Image via Wikipedia
We can’t expect Herman Cain to be flawless for a year and a half of campaign action, but if this ends up being a slip on his part it’s a really bad one.
What did he say? Essentially he says gun control is a states rights issue, not a federal issue. HotAir.com has the transcript.
BLITZER: How about gun control?
CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.
B: So what’s the answer on gun control?
C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…
C: Yes
B: Yes?
C: Yes.
B: So the answer is yes?
C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.
Outside the Beltway makes it clear why this is not correct.
This is, of course, entirely incorrect. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment, and its protections as had recently been defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. While the decisions in McDonald and Heller do leave unanswered the question of what forms of firearms regulation would be Constitutionally acceptable, it is fairly clear that the protections of the Second Amendment are applicable to the states.
We need look no further than a state like Illinois to see the abuses of our rights should those who oppose the 2nd Amendment get a hold of local governments. In Chicago wouldn’t dare be caught with a firearm in the city. Even one safely tucked under your seat or in your trunk.
The Federal Government is in place, or at least supposed to be, to protect our rights. Keeping arms is a right and it is the responsibility of the Fed to protect it. Right now the city of Chicago is “allowed” to ban guns on a person and is a gross abuse of an individuals Constitutional rights. I’m not sure how Cain can suggest otherwise.
My hope is that he just slipped up and won’t stick to that position, but if he does I find it more than a bit disconcerting.
-Eric Odom
Related posts:
- Herman Cain Will Appear on the Mike Huckabee Show
- New Hampshire Voters on Herman Cain: “Wasn’t that what we felt with Ronald Reagan, his enthusiasm?”
- Herman Cain 4 President 2012 America is Ready to Dream Again
- Herman Cain is in!
- BREAKING: New Iowa Poll Gives Herman Cain Double-Digit Lead But Iowans Unsure
At least the truth came out well before the primary! No candidate who doesn’t support the Second Amendment will get my vote!!! The Founding Fathers certainly recognized it as a federal issue by making it an amendment to the Constitution!!!
I don’t think Cain said he doesn’t support the 2nd Amendment. In fact I see no evidence he suggested that whatsoever.
What he said is that he supports the 2nd Amendment at the Federal Level and he inferred he does not support it at the State Level.
What everyone needs, truly needs folks, is to recognize that the right to bear Arms is an Unalienable Right. The Feds, States, Cities, etc do not have the authority to take away ANY of our Rights.
Here in Georgia our Constitution reiterates the 2nd, but adds that our General Assembly can prescribe the way that guns are carried. Doesn’t get any deeper than that, but seems rational that means open, concealed, check at the door, etc.
Herman failed me on Glenn Beck yesterday to. He’s an awesome speaker, I’ve seen him half a dozen times and prior to my looking into him, I wanted nothing less than him to win the R Nomination. But he does not understand the Constitution, and he still defends the Fed.
You simply can’t say you support the 2nd Amendment and then say it’s a state rights issue. Who gets to make this decision?? Either the federal government or the state governments get the final say – not both.
I say neither the State or the Federal Govt. gets any say in this matter.
It is clearly defined in our Constitution and not open for discussion or change.
There should be just one rule or law throughout this entire country and every state should be mandated to abide by it. Imaginary state borders has nothing to do with a law abiding citizens Constitutional rights!
The answer to this question should be as simple as a reference to the 2nd Amendment and that it is not open for interpretations.
Wait just a second! Is ANYONE paying attention to WHO is doing the interview? So if you don’t think gun control should be a States’ issue and instead should be the task of the Federal government, gotta question for ya? Based on the performance of this current administration, are you telling me you actually believe that this TOO should be his job? Obama loves that mindset. He’s SOOO ready to finish us off and take over ONE MORE PART OF OUR LIVES!!!
You seem to be missing the point. It’s neither the state nor the fed’s job to take care of gun control. There should be no gun control as far as I’m concerned. At least not for law abiding citizens of the United States.
It is, however, according to the 2nd Amendment, the fed’s job to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Nope. It is not the Fed’s job, it is our job. You cannot delegate the whole, or part of, protection of our rights to the government, no matter what level. The Feds have been charged to protect us against Invasion, counterfeit, etc.
Unalienable Rights are not transferable (able to be granted or revoked) so to put the protection into the hands of Government is de facto placing the ability to grant or revoke in their hands by how well they do or worse yet whim.
Quick reference; Rights are things that do NOT require permission. Privileges require permission. People have rights and privileges, Governments have privileges and those privileges are a voluntary subset of our rights that ‘should’ be applied evenly.
