NRA

[spence]

I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence

In Massachusetts every gun you own is on a list at the Department of public safety. Ballistic databases won't work because there are too many variables....


New National Database Of Ballistic Markings From Guns Not Recommended

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence

How does the Constitution stop states from such regulations?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How does the Constitution stop states from such regulations?

I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.

-spence

The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.

If someone buys a large number of hand guns down south to then sell them illegally in a more lucrative market up north how is this an isolated "state" problem?

Not even sure it's a Second Amendment issue any more.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If someone buys a large number of hand guns down south to then sell them illegally in a more lucrative market up north how is this an isolated "state" problem?

Not even sure it's a Second Amendment issue any more.

-spence

No it is not a Second Amendment issue. What I was questioning is your comment that none of this was permitted by the Constitution.