Perhaps I am a “right-wing” extremist, but I feel that the relationship between the States and the Federal government needs to be reexamined. One of the most revolutionary ideas from the Founding is that power is to be separated in order to prevent not only abuses, but apathy. In any system of government, the more removed a representative is from his/her constituency, the more disconnected they are from the day-to-day issues which dominate their constiuency’s lives.
The Federal government has been able to exert more control and influence over the States through funding programs and over-reaching interpretations of the Commerce Clause. While I am not completely opposed to a strong Federal government, I feel that there are many issues which would be best decided locally (i.e. gay marriage).
One issue which I feel should be determined by the States are gun laws. I am a firm believer that the 2nd Amendment grants all Americans the right to “keep and bear arms,” which means that the government has an obligation to respect this right with the same weight as any other (freedom of speech/press, freedom of religion, habeas corpus and Due Process, etc.). But individual gun laws, for the most part, are best determined at a more local level.
It is absurd to think that gun laws which are relevant to a place like Washington DC,also hold the same relevance in a place like Cache Valley. Not to mention, allowing national policymakers who are completely unfamiliar with firearms/ firearm safety the ability to create uniform restrictions can be problematic for those of us who are responsible with our firearms.
There is a cultural factor which must be accounted for, and in the national arena that feature is almost completely disregarded. Here in Utah, we have relatively loose gun laws, yet we have far fewer gun-related fatalities than most States which have proportionally fewer gun-owners, and more restrictive gun-laws. Why is this? Well, it is my opinion that most gun-owners in Utah have more experience around firearms and probably have been familiar with them since they were young. This cultural feature may be difficult to quantify, but it still makes a valid case.
Therefore, I generally support efforts by Utah lawmakers to localize gun laws. From the Salt Lake Tribune:
Some Utah legislators are eyeing a bill aimed at preventing the federal government from regulating guns in the state.
Montana’s Legislature recently passed a bill that Gov. Brian Schweitzer signed into law that would exempt guns made in the state and kept within its borders from federal regulations, including registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.
It’s an idea that’s appealing to some of Utah’s conservative legislators, who say President Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are strongly anti-gun and are trying to overstep their bounds and infringing on states’ rights.
“I think [Montana's law] preempts somewhat what the federal government is trying to do right now in gun registration,” said Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman. “This is something Utah should look into. We should look into several different avenues to reassert state rights.”Wimmer says he or one of his colleagues may run a similar bill in next year’s legislative session, and it’s an idea that has traction among many legislators who are fiercely pro-gun rights and pro-states’ rights.
“I wish I had thought of it,” said Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork. “I would support legislation like that in a heartbeat because basically the federal government is continuing to move to try to restrain guns.”
- Marc
I agree, Marc, and I think it’s also important to remember that many of the federal regulations governing states are self-inflicted. Many of them are only valid because they are attached to federal dollars, e.g. NCLB and current bailouts. States who care enough can simply reject the federal dollars, but they usually don’t. I’m not sure if this is the case with gun rights, but the federal government would have a lot less power if it stopped luring states into its regulations using money it took from the people in the first place. Ironic, isn’t it? “We’re going to tax you and we’ll give a little bit back to you if you promise to do what we say.”
It is hilarious to see Republican try to twist themselves in knots trying to tie the second amendment to state’s rights (which really means it is ok to discriminate against those people that Republicans can’t stand).
None of my civil rights are open to debate by local officials, my gun rights included. The freedom of speech is as universal as my right to bear arms. This is a slippery slope that gun owners don’t want to go down.