Rights are universal, privileges used to restrain.
I agree. Dont you think Mr Cain was refereing not only to Constitutional rights, but possibly states rights as well(i.e. Montana). The issue is simple. But the federal government continues to cloud our rights as well as several states that want to take away the freedoms we as all Americans enjoy. There needs to continue to be a house (and senate, dont forget the other branchs of government also) cleaning in DC. We are in serious danger of losing more than just the right to bear arms…
I don’t like to call them rights since governments do not have ‘rights’ per se, they have privileges granted to them by the people, who always retain rights, but no need to split hairs, I understand and agree with what you’re saying.
While Cain may believe the Rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are left up to the States to defend or uphold, that simply means that if the States do a poor job of it, well . . . at least they tried. Not good enough and shows he misunderstands the Natural Law solution and the Ninth Amendment. And what about the 13th Amendment? It is not in the Bill of Rights, technically not needed IMO, who is best equipped to protect the individual from involuntary servitude?
The Feds, State, County? Individual?
You are correct! In trying to protect our Liberties piecemeal, ‘they’ are picking them apart. Click my name to find out more.
I dont see this as significant. It appears to me that he is saying it isnt a national issue but up to each state, consistent with the second amendment, to control who can and can not own a gun. All states prohibit certain classes of persons from lawful gun ownership without running a foul of the constitution. Up until McDonald the courts routinely held that the second amendment did not apply to the states. It took 190 years before the courts held that the 4th and 5th amendments applied to the states.
Get out your bill of rights and read them. “Congress shall make no law”, Congress being the operative word. There was much discussion about the adoption of the bill of rights, and that they were not to apply to the states is not disputable. Incorporation doctrine is a very bad thing, McDonald was a bad decision. We are one Supreme Court justice away from a national gun ban. Cain was absolutely right.
The Supreme Court has held on several occasions that states can put restrictions on the ownership of guns. However, states cannot ban gun ownership. Herman Cain is correct in his assessment.
Herman Cain is right!!!
There is a difference between Constitutional history and Constitutional Case law. Very few law schools teach Constitutional history. According to the original intent and the spirit of the Constitution the first 10 Amendments apply only to the Federal Government not to the states.
Because of bad Constitutional case law by self serving and activist supreme court Judges who have been graduating from these law schools who don’t teach Constitutional history you get garbage judgments that have been sending this nation down the road to ruin for the past 100 years.
It’s been through misuse of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court which has lead to the first 10 Amendments being incorporated to the states; an Amendment that was unconstitutionally ratified and rammed down the thoughts of Southern States by a radical Republican Congress.
There are several states that do not have a “Right to Bear Arms” in their State Constitutions which means they can regulate firearms as much as they want if you go by Constitutional History. It is up to the public at a local state level to protect these rights as was the Framer’s original intentions.
Our Constitution as it was originally intended by our Framers and Ratifiers is now a dead document; it has been flipped 180 degrees from what it was intended to do. A small limited government with only specific enumerated powers.
And anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court are these angelic beings of fairness who are immune to human sin of wanting to elevate ones personal importance in governing this country by circumventing the amendment process of the Constitution through case law is sadly mistaken.
And if you wonder where I get my information, well I’m spending a lot of my free time reading the exact words of what our Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers had to say about this issue. Our Founders were afraid of this exact issue, Supreme Court Justices misusing their power and it is the job of the Congress to stop them and you see how well of a job they do these days.
So technically Herman Cain is right!
Cain is 100 % correct in his statement. The second amendant prohibits the federal government of making any law against gun ownership, therefore it is the state which has to make the laws on purchasing the guns, It is therefor up to the citizens of each state to make our state elected officials understand they should not suppress the right to bear arms but do have to have laws to prevent Felons from ownership (knowing all along criminals will not pay any attention to the laws) We all must remember that unarmed citizens are nothing more than servants if the right to bear arms is prohibited.
[...] there’s the 2nd Amendment. Herman Cain, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer earlier this month, stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment. That’s great! But when asked about [...]
[...] there’s the 2nd Amendment. Herman Cain, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer earlier this month, stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment. That’s great! But when asked about [...]
[...] should take away all power of the feds to regulate or take away anything – including our Constitutional rights. (At least, though, he didn’t say the 2nd Amendment was in the Declaration of [...]
[...] across this attempting to google similar comments made by Paul (I was unsucessful in that regard): Herman Cain’s First Big Gaffe? Says Gun Control is States Issue I still like Cain, but I did find that comment surprising… If Paul is too old, would Paul with [...]