swimwithstones wrote:
RangerGress wrote:
I've read that there's a number of states with laws that allow law enforcement to take someone's weapons w/o due process. Look up GVRO.
Why should this be a federal matter? Let the states come up with the solution the voters in that state want.
I think the answer is sort of self-explanatory. GVROs are great, but Florida doesn't have them. If the "solution the voters in that state want" is no GVROs, then we're right back where we started - the police have no legal way to take his guns from him. If it's a states-rights issue then I guess the question is, does someone in Kentucky have any obligation to try to prevent murders in Florida, or does he just shrug and say it's none of my business because that's the way Florida voted.
I'm not suggesting that it's a states' rights issue. I'm saying that the feds shouldn't be the solution of last resort. Let the locals fix the issues they feel strongly about.
If the voters in a state don't want a GVRO, how can it be ok for a neighboring state to shove it down their throats? Freedom means the right for the other guy to disagree with you. It means the right for the neighboring state to support (perceived by you) dumb ideas. Sure, you're certain that you're correct, but the guy in the neighboring state is certain he's correct too.
So not about states right, it's about people rights. Also, if we want a law and it doesn't seem likely to pass at the federal level, pass it at the state level. We've gotten so obsessed with fixing things at the federal level, that if a law doesn't succeed there, we cry and whine and give up.
Finally, if the feds are the solution of first resort and you use them as your tool to push your law down the throat of your neighbor in the next state, next year that neighbor is going to use that same tool to push an unwelcome law down your throat.
Books @ Amazon "If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart