Herman Cain, gun rights, state's rights, and the Constitution

Herman Cain: Gun Control A “States Issue.” Huh?

Doug Mataconis   ·   Wednesday, June 8, 2011   ·   18 Comments

When I saw Herman Cain’s interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday afternoon, this immediately jumped out at me:

BLITZER: How about gun control?

CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.

B: So what’s the answer on gun control?

C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…

C: Yes

B: Yes?

C: Yes.

B: So the answer is yes?

C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

Transcript via Jazz Shaw

This is, of course, entirely incorrect. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment, and its protections as had recently been defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. While the decisions in McDonald and Heller do leave unanswered the question of what forms of firearms regulation would be Constitutionally acceptable, it is fairly clear that the protections of the Second Amendment are applicable to the states.

Now, it’s possible, as Jazz Shaw suggests, that Cain simply misspoke under  Blitzer’s rapid fire barrage. The other possibility, though, is that he’s one of those “Constitutional” conservatives who rejects the entire idea that Federal Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. Ron Paul believes this, and it’s one reason I’m not entirely a fan of his. Is this Cain’s position? Does he believe that, not just the 2nd, but also the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments shouldn’t apply to the states? Some clarification on this issue would be most helpful.

link

------------------------------------

I believe that the Federal government and the States have no authority to regulate the sale, licensing, or barter of any firearm.  I believe that this is a right reserved to the people, but usurped by the post 1865 National and State governments (mostly a 20th Century phenomenon, after a fascist shift occurred in this Nation).  It would behoove a state, however, to keep a database of convicted felons and psychiatric patients with specific diagnoses prone to impulsive, psychotic, sociopathic behavior, etc. And approve or disapprove purchase of firearms for those individuals on a case by case basis (I have mixed feelings on this type of regulation;  one of the mandates of government is to protect persons and their property.  However, it is a fine line between not encroaching and encroaching on the 2nd amendment right of an individual.  If you give a government an inch, within a few generations, the inch has become a mile...).

I have a problem with using the 14th Amendment to assert gun rights, because it legitimizes the Federal authority, which is unconstitutional and illegal, all the moreso because the authority came through force of arms and persists because of force of arms.

While I am a big State's rights supporter, I support State's rights insofar as they have reserved the right to exercise authority (under proper representation of the people) in passing local laws. Specifically, States have broad authority not specifically delegated to the Federal government in Article I, Section 8.

The pre-1865 amendments to the Constitution/Bill of Rights are inviolate; they are outside the bounds of the Federal or State governments to encroach upon.

That the pre-1865 amendments are superceded by more modern amendments, and rights eroded to the point of being occasionally granted privileges is a testiment to the woefully inadequate assertion of Popular sovereign power, and the bitter fruit of the defeat of the Confederate States of America.