Alecthar: Jim Crow and the Anti-Miscengenation laws were overturned by Supreme Court rulings. Slavery was eventually killed by an amendment to the constitution, a decision the states most certainly had a say in. And as to education, the Federal interventions there have so far been somewhat less than stellar (“No Child Left Behind” (more like “No Child Learns Beyond the Testing Requirements”) being a pretty much perfect example of “one size wrong for everyone.” In none of the above cases did the Congress have very much input at all, save perhaps with the Emancipation Proclamation – which was primarily an executive measure and did not ban all slavery.
Now, it can be said (correctly) that the Supreme Court and the executive are part of the federal government, but if you’re talking federal law, you’re talking the Congress. Which does not have a good record on considering what happens even outside the Beltway, much less in individual states. “States Rights” exist specifically to delimit and degrade the power of the Federal Government – a elimitations and degradation I fully support. (Yes, I am a “small-government” conservative. No, I’m not a maniac on the subject – which is why I have no problem voting Democrat these days).

That was a dumb-ass regulation, it died within months, and regional differences were then taken into account for these specifications.

It simply is not true that there are two alternatives: 1 big-ass stupid idea vs. 50 wonderful ideas.

So, no, I’m not accepting the argument that 50 states independantly putting their little minds to a problem will come up with a superior solution to a well thought out plan that takes into account variation where appropriate, but also sticks to certain basic well worked out principles where appropriate.

In particular, I have no clue yet as to why gun ownership, rules for sale, safety, or other regulation ideally varies from state to state. There are many reasons these things should be the same from state to state because people in the US are still free to move from one state to another.

What do you think about the idea of rules of ownership being different for cities vs. rural areas? And yes, that is probably a trick question, but also a valid question because it gets at the crux of the matter.

Slavery
Jim Crow Laws
Anti-Miscegenation Laws
Crappy, Underfunded Public Education

The first three are things the “one size is wrong for everyone” federal government had to step in to alter. The last still hasn’t been addressed to anyone’s satisfaction.

Don’t get me wrong, there are certainly a number of good reasons to have some varying state laws, but the US concept of “states rights” is stupid, and I can’t think of any good reason why state governments should have as much power to buck good national policy as they do.

About 20 years ago I purchased mace mail order, destination Massachusetts, and from a pet supply company in Massachusetts, without question. I found out later (not much later though) that Massachusetts has some sort of licensing requirement. I imagine this differs from guns in that there is no registration for individual cans of mace, so the unlawfulness would be in my possession of it once it arrives.

(Massachusetts car purchase is, as far as I can tell, much more complicated: pay, transfer title, then you must provide proof of insurance in order to receive the registration in order to be able to drive it. This can make for some interesting bootstrap problems.)