But there is a third case that has not reached the Supreme Court, and this is a case where the definitions of Conservative and Liberal might become a bit blurred, or even get turned on their heads. This is the case in which open carry is claimed as a Federal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, and would force states to accept that Federal right. This is a case where Conservatives are arguing for greater Federal power to enforce open carry, while Liberals are pushing a States Rights approach, in that they don't want open carry in their traditionally Liberal states, and want their state to have the power to deny open carry.WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday declined to wade into the politically volatile issue of gun control by leaving intact three court rulings rejecting challenges to federal and state laws.
The court's decision not to hear the cases represented a loss for gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, which was behind two of the challenges.
Both the gun issue, and which political faction that supports the concept of Federalism versus States Rights, depending on the case, would make for an interesting discussion. Is it hypocrital for Conservatives to claim States rights, and then argue for Federalism in cases they care about? Is it hypocrital for Liberals to claim Federalism, and then argue for States Rights in cases they care about? And what really constitutes Liberalism or Conservatism, if the line between States rights and Federalism is constantly shifting within these political factions? These are some interesting concepts to think about.
Article is here.