so revolutionary: it was designed to limit the powers of the government, and empower the individual. Previous governments did the exact opposite.

to understand federalism, go look at things pre- and post- 17th amendment.

when the state legislatures elected and sent Senators to congress, states had a little more influence at the national level. instead of "the People" electing 2 Senators (as it is now) the state .gov did it and that was balanced by "the People" electing the House reps. It gave the federal .gov more power, maybe unintended. But we did get fed income tax around the same time and all sorts of other big fed progressive stuff.

That's only because the fed has legislated that those states lowering the law would be in violation of the fed law and they would not get any money from the fed if they are not in compliance.....

Which is extortion and extrortion is illegal. :flipoff2:

And is consistent with most all areas of life. ie. safety codes

And is consistent with most all areas of life. ie. safety codes

Most people only comply with laws for fear of punishment.