KLB wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:Since every state is free and independent from the Federal government, each having their own constitutions, and some include a right to keep and bear arms (i.e. Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution), could the Federal government legally enforce an all out ban on guns within states that maintain their right to keep arms?
She cannot abolish or amend the 2nd amendment or any other part of the Constitution. That requires a Constitutional process enacted through Congress, and then ratification state by state. It's extraordinarily difficult to do, and the founders made it that way on purpose.
1. The states are not independent of the federal government.
Eleven states tried that in the 1860s, and it ended poorly. Federal law controls over contrary state law.
2. Second Amendment rights hang by one Supreme Court appointment. If any Democrat is elected to the presidency, the Second Amendment almost certainly becomes a dead letter.
Now the feds don't have the resources to go door to door to search for and seize guns. They could and well might order an Australian-like turn-in, but our compliance would likely be no better than was the Australians'. I would like to think Texas authorities and the authorities of many other states would not participate in the enforcement of such a law. But assume fatuously that no state authorities would participate. The feds could still deal us a death blow.
Imagine an Operation Choke Point on steriods. The feds could prohibit any federally insured financial institution (all of them since the S&L debacle of the 80s) from doing business with a manufacturer or seller of firearms or ammunition. So sellers of firearms or ammunition could have no bank accounts and could accept no credit or debit cards. Commerce in guns and ammunition as we know it would cease. A la Obama, they might try to do this without legislation.
We are on incredibly shaky ground,
