Cain: Gun control should be a “state’s decision”
posted at 10:36 am on June 8, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
Before anyone goes into full blown panic alert, I think Herman Cain may have just slipped up a bit during a rapid fire question session with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last night. Given a chance to walk this back and clarify, his answer might not sound as bad. But, the man said what he said, so we should give it a full airing. Video and transcript follow, and the comments come at the 3 minute mark so you can fast forward.
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.
I don’t know, but that sounds pretty specific to me. On the one hand, Cain is saying that he doesn’t want the federal government passing sweeping, onerous laws restricting everyone’s gun rights, but they don’t do that now. It all comes down to the question of whether or not 2nd amendment rights are among the incorporated rights which must be recognized by the states.
Ever since the SCOTUS decision in McDonald v Chicago, the groundwork has been laid where those rights might stand up against the wishes of the individual state and local governments. Unless he completely misspoke, Cain sounds like he is an opponent of the McDonald decision, which I believe would come as a great disappointment to many of his conservative supporters.
But, again, the piece went by fairly quickly and it’s possible that he simply misfired in response to Blitzer’s flurry of questions on a wide variety of issues. It would be worthwhile for someone to ask Mr. Cain to clarify these remarks in the near future.
Update: Doug Mataconis wonders if this was not a misfire, but rather a different reading of constitutional adherence, more in the school of Ron Paul.
Now, it’s possible, as Jazz Shaw suggests, that Cain simply misspoke under Blitzer’s rapid fire barrage. The other possibility, though, is that he’s one of those “Constitutional” conservatives who rejects the entire idea that Federal Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. Ron Paul believes this, and it’s one reason I’m not entirely a fan of his. Is this Cain’s position? Does he believe that, not just the 2nd, but also the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments shouldn’t apply to the states? Some clarification on this issue would be most helpful.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Wrong answer. The 2nd Amendment is supreme.
JimK on June 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Most State Constitutions mirror the Second Amendment.
tarpon on June 8, 2011 at 10:47 AM
I suspect this is one of those things Cain hasn’t gotten briefed up on yet.
If Blitzer had walked him through the argument about incorporated rights, Cain might have given a different answer. But it’s very likely he hasn’t thought about it at length. The vast majority of Americans who aren’t NRA members or constitutional scholars couldn’t make an argument for or against the concept of incorporated rights.
I remain willing to give Cain the benefit of the doubt. Litmus-test issues and bumper-sticker rationales have become far too prominent in our mode of political discussion. As long as we keep reacting as if everyone “must” perform in exactly the same manner in this regard, we’ll be stuck with business-as-usual politicians.
That said, I don’t think Cain will be the GOP nominee. But frankly, in the big picture, Americans need to change if we want better candidates. I think Cain would make much better decisions as the chief executive than half the Republican field. It’s our fault that a good man (or woman) doesn’t fit the soundbite-ready, one-page-memo-briefed mold on “issues” that we demand.
J.E. Dyer on June 8, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Not ready for prime time.
rrpjr on June 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Huh? I was briefed on the Constitution when I was in school. I would hope that a man in his sixties running for president would already have this stuff down and not need to be educated on the fly. If it is now up to Wolf Blitzer to educate GOP candidates on constitutional issues we are in deep sh!t.
Mark1971 on June 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM
With respect, Mark1971, I doubt that you were “briefed” on the particulars of the incorporated rights argument in school (I assume you refer to K-12, not college courses).
A whole lot of people out there think it’s “federalism” for the states to be able to make gun control laws. If you haven’t been through the argument in detail, it certainly sounds like federalism.
Some gun-rights advocates can make a complete case for why states must honor the Second Amendment at the drop of a hat. But there are others who believe in incorporated rights who would struggle to make the argument.
The issue boils down to the purpose of the right versus the police powers exercised at the state — but not the federal — level. It is simply not the case that most people have given much thought to those questions, nor were most of today’s adults taught to think in those terms in school.
I don’t necessarily fault Cain for not having investigated it (I really suspect he hasn’t, since he didn’t seem to allude to the fact that there’s a constitutional issue and differing opinions about it). I do hope he understands the importance of it and gets himself smart on the topic.
J.E. Dyer on June 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM
This is not a complicated constitutional issue. Anyone who has followed the major SCOTUS cases over the past few years, which I would expect a serious GOP candidate for president to do, would be aware of the basic issues involved in the Heller and McDonald decisions.
Mark1971 on June 8, 2011 at 11:39 AM
As a (budding) Cain fan, I have to agree with you. This is disappointing.
Bee on June 8, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Ditto. He’s said a lot of things that have been uninformed. And it doesn’t seem like he’s trying to educate himself on the issues. He’s had the time. Once another major conservatives jumps in, his support will dwindle toward zero.
IR-MN on June 8, 2011 at 11:48 AM
NOT acceptable.
DocinPA on June 8, 2011 at 11:59 AM
This man is not ready to be President. Period. He wants to be CEO of America and that is not what the Presidency is.
sammypants on June 8, 2011 at 12:08 PM
I guess Mr Cain will have to get back to us on that…along with Afghanistan and Iraq and Lybia.
No thanks.
tencole on June 8, 2011 at 12:12 PM
Tsk tsk, Cain! You should know by now that the “states rights” extremists do have exceptions to their rules and will defend them to the bitter (clinging) end!
Uncle Sams Nephew on June 8, 2011 at 12:47 PM
He’s entirely correct (even if it was a misstatement). The doctrine of incorporation fraudulently based on a flawed and overly-expansive reading of the 14th Amendment is the single worst thing that happened with respect to our system of government in the 20th Century. Of course this issue, like all those encompassed by the BOR under modern SCOTUS precedent should be left to the states, unless it involves federal action. The right of the people to govern themselves has been completely forgotten–traded by sheep for protection against imaginary wolves or else grabbed by a SCOTUS whose prime concern has always been since Marshall (but especially so over the last 60 years) expanding its power and reach.
How many commenting here believe that abortion rights should be a decision made at the state level? How about regulation of pornography? (It’s protected political speech!) Prayer in schools and the myriad related issues?!?
The center-right’s dishonesty and lack of intellectual consistency and rigor is never more evident than when discussing Heller.
exlibris on June 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM
That is a rough answer.
If Cain wants to compete with the big guns in this race, he’s going to have to come off better and answer more comprehensively than that.
Abby Adams on June 8, 2011 at 1:19 PM
This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.
Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.
Ed Morrissey on June 8, 2011 at 5:23 PM
Well I am a pretty big gun nut (Jazz knows that). I even just started a gun blog.
And I am perfectly happy with Cain’s statement.
Most states have 2A language in there constitution.
Those that do not can pass all the gun control they want. I’m just not going anywhere near them.
Those states will become poster children for growing crime and shrinking populations. If things get bad enough we can wall them off and forget about them (Jazz, AP you really need to move).
McDonald v Chicago laid ground work, but the work is not finished. Alan Gura will finish it.
Gura will win in court.
Gun control will lose in court.
Gun control will lose in state legislature. It will lose in public polling. It will lose in pop culture. Gun control will lose on Mythbusters, and Pawn Stars, and PS3, and Xbox.
We are winning everywhere except in big city news rooms.
And I’m OK with that.
(Minor quibble: state laws need to be uniform. local governments should not not be able to make you a felon for driving through.)
mad saint jack on June 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM