As announced earlier, historian, software engineer and Second Amendment activist Clayton Cramer is running for Idaho State Senate (District 22).The author of numerous books and publications, Mr. Cramer played an instrumental role in proving that "Arming America" by Michael Bellesiles was based on fraudulent research, resulting in revocation of the Bancroft Prize and Bellesiles' resignation from Emory University. Cramer's work has been cited in RKBA-related legal cases, such as Emerson, and he recently devoted his knowledge and research skills to the current Heller case,partnering with attorneys David T. Hardy and Hamline University's Joseph E. Olson on the brief filed by Academics for the Second Amendment.
WarOnGuns caught up with Cramer to discuss his political campaign. Here's what we discussed:
DC: So--why in the world are you subjecting yourself to this? Has representation for people with conservative and libertarian leanings really been so poor in the 22nd district?
CC: Senator Corder, while in some respects somewhat conservative, has made some votes and introduced some bills that just make me scratch my head in amazement. The one that caused me to run against him was his sponsorship of S.1323, which proposed adding "sexual orientation and gender identity" to Idaho's employment discrimination law. I often describe myself as a conservative with libertarian leanings. Here was a bill that managed to offend both sensibilities at once. What consenting adults do in private should be none of the government's business--and it doesn't matter if it is employment or sodomy.
I've developed a grudging tolerance of anti discrimination laws based on race and sex because for decades, both federal and state governments either directly discriminated, or required private businesses to do so. Read Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the case that made "separate but equal" the law of the land. It was a Louisiana law requiring railroads to discriminate against blacks--and "the refusal or neglect of the officers, directors, conductors, and employees of railway companies to comply with the act" would leave them personally liable. I can give you many other examples of such laws requiring racial discrimination against Asians. Similarly, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) involved a Washington State law that set working conditions for women specifically to drive them out of the workforce.
With this history, I can grudgingly accept the argument that anti discrimination laws served a useful purpose for destroying discriminatory presumptions. I get a bit less comfortable with adding "sexual orientation and gender identity" to the list--especially with this week's freak show event, the "pregnant man" in California.
Senator Corder also voted against making English the official language of state business (which should be a no brainer), and against adding a protection of the right to hunt and fish to the state constitution. Right now, these are not in danger--but if enough anti hunting sorts move here, that could be a problem. Best to get those protections in place now.
DC: Why you? What does Clayton Cramer bring to the job that makes you the most qualified candidate?
CC: There's only one other candidate in the Republican primary! Part of why I moved to Idaho is that it is a very conservative place--a good place to raise kids, and a good place for gun owners. I want to keep it that way. I'm afraid that Senator Corder is in danger of Californicating this state.
DC: You say your opponent is rated C by NRA. That's pretty poor for an Idaho Republican. Why such a poor grade?
CC: When I received the NRA ratings in 2006, he was listed as a C. When I spoke to someone at NRA-ILA recently, they indicated that he was a D in 2004, a C in 2006--and seems to be improving. I wasn't able to get a detailed description of what gave him such a bad grade in previous years.
DC: If you're elected, give some examples of "gun rights"-related legislation you would be a leader on, including new measures you would propose or existing laws you would fight to modify or repeal altogether.
CC: One of the issues that a lot of states are grappling with right now is parking lot bans. Most large companies (including my employer), have bans on firearms at work. I can understand their reasoning, at least in the buildings. You can't just walk in the front door where I work. There are significant security barriers that would significantly prevent a spree shooter from entering the building, so there's really not much reason for anyone to need to be armed in the building. But the parking lot creates a different set of problems. There are people who have significant drives to and from neighborhoods where having a gun available is perhaps a good idea. I see no good reason for any employer to prohibit a person with a license to carry from having a gun in their car in the parking lot, and I see some good reasons why some employees might want that gun there.
At the same time, I am reluctant to have the state government passing laws that get unnecessarily in the middle of the employer/employee relationship, or interfere with private property. I think the strategy that might make the most sense is to see what can be done about creating a carrot and stick approach with respect to liability: statutorily exempt employers from any civil liability for injuries caused by a licensed employee having a gun secured in a car in the parking lot (which is effectively zero risk); create an obligation that an employer has for injuries that a licensed employee suffers because they were unable to protect themselves on their way to or from work.
The employer can still have their parking lot rules if they wish, but the consequences of exposing employees to unneeded danger now fall on who put the employee at risk: the employer.
DC: What's it cost to do something like this? What's your plan to raise that much money?
CC: Unlike California, surprisingly little. The filing fee was $30. I've raised more than a thousand dollars so far, almost all through the website http://www.cramerforsenate.org/index.shtml, and it is quite common for members of the state senate to spend $7000-$10,000 in an entire election cycle. Remember that there are about 1.5 million Idahoans, and 35 members of the state senate. In the 2006 general election, about 10,000 people in my district voted for members of the U.S. House of Representatives. It's government on a small scale.
DC: Give us the timeline you're facing. When's the first contest? What do you need to do between now and then?
CC: The primary is May 27. I had something of a late start, since I made the decision to run the day before the deadline. (I was off in D.C. for the Heller case.) I'm still getting organized on this--putting together campaign flyers, organizing speaking events, filling out interest group questionnaires, and meeting with lobbyists. But at least they buy lunch!
The good news is that because the district is so overwhelmingly Republican, if I win the primary, winning the general election should be fairly easy. I won't say it is a walk in the park--the Democrat will work hard to defeat a political novice, and I expect that the many enemies that I have made over the years will pour money into the Democrat's campaign.
DC: Tell us about your rival--how much tenure does he have, how much of a machine? What are you doing to establish an organization with a realistic chance of competing? And as a follow-up, what benchmark milestones do you need to set up to make sure you're on track with campaign goals?
CC: Senator Corder was first elected in 2004. From conversations with a number of different Republican activists, it appears that Senator Corder has managed to upset much of what might be called the Republican machine. Some of the upset is personalities; I'm told that Corder used the phrase "knuckle-dragger" to refer to certain other Republican legislators, and this has not helped him. The sexual orientation bill has also produced a mixture of head scratching and irritation as well.
Benchmark milestones? Uh oh. I have lots of experience with lots of things, but this is not one of them! I have fourspeaking engagements set up so far; I've just started sending out press releases to newspapers (none of whom I expect will be supportive of my effort). The campaign website is up and accepting contributions. I'm just sending out my first mailing--one targeted to the surprising number of Federal Firearms Licensees in my district.
DC: A lot of Republican politicians run from the gun issue. Sure, they give platitudes, but that's mostly when cornered, and there's always that sense they're somehow uneasy talking about it--particularly not wanting to scare off the well-heeled and the contributions they represent. I've always felt that a true leader would take it on himself to initiate discussion and use the privilege of a public platform to educate and inform the electorate--you know, bringing light to darkness, replacing ignorance and fear with reason. What are your plans along these lines?
CC: This is probably one of the more gun-friendly districts in Idaho--maybe America? District 22 consists of Boise County (which doesn't include the CITY of Boise) and Elmore County. The biggest city in the entire district is Mountain Home Air Force Base. Mountain Home had 11,143 people at the 2000 census. Glenns Ferry has about 1600 people. Idaho City, Horseshoe Bend, Garden Valley--none of them are that large.
People hunt here. Getting my house built was greatly delayed by the start of elk season. I live just outside of Horseshoe Bend--which has a mandatory gun ownership law. Ponderosa Sports, a combination gift shop and gun store north of town has this rather unique vehicle in the parking lot. Yes, that's a Barrett Light .50 in the bed.
I don't think that I am going to be so much defending or explaining gun ownership to my district, as defending or explaining gun ownership to the more urban members of the Idaho legislature--if I get elected! And the worst Idaho legislators about gun control are generally not all that bad!
DC: Tell me about the demographics in your district--party affiliation, age, race, income, education...what importance does the "gun rights" issue play? Will there be much resistance in your district from those who consider guns a liability?
CC: Based on the 2006 general election results, it appears to be about 64% Republican voters. The population is overwhelmingly white, fairly normal distribution on age--although Elmore County, where the Air Force Base is located, is heavily male: 123 men for every 100 women. Household incomes are low: $35,000 per year in Elmore County, just under $39,000 in Boise County. My involvement in gun rights activism won't be a liability here--but an asset.
DC: Where do you stand with the party? Are they going to resist someone going after their guy? Have you been meeting people and reaching out for allies?
CC: I am under strict orders not to say who asked me to run--let's just say that lots of people of considerable importance among Idaho Republicans personally asked me to run. So far, I am finding that not only do Republican activists around the state want me to unseat Corder, but so do ordinary citizens. One of the people here in town that I deal with on a regular basis knew that I had signed up, and I was pleased to find out that he knew about Corder's sexual orientation bill--and found it incomprehensible why he sponsored it.
DC: How about media contacts? We know you have plenty of interest within the RKBA Internet community, but are you making contacts and building bridges with established local media?
CC: There are two newspapers in the district; the Idaho World, which is a weekly--and the oldest continuously operating newspaper in Idaho (est. 1863), and the Mountain Home News. I have good relations with the reporters for the Idaho World, although I rather suspect that they are going to back Corder. The Idaho Statesman is the major newspaper in this state, based out of the capital city of Boise. While outside our district, we are close enough to cover. They have occasionally published opinion pieces by me--one about mental illness and mass murder just a few days before I filed to run. I'll be curious to see how they cover the race. Like most newspapers, they tend to lean liberal on social issues.
DC: So how do people help out? How do they join your campaign? How do they contribute?
CC: There's a contributions page on http://www.cramerforsenate.org. And if you live in the district, or you have friends or relatives in the district, it's amazing how little encouragement it takes to persuade people to vote for one person they don't know over another person that they don't know! I'm trying to get voters in the district to invite neighbors and friends over for coffee with the candidate, so that I can explain why I think I'm a better match for the voters than Corder.
DC: Anything else you'd like to say to WarOnGuns visitors before we open things up for their questions?
CC: Yes. I know that gun rights activists tend to be split between social conservatives and libertarians. I'm definitely a social conservative--although not quite as doctrinaire as some. For example, I think that those who want to dramatically restrict abortion need to spend a lot more time persuading their opponents before passing more laws. There is a strong case that criminal laws should reflect not just 51%, but a very overwhelming consensus. Trying to enforce laws when 30% of the population strongly disagrees produces enormous struggle--and accomplishes very little good.
----------
Thank you, Clayton Cramer. I appreciate your taking the time to provide these thoughtful responses.
Now comes the time when I promised I'd turn the questioning over to you, my site visitors. Before I do, I'd like to set the ground rules to keep everything on track.
First a caveat: Clayton and I do not agree on everything or on every approach, and that should not surprise anyone who knows me. We have disagreed in the past and will certainly do so in the future. And I don't adhere to all of his campaign issue positions. That's fine. It happens. That said, I have always held him in the highest regard as a person of formidable intelligence, accomplishment and integrity. So in short--if you disagree with something, please keep things respectful. I insist.
Second: Please look at the questions I have asked and the questions posed by others before you post so we are not covering the same ground twice.
Third: Please limit your questions and give everyone a chance--I'd really prefer not to have the same person taking over the thread with question after question or challenge after challenge. You can state your position, he can state his, and then let's please move on.
And of course, off-topic posts, spam and obscenities will be deleted without comment.
Finally, and this is important: Please ask him concise questions. We're here to hear him out, not post essays or engage other question posters in debate. Look at my questions as a general guide to requested length.
I'll be the final arbiter. If, based on my sole judgment I think it appropriate, I'll just hit "delete" and you can take it up with me by email [dcodreaAThotmailDOTcom].
Sorry if this seems rule-heavy, but I've learned I need to do this from past interviews to keep things running smoothly. If we keep things on track and just observe a few simple courtesies, we all ought to learn from this and have a good time.
One last note--I disabled CAPTCHA word verification on comment posts for the duration of this interview.
Ladies and gentlemen, the floor is open for questions.
QUESTIONING IS NOW CLOSED.
Mr. Cramer has left the building.
Thank you all for participating--I hope all found it worthwhile.
If you would like to know more about the Clayton Cramer for Senate District 22 campaign, or find out what you can do to support his candidacy, go to his website at http://www.cramerforsenate.org/index.shtml
Feel free to post a link to this interview and copy it entirely to forums and websites where you think it will help.
30 comments:
A preemption law was recently passed in Idaho. Apparently, in order to get the bill past the governor, provisions regarding concealed carry on campus were stripped from the bill.
What is your position regarding concealed carry on campus, and would you be in favor of introducing a bill next year to allow it?
Do you respect the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any kind of weapon they wish, in any way they see fit everywhere they go without asking permission from anyone?
Yes, I support concealed carry on campus. The state's concealed carry permit system is a sufficient background check to remove convicted felons, recent violent misdemeanants, mentally incompetent, and under age. My daughter and son-in-law attend an Idaho state university; my wife teaches at one. I would want to make it more dangerous for a spree killer.
There is a legitimate question as to whether the state universities have authority to prohibit open carry on campus--which doesn't have any background check. I think that reminding them of this the next time around might make them a bit less argumentative.
"Do you respect the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any kind of weapon they wish, in any way they see fit everywhere they go without asking permission from anyone?"
To understand the Second Amendment and the state RKBA guarantees, take a look at the laws that were in effect when they were adopted. Convicted felons generally didn't have a right to be armed in 1791, because they generally had bigger problems. Felonies were punishable by death or long prison sentences.
Concealed carry permits are a somewhat questionable matter when it comes to the Second Amendment, because there were no rules against concealed carry in 1791. Nor were there limitations based on the type of weapon that you could carry. Vermont and Alaska are two states where concealed carry no longer requires a permit. Here in Idaho, you don't need a permit to carry concealed except in cities, mining and logging camps, and along roads.
In defense of concealed carry laws, they do speed up the process for a police officer determining whether you are a prohibited person or not, and they do make the nervous sorts a bit less nervous. Idaho's concealed carry law is very, very unobtrusive. There may come a day when getting it repealed will make some sense, but it isn't high on my priority list.
Let me also point out that it isn't the type of gun that should worry anyone; it is the person holding the gun. Which is more dangerous? A law-abiding adult with no history of mental illness with an automatic rifle? Or a convicted murderer with a .22 rifle?
As a state senator most of your attention would be taken by matters of importance within the state.
However, what would be your position and philosophy regarding federal usurpations and/or defiance of Idaho statutes? and how would you address those?
The following is a quote from the Federalist 51:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
4½ questions that are intertwined:
1. Do you agree that the fundamental premise of the above statement is that all men are inherently evil?
2. If so, do you see the necessity of a balance of power that consists of all citizens (assuming non-felons) being armed without infringement?
3. If not, what is your supposition as to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and what, if any, relationship does it have to the above quoted statement?
4. Would you agree with the folowing statement: “Words are more dangerous than firearms.”?
Hi Clayton. Best of luck to you in your campaign, and thank you for your hard work on the 2A front.
I suspect RKBA issues to be not very contentious in the Idaho state house. Idaho currently has no medical marijuana laws. Should such a law come up, where would you stand? (Feel free to expand on commerce clause and 10th Amendment issues.)
Would this mean a leave of absence from HP? One step at a time, I understand, but do you have any thoughts beyond the next term?
Does your answer to my original question indicate that you believe the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms was created by the Second Amendment (or by its predecessor traditions)?
The Constitution sets some pretty clear standards for what is the federal government's realm, and what is the state government's realm. It's a pity that the courts have been willing (until quite recently) to ignore this division.
Along with the Constitutional question, there is also a pragmatic argument for federalism--that some actions belong at the state level, and some at the federal level. As much as possible, decisions and actions that only affect Idaho should be made by the people of Idaho or their representatives.
In many cases, our hands are tied by federal court decisions.
"1. Do you agree that the fundamental premise of the above statement is that all men are inherently evil?"
I might phrase it a bit differently. All human beings contain the potential for evil, and it is safer to work on that assumption than the progressive belief that people are fundamentally good.
"2. If so, do you see the necessity of a balance of power that consists of all citizens (assuming non-felons) being armed without infringement?"
I see it as essential that the population be capable of resisting tyrannical government. The risks of this happening are small; the costs if that happens are huge.
Based on my research for my last book, and the one that I am writing now, I would say that there are five classes of persons who may be constitutionally disarmed, based on the state of the law in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified.
1. Felons. (Back then, we tended to hang them, so disarming them is a bit less serious.)
2. Slaves. (We don't have them anymore, because of the 13th Amendment.)
3. Minors, because they lacked full criminal responsibility for their actions. While minors were often allowed guns back then, the notion of it being a right was a little hazy.
4. Those whose loyalty is not to the United States. (And yes, that includes those whose loyalty is to a foreign nation or terrorist group.)
"3. If not, what is your supposition as to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and what, if any, relationship does it have to the above quoted statement?"
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to retain the ability of the population to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical federal government, if that necessity came up.
"4. Would you agree with the folowing statement: “Words are more dangerous than firearms.”?"
I haven't thought about it much. Look at the use of radio stations to provoke the Rwanda genocide, and the use of propaganda by totalitarian governments throughout history. In that sense, words can be more dangerous.
"Idaho currently has no medical marijuana laws. Should such a law come up, where would you stand? (Feel free to expand on commerce clause and 10th Amendment issues.)"
I voted for the medical marijuana initiative in California when I lived there. In retrospect, it was a mistake. My daughter tells me that the passage of this matter was widely interpreted by her age group (the 12-14 year olds) as an endorsement of marijuana.
The Lancet, the premiere British medical journal, some months back reversed a longstanding editorial position that marijuana wasn't dangerous because a review of dozens of studies found that those who used marijuana were 40% more likely to suffer a psychotic episode than those who did not. Maybe that's just a coincidence; perhaps those prone to mental illness are also attracted to marijuana. But it seems best to be precautionary on this.
"Would this mean a leave of absence from HP? One step at a time, I understand, but do you have any thoughts beyond the next term?"
My job right now involves telecommuting, and interacting with fellow workers in Shanghai, North Carolina, and India, so if elected, I would probably do a mixture of shifting my working hours to the evening (when India is working), and burning through some vacation hours during the three months that the legislature is in session.
"Does your answer to my original question indicate that you believe the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms was created by the Second Amendment (or by its predecessor traditions)?"
What do you mean by "create"? The Supreme Court, in one of its more silly 19th century decisions, admitted that the right pre-existed its recognition in the Bill of Rights. Certainly, the right to be armed might be considered a natural right--one that was submerged because of the rise of feudalism, where there were three classes "those who farm, those who pray, and those who fight."
The development of firearms played a major role in breaking feudalism. Firearms meant that peasants were again an important part of the defense of the realm. Those who want to restore a state where only an elite is armed--the knights or samurai--are trying to take us back to an era where peasants minded their "betters."
"are trying to take us back"
Let me correct this. I don't think that most gun control advocates consciously want a police state. I think most are well-intentioned people who just don't think through the likely consequences.
My last questions:
The Commerce Clause is widely used by Congress and the courts to restrict RKBA and limit the 2nd Amendment.
Since the 2nd Amendment is an amendment to the body of the document in which the Commerce clause rests, how do you read this?
How does (or would) it relate to the 10th Amendment reserving certain rights to the states and the people?
You raise an interesting point. I would agree that the 2nd Amendment, having been adopted after the commerce clause, should be read as superseding it. I'm hopeful that one of the follow-on cases to Heller will strike down the bizarre interstate firearms rules that we now have.
I can see, in 1968, why there might have been some legitimate reasons to be concerned about interstate sales of firearms. We didn't have any real mechanisms for doing background checks on a firearms purchaser to make sure that they weren't in a prohibited class. Those states that had background checks were still relying on manual, paper-based systems.
Those days are past. We have a national background check system, and once we get the courts to clearly recognize an individual right to arms under the Second Amendment, Congress might be well-advised to consider whether the GCA68 rules still have any applicability.
"How does (or would) it relate to the 10th Amendment reserving certain rights to the states and the people?"
The Tenth Amendment was intended as a restriction on the federal government, and even ignoring the Second Amendment, provides a plausible argument for why the current system of interstate gun regulation might be unconstitutional. We know that there were no rules at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified that stopped sales across state lines. Indeed, we have a number of examples of such purchases immediately before the Revolution, since Pennsylvania was one of the major manufacturers.
Based on your work with Academics for the Second Amendment and the insights that must have given you, what are your thoughts on the probable outcome for Heller?
Clayton, in a previous comment, those not loyal to the U.S. do not have a 2A right. How does one remain loyal to the United States of America, while using the 2A to overthrow a tyrannical United States government?
BTW, my Internet handle is Crotalus in reference to the "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Crotalus is the name for the genus of rattlesnakes.
"Based on your work with Academics for the Second Amendment and the insights that must have given you, what are your thoughts on the probable outcome for Heller?"
Just about everyone who worked on the case believes that we are going to win, at least 5-4, perhaps 6-3. The nature of the win, however, is where there is some question.
In spite of Chief Justice Roberts pointing out that the differing standards of review are not part of the Constitution, what we may get is less than we want--but more than we have.
The decision might be what lawyers call a categorical protection--that "shall not be infringed" really means what it says, and as long as the person isn't in a prohibited class, federal gun laws that infringe are unconstitutional. This would be such a dramatic win that I don't expect it. It would demolish too much of the current federal code on gun regulation.
The Court might decide that gun laws are subject to "strict scrutiny." This means that for a law to survive Second Amendment challenge it would have to serve a compelling governmental purpose; be narrowly tailored to serve that purpose; and not be overbroad (meaning that if it is supposed disarm felons, it can't disarm non-felons). This is a likely outcome, as far as I am concerned.
The Court might apply the "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" standard. In this case, a law has to have some rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. This might mean that the Court strikes down the law, or it might send the case back down for trial to see if there's a plausible case for the handgun ban meeting this standard. This wouldn't be a complete win, but it would at least force governments to justify gun regulations--and that would enable us to put the social science evidence into play. That would at least stop some gun control laws. I consider this a possible, although not likely result.
The lowest standard of review is "rational basis." Here, the burden of proof is essentially on challengers to prove that the gun control law was passed for no good reason at all, but simply reflected ignorance or prejudice. I don't expect this result.
"Clayton, in a previous comment, those not loyal to the U.S. do not have a 2A right. How does one remain loyal to the United States of America, while using the 2A to overthrow a tyrannical United States government?"
Loyal to the Constitution, or loyal to the government? There's a reason that our military swears allegiance to the Constitution, not the President, or Congress.
Realistically, if we reach the point where armed revolution makes sense, I rather doubt that anyone on the other side is going to be particularly concerned about fine points of law.
I would also point out that revolutions against the government are ugly, and often more destructive of liberty than the government that was there before. I wrote this article for Shotgun News in 2002: http://www.claytoncramer.com/RightsAndRevolution.PDF. Anyone that speaks too glibly about armed revolution against our government should read it, and think long and hard about the points that I make there.
In your comments about guns in parking lots of employers, you state "or interfere with private property" what about the private property of the employee (ie. the car)? Does the parking lot nullify the employee's private property?
