Should ALL gun laws be left up to individual states to better suit the lifestyles of their residents?

Answer 1

Maybe but..

I grew up in Chicago (where you are I think) and now I live in Boise, ID. In Idaho, I have a weapons permit that allows me to carry and conceal a handgun. Pretty ordinary here really.

Many other states recognize my permit as Idaho does the same.

If I carry a weapon in IL or NY, it would be a felony I have been told. Id rather see a federal weapons law passed allowing (after rigid background checks and training) weapons to be carried for those that have the desire.

Idaho and many western states have liberal weapons laws but that does not translate to irresponsible. Per capita, Boise Idaho has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation and I know of many many people that choose to exercise their right to conceal and carry. Its an arguable point if thats the reason why crime is low or not.

Answer 2

For the most part gun laws are relegated to the states. The states issue conceal-carry permits, etc. Here in Ohio, a bunch of local gun possession ordinances were overridden by a new state law that went into effect at the beginning of the year.

The Second Amendment limits what the federal government can do to limit ownership, and its application through the Fourteenth Amendment makes that limitation enforceable on the states as well.

Answer 3

The Constitution is pretty specific in stating there will be no gun laws. Do not believe me? Fine do the research. I did and did a thesis length paper on it. In 1879 all males living in any state between the ages of 16 and 52 were members of the State's Melita. Each individual had to provide his own weapons and crew served weapons were purchased in common by individual units. Any person could legally buy any weapon manufactured. That is why the second amendment reads the way it does. The Federal Government was never given the right to have a standing army. In time of war they had to federalize the state militias.
If the states got stomped on then they could take down the Federal Government.

Answer 4

NO - I think the federal laws are in place to limit the amount of descrimination states may put on their citizens who want to bear arms! States do have alot of leverage and do have a modest amount of control over firearms in their states, as it should be!

Some states like NY with Hillary leading the way would ban guns totally. Crime would soar and noone would ever want to visit NY! Statistics prove that gun control only helps criminals!

Answer 5

They pretty much are left up to individual states. I believe that thirty five states have a right to carry law. This allows law abiding individuals to carry a concealed weapon, once they are properly licensed to do so.

Answer 6

Like the state where the Army sniper murdered his wife. Or Wisconsin where the husband mudered his entire family, or Virgina where the manic murdered how many students?

Answer 7

Yes. The federal government was developed to protect me from you, you from me and us from the rest of the world. Outside of that, they should have no other responsibilities.

Let the individual states and municipalities make those choices, thus giving the voters the opportunity to voice their opinions.

Answer 8

I would think that there would have to be federal statutes because of interstate travel. If someone is licensed in one state to carry a weapon, another state may refuse to accept if for whatever reason...but if is federally mandated, then we won't have those types of issues.

Answer 9

Probably be a good idea. The only time the feds should get involved with that is when a state gets too restrictive and infringes upon the 2nd ammendment.

Answer 10

The problem with state control is that those liberal states in the northeast will violate people's constitutional right to self protection, thus endangering those people so that they cannot defend themselves or their children.