I really only ever hear about “states rights” from history books, and when the media drags out the specter in an attempt to convince the American public there’s hypocrisy afoot. The term I often hear used by actual conservatives and libertarians is federalism, which is distinct from “states rights.”
For the most part, the media hasn’t been engaging in a whole lot of hysterics about the passage of HR822 in the house. The exceptions are in the anti-gun states like California and New Jersey. It shouldn’t be a surprise that we have two articles from those very places yammering on about states rights. First from New Jersey:
There is nothing in the Second Amendment prohibiting states from regulating who can carry a concealed weapon. That isnâ€™t being debated. The issue is whether the gun regulations of one state must be recognized by another.
Funny, I thought the whole keep and bear part was pretty clear. It’s amazing such a simple phrase has been so twisted around by people who just don’t want to accept the plain language. Now the LA Times in California:
It’s no surprise that highly urban states susceptible to gang, drug and gun crimes tend to put more restrictions on firearms than more rural states. When the streets of cities such as Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland are flooded with guns and the blood of gun-violence victims, there is a strong public interest in regulating firearms, an interest that is far weaker in states such as Utah and Montana, where guns are used mainly for hunting and self-defense.
And guns aren’t used for self-defense in big cities? Just doesn’t happen, eh? States rights simply are not a concern here. The concern is the right of individuals to enjoy their fundamental right to have arms to protect themselves, both in and outside the home. States have no more a power to restrict that than they do to suggest out of state individuals obtain a publishing license before printing books, or have the power to demand whites and blacks drink from separate fountains, or use separate bathrooms.