Federalism is a complex, important feature of the American political system. The debate of "states rights" vs. nationalism is as old as the Republic. To this day, controversies surrounding this relationship between states and the national government abound.
Consider newly proposed gun legislation that would allow people with a permit to conceal a handgun to take that concealed gun across state lines, even if it's into a state that does not allow concealed weapons.
Should states be allowed to take the initiative and develop their own gun-control legislation, or should they yield to federal legislation on these matters?
Senate rejects bid to carry concealed weapons across state lines
Ryan Ng Huang Period 2
ReplyDeleteStates should take the initiative on gun-control legislation, because people should not be able to bring concealed weapons into a state that forbids it. If a state does not allow weapons, then it's for a reason, because it promotes violence. This also goes against the 10th amendment for states rights. The national government should respect the states' rights on forbidding concealed weapons in their state. If people were to bring guns for "defense", then there would be no need for the police.
Alysia Jones Per. 2
ReplyDeleteIf states were to take the initiative and develop their own gun-control legislation, wouldn't this just be following the 10th Amendment? So technically the states would be in the right to make their own legislation on gun-control. But i think guns should be allowed to be carried into different states, but you have to follow the laws of the certain state you are in.
I believe gun owners should not be allowed to take their guns into other states unless they have a permit for their guns in the state they want to go to. As stated in this article, some states have different requirements to obtain a gun permit. I also agree with Senator Diane Feinstein when she says, "Concealed-weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas. What's good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York." A gun permit might be easier to obtain in Alaska or Iowa because there is a lot of open land to go hunting on. California and New York are, for the most part, made up of cities. A rifle in the city is very dangerous. Therefore I believe gun owners should not be able to take their guns into a different state without a permit for that particular state.
ReplyDeleteArnold Martinez Period 2
ReplyDeleteStates should not be so strict on gun control. There is the right to bear arms in the constitution and that should be with all states. They should allow someone with a license to conceal a weapon in one state to be able to conceal it in another state because if a undercover cop or agent has to cross state borders they still need to protect themselves. Also citizens need to protect themselves no matter in which state.
Melissa Vu Per. 2
ReplyDeleteAlthough the National Rifle Association claims that "the right to self-defense does not end at state lines," I believe that the states should take the initiative and have the right, according to the 10th Amendment, to enforce laws restricting against concealed handguns. The reason being is that being able to carry a concealed handgun across a state promotes more domestic violence. Each state has the right to forbid such a law in order to protect the safety of their citizens, and if that state forbids a concealed handgun, then the other states should abide by their conditions.
Hi, it's Rimaaaa :)
ReplyDeleteI am very glad that the law to allow people to carry guns into other states didn't pass and i also believe that the national government should take gun control into their own hands regardless what the 10th amendment says because some things need to be handled as a whole with the same set standards for everyone. Gun control is one of these things. States having different gun control laws makes it too easy for people to abuse the power to have a gun and will give them more ways to go around or break the law.
Simone Gadlin Period.3
ReplyDeleteI agree with the senate on not allowing gun owners to cross state lines with their concealed handgun. Because I believe that if the state does not allow guns, then regardless if you have a permit it should not be allowed because its breaking the law of there state. And when a citizen of a state that allows gun use enters one that does not they have to be treated like a citizen of that state.
Lexi Finkelman Per. 2
ReplyDeleteStates should be allowed to take the initiative and make their own decision on gun control. It is the states' rights to supervise what happens. States should have the right to say whether or not they want concealed guns allowed. But gun owners need to heed the laws of each indiviual state if they were wanting to try and take a gun into another state.
Tamara Cabrera Per.3
ReplyDeleteAlthough this bill was not passed, it is the states’ decision to decide whether or not concealed weapons be permitted in the state. If this bill was to be passed, it would be unconstitutional because it would violate the powers in the 10th Amendment; however the federal government has more power than stated in the constitution. Granted, the bill would allow gun owners to bring concealed weapons into another state, but the gun owners have to obey the rules regarding gun-control in that particular state. This bill would not violate the constitution because the 2nd Amendment allows all citizens the right to bear arms.
Jasmine Cho
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
The federal government should not be allowed to make a law that covers the whole nation because this law is not necessary or proper. Each state has its own beliefs, and if Congress were to ignore all of its citizen's belief's, the nation would not be a republic. Some states, like California and Nevada, are more crowded than states like Texas. If a person from Texas were to go to California with a gun, permit or not, the gun would be a huge threat to the California natives, therefore, a possibility of violence occurs. States should be able to decide whether or not citizens of other states could come to their state with a licensed gun or not.
Taylor Zamora Per. 2
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Senate's rejection of the legislature. States, according to the 10th amendment, should have the right to pass their own laws as far as gun control, and the national government should not have the power to regulate it because of that amendment. A concealed weapon could have different effects in rural versus urban areas of the country. The diverse aspects of states requires diverse laws for each. Therefore, each state should be able to make their own decision regarding gun control.
Alyssa Perez Per. 3
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Senate's rejection to this legislature. The government should not have the right to take away the States' 10th amendment, especially when it comes to gun control and the national government should not try to regulate that. To be able to cross state lines with a concealed weapon is horribly wrong, it can cause bigger problems in big cities than it may would in rural parts of the country. So I feel each state should be able to make up their own laws when it comes to gun control.
Colton Western p.2
ReplyDeleteI believe that if this legislation would've passed it would have benefited the country as an added safety measure because it would've only allowed those with a concealed weapon permit to cross and those who have that permit are probably only the really trustworthy. I believe that this is under federal jurisdiction because firearms are a basic right in the Bill of Rights and our government is supposed to do all they can to protect those rights. This legislation also involves an act of crossing state borders which technically falls under federal jurisdiction.
Jonathan Buenaventura Period 2
ReplyDeleteI agree with the rejection. The states should be able to facilitate their power on the laws that bring weapons into their jurisdiction, especially concealed ones.Bringing a concealed weapon into another state should be up to the states due the fact that it may cause more problems for the state.Each state has different opinions on the situation and therefore should have their own different laws for it, not the national.
I believe that people should not be able to carry concealed weapons across state lines. Each state has its own laws and just because it is legal in one does not mean it is legal in another state.
ReplyDeleteSpencer Brown
I,JOSHUA FONBUENA!
ReplyDeletehas deemed this issue as a case in which states should be responsible for therefore if one tries to pass into another state with a concealed gun they must abide by the state's laws and regulations in which they are currently in.
JOSHUA FONBUENA!
ReplyDeletewould also like to conclude by saying that this case has now been solved.
Amar A. Per. 3
ReplyDeleteI believe that gun control should be up to each state to decide. I don't think the Federal Government should have anything to do with gun control.
Each state should have its gun control laws. The Federal government should not be given the power to choose. It is the states' right given to them by the constitution.
When one person passes into another state they should obey the states laws on gun control.
Sarah Rodriguez, period 2
ReplyDeleteEach state has a right to the laws it thinks just for its citizens that the federal government does not already have control of via the 10th amendment. If this was invovling commerce, this situation would be considered an interstate issue, where the federal government rains supreme in decision making. Although this is not invovling commerce, directly, I believe that the federal government should have a powerful say in the final decision. The gun control in each state can and will effect each and every state because people travel and move, bringing their belongings with them. Effecting the nation as a whole. This is not just a state responsibility. Cooperative federalism needs to come in to play for the safety of the country and its people.
P. 3:
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that states should be able to choose how they want to regulate their gun laws, I believe that it would be safer for the states to agree on one rule. Like some others have been saying, many could bring a gun into one that doesn't permit hiding one accidentally, and get into lots of unneeded problems. With a gun law over the entire nation, everyone will be conscious of what's allowed and what isn't, and therefore save a lot of trouble. I can understand a reason for the states wanting to make the rules themselves, but I think that for this issue, it should be a federal decision.
The second Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because of this, states should not be able to prohibit the ownership and transportation of legally owned guns between other states and neither should the national government.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Egbule
ReplyDeleteJoe from second
I believe that if the federal government has set the law then the states should follow. In M v M they said the national governments laws are the law of the land. Also from our constitution it starless that we have the rigt to bear arms.
SILLAS CHO
ReplyDeletePERIOD 3
I believe that gun owners shouldn't be able to carry their guns into other states without a permit. I agree with Sen Dianne Feinstein when she states " This is a grave threat to public safety". Allowing anyone to bring in weapons into other states is a safety hazard for the public. We do not know what kind of trouble these gun owners may cause, whether it is in a public location or in the wild). Also, having some states permit this law (such as Iowa and Alaska) does not mean that all states agree upon this (California and New York).
I believe states should not yield to federal legislation on this matter or any matter similar to this. Allowing the federal government to bypass state legislation disrupts the balance of power between state and national government. During the ratification of the constitution, the main elements were federalism and separation of power. Through time the national government has found different ways of interpreting federalism to the point where state and federal powers are no longer equilibrious. The commerce clause, the "necessary and proper" clause, and the supremacy give the national government more power while the federal government remains oblivious to the tenth amendment. State governments must retaliate to achieve the power given to them by the constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe End
( Elizabeth Soto :] )
Rodel Melaya
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
States shouldn't adhere to the 10 Amendment and be allowed to take the initiative and develop their own gun-control legislation. Instead, they should yield to federal legislation on these matters. Concealed weapons jeopardize the safety of the people and the truth is that you can't trust anyone with the power to kill. I respect the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but arms should remain at home for self-defense.
