Skip to main content

View Diary: Negotiations over universal background checks collapse. Senate committee marking up four gun bills (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Firearms laws aren't an either/or issue, no (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon

    matter which axis you want to choose.

    Firearms law / public safety have hundreds of confounding variables.

    fed govt should be regulating things like international trade, and interstate commerce especially when externalities are involved, but staying out a lot of the minutia that has become nothing but a quagmire.
    I don't think you mean to keep asserting that injury and death by gunshot are minutia, do you? It comes across that way.

    And your assertion above is in direct opposition to your previously stated desire for a federal law requiring permit reciprocity by all states.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:27:04 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No I'm not saying injury and gun death are minutia (0+ / 0-)

      As an example of what I mean by minutia, take for example, the TSA.  Could DHS establish standards that need to be followed without having a department of thousands of direct federal employees?

      And your assertion above is in direct opposition to your previously stated desire for a federal law requiring permit reciprocity by all states.
      No more than saying that all states have to recognize marriage or drivers license.  The states still establish the licensing, or allow interstate phone calls, but the federal rules say that all states have to cooperate with each others as a unified nation.  

      This is part of why I suggested and support a state based permit system rather than a federal point of sale background check.

      The difference is in the federal govt establishing interstate rules without a bureaucracy directly implementing it across the nation.  

      Another example would be marijuana laws.  If MJ is going to be illegal federally, the limit of the federal involvement should be in it crossing state lines via regulation of interstate commerce.  If a state wants to make recreational MJ use legal within it's borders, the fed should have no say in the matter.

    •  Responding to this part seperately (0+ / 0-)
      Firearms laws aren't an either/or issue, no matter which axis you want to choose.  Firearms law / public safety have hundreds of confounding variables
      That they do.  It is also what makes having a one size fits all federal standard difficult to impossible, and perhaps why achieving consensus on it is so difficult.

      I read a discussion once using NYC as an example.  Part of the justification for the restrictions on carry was the urban density.  Federal laws and restrictions designed around that location aren't necessarily justifiable elsewhere.  There are also differences in culture and beliefs across various regions of the country.   We should account for these things.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site