Local rights?

The so called “Gun Guy” seems to think there were or are some such thing as “local rights”. I’ve never heard that phrase before. A quick check on Live Search and Google didn’t reveal anything meaningful either.

It’s times like this that one has to give serious consideration that he’s just doing a poor job at a VPC blog. He obviously has no clue when he says crazy stuff like this:

No American should be held hostage to the stranglehold of the gun industry and gun enthusiasts who value firearms over life.

Philadelphia and cities like it should be able to determine their own law enforcement and gun violence prevention policies.

That’s a freedom that a city that is our cradle of liberty deserves to have.

Just, “Wow!”. Cities have freedoms? Now one could argue that King George had freedoms, but not England. Americans fought for their individual liberty, not to replace one tyrant with another.

He’s just loco, right?


2 thoughts on “Local rights?

  1. I think he is cofusing rights for cities with the concept of “home rule”. Here in Ohio cities and towns can make/enforce laws under the “home rule” provision in the State of Ohio Constitution. As long as it doesn’t conflict with a general State law. General law being a law that effective statewide (such as traffic lights must be red for stop, green for go). When Ohio’s first CCW law HB12 passed our legislature screwed up and instead of making it a general law, they put the toothless phrase “we recommend that this law be a statewide provision” RIGGGHHHT!!!! So cities and towns started passing laws prohibiting/restricting concealed carry.

    After Ohio gun rights supporters raised the roof, HB347 amended some agregious portions of our CHL laws and explicty granted the State the right of pre-emption on all firearms laws.

    The problem with pre-emption is this and the VPC doesn’t believe in pre-emption and here is a perfect example:

    You are free, as Washington D.C to pass strict local strict gun laws, but when that doesn’t work, they throw the “rights” of other local governments to decide their own firearm policies right under the F&)*ing bus. Now Virgina and Maryland have to pass stricter laws, cause D.C.’s gun laws aren’t working.

    Not to mention that the first charges to plea bargined down are always the local gun violations. In Ohio 3 cites Columbus, Cleaveland, and Cincinati had (I love saying had) an assault weapons ban prior to HB347. Only 3 people Statewide were ever charged the entire time the ban was in effect. So since the 90’s only 3 people were ever charged and did the 6 month sentence. Pathetic

  2. So, one state has the “local right” to reenact slavery, to ban competing religions, and to close down dissenting newspapers and broadcast media? Because they feel they don’t want to be “held hostage” by black freedom, the church, or the blasphemous speech of the local paper?

    On what planet were these people educated?

    I once had a guy tell me that “State’s Rights” meant one state should be allowed to have slavery if they so, democratically, choose. It took some time to convince him that there is no “right” to violate the rights of others, no matter what percentage of the people may approve of it.

    This is such basic, obvious stuff I’m astonished by the fact that anyone is debating it. But some people have a position to sell, and they’re going to keep selling it no matter how stupid and wrong.

Comments are closed.