On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:10:03 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:33:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional
authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment
until it is ready to pop.
Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a
"right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government.

At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a
state issue, like the drug war, will go away.

The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were
not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th.
That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte
blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their
constitutional powers.

(Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun
laws were "taxes")



Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far
more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws.


===

Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with
onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve
the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public
transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable
precautions.


Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking
the law when traveling?


Federally, it's fixed. State-wise it's not being enforced.

It does beg the question why the DoJ did not enjoin the state from
prosecuting that guy who got stranded in Newark with a checked pistol.

Oh wait, it was a democratically controlled DoJ. Following the law is
optional if they do not agree with the politics.