Also you state above "Convicted felons generally didn't have a right to be armed in 1791, because they generally had bigger problems. Felonies were punishable by death or long prison sentences." but you do not state how you feel that it should apply today, when so many felons (many of whom did not commit violent crimes ie. Martha Stewart) are not in prison or dead. Also, what about those with restraining orders (many of which are boilerplate for divorces) against them?
In various states, "felonies" can be brought against people for crimes in which no one - except the "state" - is actually harmed.
For example, in California, if one colors his license plate tag with a highlighter in an effort to make the tag appear that the auto registration is current, that particular act is a felony.
What is your position on the proscription of various rights against people who may have committed felonies which can not be considered violent?
Likewise, what is your position on the Lautenberg gun ban?
Would you consider at some point sponsoring legislation that provides a way for Idaho citizens to petition to have their rights restored if they had not been convicted of a violent crime?
Best of luck on your campaign - I will tell my family in Idaho to vote for you.
Thanks,
Ned
"In your comments about guns in parking lots of employers, you state "or interfere with private property" what about the private property of the employee (ie. the car)? Does the parking lot nullify the employee's private property?"
Unfortunately, most employers require you to agree to search as a condition of using the parking lot. My employer has such a condition--and there are signs at the entrances reminding you of that. And I am not happy about that. But as much as I this upsets me, we can't just arbitrarily step on the rights of property owners because they make stupid rules. We already have too much of that going already.
I have proposed some alternative strategies on this--a mixture of carrot and stick related to liability that might achieve much the same result as some of the parking lot laws that NRA is promoting.
There is a very serious problem with the overfelonization of our law. I wrote an article for Shotgun News a while back about a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that decided that foreign felony convictions do not prohibit you from owning a gun in the U.S.--but even non-violent felonies such as odometer tampering do. http://www.claytoncramer.com/WhatIsAFelony.html
I do think that narrowing the list of felonies that disqualify from firearms ownership is a very good idea. But this is primarily a federal issue--not one that the state legislature can do anything about.
I understand the concern about the manner in which restraining orders are issued--in some states, without sufficient notice to the restrainee. This was one of the issues in USA v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001). I also understand the concerns that provoked these laws. This is a troubling problem, because both sides have some real concerns. I have serious problems with anything that prohibits gun ownership without due process. There needs to be more than just an accusation.
I also agree that the process that federal law provides for restoring firearms rights should be funded. But again, that's a federal issue, one that state legislature can't do much about.
I second loose cannon's point. While the employer's property rights may extend to allowing or not allowing my vehicle onto their property, the vehicle itself is **my** property, and they have no basis in property rights to dictate what may or may not be *inside* it. That is a violation of *my* property rights.
Best of luck!
I understand the frustration. (I drive 25 miles to work through wilderness, and I would prefer to have a gun with me.) But I think we can accomplish the end that we want without taking any shortcuts around property rights.
No question; merely a statement as to my disappointment of your position that states cannot do much about federal issues.
They sure can't if they don't try.
Look at all the issues the feds have "raided" from the purview of the states. What is to keep them from just saying "Go to Hell, states, we are going to control everything because as you say there is nothing you can do once we call it a federal issue?"
Ok, so I lied, there was a question there.
We have had some significant victories since N.Y. v. U.S. (1992), a Tenth Amendment case. The Printz decision was one of those outgrowths. And certainly, as a member of the state legislature I would be intent on making sure that no one forgot the Constitution created a federal system--with some powers delegated to the federal government, and most delegated to the states.
QUESTIONING IS NOW CLOSED.
Mr. Cramer has left the building.
Thank you all for participating--I hope all found it worthwhile.
If you would like to know more about the Clayton Cramer for Senate District 22 campaign, or find out what you can do to support his candidacy, go to his website at http://www.cramerforsenate.org/index.shtml
Feel free to post a link to this interview and copy it entirely to forums and websites where you think it will help.
Post a Comment