Allen Miller, period 3
ReplyDeleteI believe that this measure would have increased personal security. The 2nd, amendment, the right to bear arms, should not be able to be tampered with by a state. While this act would have originally seemed to be relying upon higher federal power, citizens should be able to bear arms anyways, due to the 2nd amendment. It would increase personal security by instilling doubt in potential robbers who fear that their victim may just pull out a handgun and shoot their whole gang dead. While this measure would have had problems with the fact that each state has its own gun registration process, it may be the headache of that process which causes a person from Montana or some other safe, rural place to leave his gun at home while traveling to dangerous areas such as inner cities without knowledge that the area is potentially dangerous. The states should just find some common ground for gun control so that it is not an inconvenience to transport guns while only sane people can obtain one.
Alicia Morales
ReplyDeletePer. 2
According to the tenth amendment, each state is entitled to the right to create gun control laws for that particular state because only that state knows what kind of regulations it needs for its own people according to population, environment, etc. However, that does not mean that they have the right to decide what happens in other states or crossing state lines. So I think that the national government should be in charge of deciding the law about carrying guns across state borders, because this can be seen as interstate commerce (in a way), and in that area the national government reigns supreme over state judgments.
Vanessa Gonzales
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I believe states should carry through the tenth amendment and control their own gun control laws. Like Sen. Dianne Feinstein says, "What's good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York". By allowing the states to determine their own regulations, they can tailor it to fit their state. I also agree with the previous statements that suggest that the person carrying the gun must abide by the laws of the state he or she travels to.
Courtney Nunez P.3
ReplyDeleteStates should have the right to decide if they want to allow people to bring guns in and out of their state lines. If a state does not wants guns brought in, it is for a good reason. And, as the article stated, what's good for one state may not be good for another so allowing the states to individually establish how they want to handle the issue of guns would be best.
Allison Martinez
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
I feel that the right to have possession of a concealed weapon should ultimately be decided by separate state governments. I understand that it could be argued to be a vital necessity as its importance is stated in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, however in certain areas of this country, there is no need for any kind of weaponry. If this proposition were to pass, I feel that it would only increase the crime rate in within the country; the safety of those without a permit to carry a handgun would be in jeopardy. Regarding this issue, the states should have the power to individually decide what they think is most successful for their residents. In that way, those who truly need a gun for their safety will be permitted to carry one, whereas those who are not under any threat will not.
Amanda Woodhouse Period 3
ReplyDeleteThe issue of gun control among the states needs to stay between the states. Under the 10th amendment states have a constitutional right to create their own gun control laws. Yes, they also need to follow the 2nd amendment; however, the states still in the end have the right to control what goes on with weapons within their states. If the national government declared that owners of concealed weapons could carry them across state borders then the 10th amendment is being violated. I agree with the article in the point that what may work for Iowa doesn't always work for Alaska. The nation government needs to respect that some matters are left to whatever the state decides.
Hilary Bistline
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
f someone carries a concealed gun over state lines that prohibits the gun then the person who entered the state should not carry the gun because it is against the law. the federal government should follow the 10th Amendment and let the State governments have their laws and not violate the Constitution.
Raul Platero per. 2
ReplyDeleteI think that the law should not have been passed for the reasons that though it would be more convenient to have this law passed this would make it much more difficult for states to control where the guns are thus creating more of a safety issue. Also there really should not be much of a need to bring a concealed weapon out of its originating state unless one is moving to a new state where they would eventually need to receive a permit from that state for one's weapon. Therefore not allowing guns to cross borders was indeed the better choice and should not be under the jurisdiction of the states government.
Abtin Givehchin
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
States should take the initiative and develop their own gun-control legislation. The federal legislation should stay out of the issue because of the tenth amendment. I believe concealed weapons should not be allowed over state lines if that state forbids it. Some states are more wild and open, while other states are more urban, which could be really dangerous having a concealed weapon. This is why states should have their own own gun-control legislation to protect the citizens of their state in a way they think is right and not what the federal government forces them to do.
