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.

Quote of the Day 1/16

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."


Cesare Beccaria, Italy, 1738-1794, author of "Of Crimes and Punishments", widely read by the founders of the United States.

This is the position of modern 2nd amendment proponents.  It has been demonstrably true for centuries.  Laws primarily affect those who obey them.


There are always people who are not deterred by threat of punishment, no matter how many laws are on the books.

Pray for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the surviving wounded, and for the souls of the murdered in Arizona

...they are innocent victims.

You have but to watch Jared Loughner's video on youtube to know that he is insane (psychotic and sociopathic);  he is likely to be diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic. 

Towards the end of the video, you can see elements of contitutionally conservative ideas that he has come across, but the ideas and his use of language are deranged.  

This guy is not one of us;  he is seriously mentally ill.  It is to be expected that the left and the mainstream media will exploit the tragedy to re-assert their assault on private gun ownership.  You can expect the media to connect the shooting to the patriot/constitutional conservative movement:

Here is an opening paragraph from neocon FoxNews:

Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old man who sources identify to Fox News as the gunman in custody in the deadly shooting rampage Saturday in Arizona, is suspected of posting a series of YouTube videos that show a focus on literacy and currency -- as well as his distrust in the government.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/08/shooting-suspects-apparent-youtube-video/#ixzz1AUXCHcBd

This type of act is random, and happened only because of the man's mental disease.  

That Jared Loughner came by a gun at all is a breach of the current laws.  Either he acquired the weapon prior to his disease progressing (schizophrenia can manifest and become debilitating in late teens to early 20's, and he is 22 years old), or someone screening him had no reason to suspect his illness (a weakness in the law), or he stole the gun or otherwise obtained it outside the law.

This guy is a perfect example of the fallability of gun control efforts.  

If more citizens were armed,  trained to react to such situations, and practiced concealed carry, it might not have stopped Jared Loughner from getting off his first shot or shots;  however, it is unlikely that he would have been able to shoot 18 people.

I am very sorry for all the victims.