This is pretty easy, so let’s dispense with it quickly. For years, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was a matter of dispute, as was the question whether it applied at all to the states. But those matters have recently been settled. Recent Supreme Court decisions have held that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right (the contours of which remain largely undefined) to bear arms, and that it applies equally to the states and to the federal government. So if the feds can’t do something, the states can’t either; conversely, if a state can do it, so can the feds. There is therefore no legal reason supporting Brown’s position that gun control should be left to the states.
Consider, first, the policy reasons favoring a uniform federal approach to gun control. The biggest one is the most obvious: guns are small and easy to hide. They are therefore extremely easy to move across state lines. So it stands to reason that states who choose to adopt tough gun control policies might be undermined by nearby states who choose not to.
And hey, wouldja look at that? That’s exactly what happens.
18 handguns bought through an illegal straw purchase in Georgia in 2009 are believed to have wound up on the streets of Boston. So far two of the 18 handguns have been recovered by Boston Police officers, but, according to investigators the others are believed to be hidden here…. That the purchase took place in Georgia is not happenstance. According to investigators, most of the guns used in crimes and seized in Boston were originally purchased in the states of Georgia, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, none of which requires full background checks on those who purchase either handguns or rifles, according to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.