Eh, Handgun Control inc. , may have a point, as much as I do not enjoy saying that, a State should be able to organize their affairs as they see fit.
Then again, the same people who hypocritically advocate for State Sovereignty on this issue, have no problem tossing that overboard when the issue is something they support.
Setting aside the constitutional issues raised by ANY branch/level of government in this country restricting the Peoples' right to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Constitution certainly appears to give congress the power to decide various 'licensing' issues between/among the states:
Article IV, Section 1 - Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Not if it is to deny a right expressly spelled out in the constitution. They no more power to do that than they do to bring back slavery.
A State should, right up until it starts infringing on our Rights. The Bill of Rights applies to all US Citizens living in US Controlled territory. Regardless of "home rule" cities or State "powers".
Can a State regulate freedom of Religion or Free Speech as they please????? The 2nd has been incorporated and is the be enforced aganist State infringement.
>Eh, Handgun Control inc. , may have a point, as much as I do not enjoy saying that, a State should be able to organize their affairs as they see fit.
>Then again, the same people who hypocritically advocate for State Sovereignty on this issue, have no problem tossing that overboard when the issue is something they support.
You are generally correct; however, most of the amendments [in the Bill of Rights] are written in the passive voice which indicates that the actor is irrelevant but the action is.
The sixth, for example, says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation[...]”
Therefore any prosecution, whether by federal or by state, should be covered, no?
Likewise, the second says: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The non-general ones specify who is to be bound from doing what; like the first: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Oddly enough, what we see in jurisprudence is an inversion of sorts; they use the 14th amendment to justify a doctrine of ‘incorporation’ which, by their usage, is some magical process which transforms the text of the various amendments. For example, though Congress is specifically named in the first amendment, it has been used to justify prohibiting State legislatures from enacting laws as would be prohibited to Congress.