Firearm Policies within the State’s Borders The big debate between states with looser firearm policies and states with very strict fire arm policies; who is to say what laws affect one state has to affect another state? Most Americans can argue that, the state should be able to regulate or set policies that accommodate their beliefs within the borders of their state. There is a hand full of reasons why states should set their own policies such as, one state belief on gun policies shouldn’t be pushed on another state, and one state’s terrain differ between another states terrain, also the 2nd amendment goes against a Federal regulation on firearm policy within states. These reasons are why a state should be able to set firearm policies within
…show more content…
Texas terrains are heavily filled with trees, and woods; which gives Texans the opportunity to hunt. For Texans hunting is a family bonding opportunity, also give the parents a chance to teach their child how to properly use a rifle or gun. A state such as New York that is heavily populated and urbanized does not have the terrain to hunt, or do activities with firearms as states like Texas. So New York’s laws should not impact the laws for all America as the Federal laws will affect. So setting a bright line rule is hard due to the differences in state geography and topography. Another reason the federal government shouldn’t dictate Texas gun or rifle laws is smaller states have less land to freely use firearms, unlike a bigger state; which has plenty of open space for shooting and is more open in preventing from accidental shooting. Also the law the federal government is trying to pass, limits the amount of ammo a gun can hold; the federal government should not overlook how rural and urban areas differ. In urban areas, there is more crime and violence due to urban cities having gangs and other organized crime. But on the other hand you can’t set laws keeping firearms out of the abiding citizens who follow the laws and want to protect their property or families from these gangsters. With that being said, rural areas like in the country, away from cities do not have these problems as urban areas do. So restricting them of their rights, on the same fact of urban areas is just not fair or
Texas terrains are heavily filled with trees, and woods; which gives Texans the opportunity to hunt. For Texans hunting is a family bonding opportunity, also give the parents a chance to teach their child how to properly use a rifle or gun. A state such as New York that is heavily populated and urbanized does not have the terrain to hunt, or do activities with firearms as states like Texas. So New York’s laws should not impact the laws for all America as the Federal laws will affect. So setting a bright line rule is hard due to the differences in state geography and topography. Another reason the federal government shouldn’t dictate Texas gun or rifle laws is smaller states have less land to freely use firearms, unlike a bigger state; which has plenty of open space for shooting and is more open in preventing from accidental shooting. Also the law the federal government is trying to pass, limits the amount of ammo a gun can hold; the federal government should not overlook how rural and urban areas differ. In urban areas, there is more crime and violence due to urban cities having gangs and other organized crime. But on the other hand you can’t set laws keeping firearms out of the abiding citizens who follow the laws and want to protect their property or families from these gangsters. With that being said, rural areas like in the country, away from cities do not have these problems as urban areas do. So restricting them of their rights, on the same fact of urban areas is just not fair or