I am both willing and eager to push for access to newspapers, TV and such. However, I believe I will need to make a stand this year. Some of these questionnaires are sickening. I will not name names, but I find that most special interest groups seem to despise the states. They want this national law or that national law.
The worst seems to be pro-life groups that I would love to support, but their views are tough for a libertarian to manage. For example, early on they ask in a questionnaire if I feel that abortion is wrong except in the case of saving the mother's life, rape or incest. I can agree with those positions.
Then they will ask if I support overruling Roe v. Wade. I agree with that, but at that point I am done as a federal candidate. Once abortion is in the hands of the states, the feds need to back the heck off!
However, they want all sorts of federal intervention into the states' business even if Roe v Wade is made void. Their position is completely inconsistent with the Constitution. If you accept states have the power, I agree. However, you cannot pick and choose when to follow the Constitution in order to get your agenda completed.
I will offer that I will resist any effort for federal funding of abortion. I find that is abhorrent in the most basic sense. You cannot tax people to pay for the activities of others, let alone taxing people to fund activities they find morally offensive. The government does not have any power that individual citizens do not have. A woman does not have the right to barge into a church and rob a person at gunpoint to pay for her abortion. Similarly, the government cannot use it's force to make that same church going citizen pay for another person's abortion.
The pro-gun lobby is a little better, but they have to throw in the idea that a federal law must be passed in order to force other states to allow concealed carry for residents of other states with possibly very different criteria for concealed carry. I would never expect a foreign nation to accept Wisconsin's open carry rules, why should I expect other states to? Concealed carry is the same thing. I would love to see states have reciprocal laws, but that is something for the state legislatures to hammer out. That decision must not come from DC.
As for guns, the 2nd Amendment is pretty damn clear.
|“||A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.||”|
The key thing to remember is that the Constitution limits the federal government, not the states. The only real issue is how far does the 14th Amendment go in making states buckle under the authority of the federal government?
Is a permit infringing? I may feel so, but different states may have different rules. Obviously infringing in my view would be banning, limiting the types of firearms, impossible paper work ( too difficult for most to comply ) or any fees that make it prohibitive to own firearms.
I feel that the 14th Amendment is there to keep the states from becoming tyrannical towards their entire population or specific groups. The clear reason for the 14th Amendment was the fear that blacks would be second class citizens and I agree with that point of view. I do not, however, want the states to be mere puppets of the federal government. As long as a state makes their rules uniform and do not pass laws that make a owning guns impossible due to regulation or expense, I feel the federal government should stay out of it. I do agree with the recent Supreme Court rulings that a city cannot simply ban a class of weapons completely, leaving their citizens ripe for abuse from the criminal element.
Liberty, Peace and Prosperity
Liberty + Peace = Prosperity
Liberty + Peace = Prosperity