Katie Russo (per. 2) :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Congress' decision that states should have the power to create their own gun control laws. I think that each state is unique; therefore, each state should have the power to create their own gun control laws that accommodate their population and region and ensure the most public safety. However, I do not think that a person should be able to legally carry a concealed gun into a state if that state has declared such actions illegal. According to the Priveleges and Immunities Clause in Article IV Section 2, states can't unreasonably discriminate against someone who has moved in from another state. The person must be treated the same way that everyone else in that state is treated. Therefore, if a person with a legal concealed-gun permit enters a state where that is illegal, they must abide by the rules of the state in which they are presently in.
I believe that the state governments should be the ones to decide whether guns are permitted in their state or not. The federal government can't assume that every state has a similar situation. Allowing firearms in one state might be a bigger threat to safety than it would be in another. Different states have distinct restrictions on guns for a reason. If a person wants to own a gun, all he/she needs to do is get a permit from the state in which he/she plans on keeping it instead of just transporting it like the federal government wanted to allow people to do. Allowing the states to decide helps them regulate the amount of firearms coming in and out of their state and makes sure that the only people who own guns own them for the right reasons.
ReplyDeleteRonald Costa
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
The federal goverment should have the power to regulate and resolve the issue concerning the concealed weapons. Taking firearms into other states is technically an intrastate affair. Its a state's responsibility to honor any permits and legal documents that a citizen obtained from another state according to the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Katie Reber per. 3
ReplyDeleteStates should be allowed to create their our regulations on firearm safety as long as they are in accordance to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. I believe the federal government should step in if these regulations deny people their fundamental right to self defense. One question I have is if a concealed weapon permit is a State Record, then according to Article 4 section 1 of the Constitution, shouldn't this be accepted by the other states? Article 4 Section 1 states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State..." Does this not include the right to bear arms?
Raymond Kum Per. 2
ReplyDeleteStates should be allowed to regualte or create or even add on to firearm safety. even though that one person has a permit or the "right" to own a gun and immigrate into a state that doesnt allow it. that would be breaking the law, but in the process it also violates the person unalienable right....The right to bear arms. so does the Full Faith and Credit clause be applied here. yes i think so
Yazan Bashir
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Since guns, concealed or not, can be a danger to the citizens of the United States, Congress has the power to ban or allow them. Providing for "the common defense and general Welfare of the United States"(Article I, Sec. 8) is an enumerated power of Congress and thus cannot be argued. Not only is it a danger, taking a weapon from a state to another, transforms it from an intrastate affair into an interstate affair. Interstate affairs are also under the control of the National government, not the State.
Hmmm... Where to begin? If a state proposed a new law, whether it passes or not completely depends on public opinion. For example, if New York passed a law that allowed its citizens nothing more powerful than a small handgun, while Arkansas law allowed its citizens access to fully automatic rifles, to help rid of those pesky boars, that would mean New York law could do nothing if a man from Arkansas wanted to bring his rifle along to go "hunting" in the California bush. The man can literally do whatever he wants against an entire state of measly handguns. That is why I believe that the fed. govt. should always thrust its sphere of power into state matters whenever the safety of the people is possibly in jeopardy. If the fed. govt. did not use its constitutional powers discrimination, segregation, massive unemployment, and countless other injustices could possibly be seen today. This intrastate gun concealing is just one of the many not-so-wise ideas concocted by the states, which again, as history shows, was turned around by the fed. govt. preventing a would-be disaster. In this case, one size does indeed fit all.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Villalvazo Pd.2
ReplyDeleteI concur with the Senate's decision to reject the legislature. Stated by the 10th amendment, States should be entitled to pass their own laws, even if it involves gun control. The national government should not possess the power to regulate it because of the 10th amendment. These weapons could have a variety of effects in the society but they do not have the right to diverse an individual with these laws. So basically, each state should be capable of making their own decision on gun control.
After reading the article, I agree with the arguments proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein in that allowing people to carry their concealed weapon will lead to an increase in gun violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein also notices that each state has a unique way of life and some states, such as Montana and Iowa, have a practical need for the usage of a concealed weapon due to the rural nature of the state. On the other hand, the heavily industrialized states, such as California and New York, rarely encounter a situation in which the necessity for a concealed weapon is detrimental. For these reasons, I believe the allowance of permitting the possession of a concealed-weapon is dependent upon the State Government because the States are more aware of the citizen needs, while the National Government focuses more on the collectivity of the nation itself. The 10th Amendment can be applied to this situation because this issue is not presented in the Constitution and therefore the decision lies with the State Governments alone. Consequently, if a person moves to a different state with different laws regarding concealed weapons, then the State Government should acknowledge this fact and advise him as to the differences and the new citizen must abide by the law.
ReplyDeleteI think that the states should have the right to regulate their own gun control laws. It should not be allowed to cross into another state with a concealed weapon because the states should respect each others laws.
ReplyDeleteAlex Morales p3
Haley Stephens
ReplyDeletePer.2
After reading the article, I agree with the arguments proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein in that allowing people to carry their concealed weapon will lead to an increase in gun violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein also notices that each state has a unique way of life and some states, such as Montana and Iowa, have a practical need for the usage of a concealed weapon due to the rural nature of the state. On the other hand, the heavily industrialized states, such as California and New York, rarely encounter a situation in which the necessity for a concealed weapon is detrimental. For these reasons, I believe the allowance of permitting the possession of a concealed-weapon is dependent upon the State Government because the States are more aware of the citizen needs, while the National Government focuses more on the collectivity of the nation itself. The 10th Amendment can be applied to this situation because this issue is not presented in the Constitution and therefore the decision lies with the State Governments alone. Consequently, if a person moves to a different state with different laws regarding concealed weapons, then the State Government should acknowledge this fact and advise him as to the differences and the new citizen must abide by the law.
Eric Aubry Per. 3
ReplyDeleteStaetes should hold the right to chose their own gun laws because of the 10th Amendment which gives states powers that aren't already listed in the Constitution. It is not a federalist matter to control/regulate the passing of guns over state borders. However, the federal government can legally exercise control over this issue due to the "Commerce Clause" which permits the federal government to intervene in state to state affairs.
Austin Barraza Period 2
ReplyDeleteThere should not be a federal law passed allowing firearms to be taken over state lines because this type of control in at the discretion of the states. States create their own gun control laws as they see fit. And as the article stated, laws created for rural areas may not be suitable for urban areas. Each state has the right to regulate their own gun control due to the circumstances present in their state.
Yadher nunez p.2
ReplyDeleteI think states should be able to regulate their own gun control laws because of the 10th amendment. It doesn't say they can't and it doesn't say congress can which according to the 10th amendment means it's under state jurisdiction. I don't see how congress could pull a necessary and proper clause on the states so in my opinion state soveriegnty beats national jurisdiction.
Angelica Loera - period 3
ReplyDeleteStates should be allowed to make their own gun legislation. This would be following the tenth amendment and should not have to make exeptions just because one is a foreigner to their state. There must be a resin wh y they do not allow guns that may not apply to the rest of the nation and every state has the right to control it.
David Seo period 3
ReplyDeleteSince the Bill of Rights provides that a right to bear arms, thus self protection, is a fundamental right, I believe it should be protected in any states over the state laws. Although the 10th amendment specifies that the states should decide matters which is NOT enumerated to the federal government by the constitution, the issue of gun control is in fact enumerated by the second amendment, therefore legitimatizing the federal government's interference with the state laws concerning gun control.
Larry Lopez- Period 3
ReplyDeleteStates should be allowed to take the initiative and develop their own gun- control legislation based on the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment specifically states that all the power not invested into the federal Government is given to the states. So if the states yield to the federal legislation on these matters wouldn't that be a sign of weakness to the federal government and wouldn't that tell the federal government that they could do whatever they want in the future. So I believe that each state should decide what is best for themselves because they probably know what's best for their state.
The tenth amendment reserves the rights not mentioned in the constitution for the states; the states must take intiative to determine whether or not to ban concealed weapons, and foreigners to the states must abide by their laws. If the federal government gets control over this law and applies to each of the 50 states... our type of government becomes less federal and more of a unitary system.
ReplyDeleteJessica Bowens, period 2
ReplyDeleteI believe that National government should have the right to regulate when and if people carry their guns across state lines because it's dealing with more than one state. This is because if two states were to have different policies on gun-control it would cause conflict. Therefore the National government which is supposed to unify all states should be in control of all interstate matters to reduce chaos and increase unity. Isn't this why there is a Supremacy clause?
Isaac L. Miller, Period 3
ReplyDeleteThis is like the city of Rancho Cucamonga regulating whether people could wear their shoes in another person's home. It's just not in their power and frankly they shouldn't be bothered with it anyway because the states have already got that covered. If one state has a high crime rate or something and, to ensure the safety of the people, requires by law that no one shall have a concealed weapon, then that is their perogative. If another state doesn't require it because they have a reletively low crime rate and they don't want people to panic then they should allow people to conceal their weapon. This is something that the spectrum is too wide for any one rule to be instituted. Not only that but conflict between two state shouldn't matter because if you were going to have a weapon on you anyway, you should at least educate yourself on what you can do with that weapon. Even more so, if you want to go out of state with your weapon, it shoud be common sense that rules are going to be different and frankly, I feel like if you have the means to get a gun AND go out of state for whatever reason then you should have the means to figure out if you can even hide that gun under your clothing or not.