PDA

View Full Version : House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill


BMT (RIP)
11-16-2011, 17:52
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/16/house-to-vote-on-concealed-firearm-permit-bill/?test=latestnews


BMT

The Reaper
11-16-2011, 22:07
IF it gets past the senate the POTUS will probably veto it.

I think this is excellent timing so that voters know before the next election just where their elected representatives stand on the Second Amendment.

TR

cat in the hat
11-17-2011, 01:39
quote:
"The legislation would "make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel," he said. "

not exactly correct. different states have different rules for CCW.
for example, in Colorado, it is legal to carry into an establishment that sells alcohol as long as the individual is not "under the influence" some states do not allow carry into bars or restaurants at all. CCW holders will need to do their own research before carrying in other states.

also, some states have loose guidelines for issuing. again, Colorado accepts a DD-214 as proof of CCW/firearm safety training. I cannot be the only person who knows a veteran that has never even touched a handgun. on the flip side, Nevada has an actual qualification that permit holders must meet before being issued their permit.

i like the idea of this bill but there are some ignorant people out there who will make some stupid mistakes.

Streck-Fu
11-17-2011, 07:15
No matter what, this law is a good thing.

There will be issues with behavior that come up. Mostly, I think, is that people will not research the laws of the states they travel to. Some states do not allow carry into places that serve alcohol while others like Indiana do....or like Virginia where you cannot conceal where is alcohol is consumed but you must open carry.

People will be ignorant of local laws and get to meet a few police officers.


However, no matter what, this is still good because finally they are trying to pass a law that increases liberty.


And I think the concern over competency with a handgun is nearly moot ..... You are far more likely to be killed by a distracted driver than someone with a gun on their hip.
Overall, people that bother to get carry permits are very safety conscious and aware of their responsibilities. Though it is true that there are idiots in every crowd, this law would not change state laws or requirements nor make it easier for otherwise unqualified individuals to get permits so the number of people with permits will not increase by much.

Oldrotorhead
11-17-2011, 08:15
I hope Mayor Bloomberg is shitting razor wire. I don't think the Senate will pass this bill and I know the President will not sign it, but it forces some political hacks to take a stand one way or the other.

Paslode
11-17-2011, 08:18
i like the idea of this bill but there are some ignorant people out there who will make some stupid mistakes.


True, but if you put into the perspective of the universally accepted drivers license, the ease of getting a license or the ease at which a automobile can be purchased 10 of millions of us drive daily, the few that do stupid with the 2000-3000lbs. projectile and the fact that we accept the associated accidents as common place AND any person adjudicated as mentally ill has the right to own a car, have a drivers license and drive.....

Put it in that perspective there is absolutely no reason your CCH/CCW shouldn't be accepted in all 50 States.


That said, there is nothing to say that BiG FED won't institute some National Carry Law (a Trojan Horse) that supersedes the various State Law.........which may not be a good thing.

sinjefe
11-17-2011, 08:19
No matter what, this law is a good thing.

There will be issues with behavior that come up. Mostly, I think, is that people will not research the laws of the states they travel to. Some states do not allow carry into places that serve alcohol while others like Indiana do....or like Virginia where you cannot conceal where is alcohol is consumed but you must open carry.

People will be ignorant of local laws and get to meet a few police officers.


However, no matter what, this is still good because finally they are trying to pass a law that increases liberty.


And I think the concern over competency with a handgun is nearly moot ..... You are far more likely to be killed by a distracted driver than someone with a gun on their hip.
Overall, people that bother to get carry permits are very safety conscious and aware of their responsibilities. Though it is true that there are idiots in every crowd, this law would not change state laws or requirements nor make it easier for otherwise unqualified individuals to get permits so the number of people with permits will not increase by much.


The last thing we need from congress is ANY more laws. I think we can get along fine without anymore of their meddling.

Streck-Fu
11-17-2011, 08:33
The last thing we need from congress is ANY more laws. I think we can get along fine without anymore of their meddling.

I agree on most accounts...but think this law is a good one....and, no, I don't think it will pass the Senate.

Badger52
11-17-2011, 09:04
Am betting this will be the one thing where Mugabe will come out and concede that "at a time when many complain about encroachment of the Federal government in their lives, clearly this is something that should be decided among the states." (Cue VETO stamp, with faerie dust sprinkled on top.)

greenberetTFS
11-17-2011, 09:21
Oh yee of little faith.........;)

Big Teddy :munchin

Badger52
11-17-2011, 09:26
Oh yee of little faith.........;)

Big Teddy :munchinLOL. As the Shaman said, "...we'll see."
:)

longrange1947
11-17-2011, 12:06
The last thing we need from congress is ANY more laws. I think we can get along fine without anymore of their meddling.

AGREED!!

As much as I like the idea, I am afraid this can be used as a precedent to force even more Federal laws onto states.

Also, the fact that more people are killed with cars than guns do not stop the great idiots from using every incident as an example for more gun control. This would then become the platform for "see, told you so" at every chance and the MSM will show every incident in the worse light possible.

As also mentioned, I can now see a reason for the federal gov't to step in and set up a "minimum standard" for concealed t carry. That alone gives me the shivers. Think Lautenburg and his tax the ammo out of existence.

I see way more bad than good and yes, I can see the "great one" vetoing it.

"Glass half empty" type of guy here, since in my years I have come to realize that once the Feds get their fingers on something they turn it to s**t. :munchin

Badger52
11-17-2011, 12:43
As also mentioned, I can now see a reason for the federal gov't to step in and set up a "minimum standard" for concealed carry. That alone gives me the shivers.Bad enough that many states' deadly force laws are phrased to enumerate conditions under which someone has the privilege of self-defense.

What the G giveth the G can taketh away, whether they use the Interstate Commerce Catch-All mechanism to do it or not. I understand what the intent is of a few with this law; just a bit more than jaded about intent of the collective and I mean that in the most perjorative sense.

"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, [1943]
:rolleyes:

I'd rather see them come to work some morning, rub their hands together with a gleam in their eye, and say,

"It's a wonderful day! Let's get to work right now this morning on that list of things we're going to REPEAL or DE-FUND, and get it done by close of business."

cat in the hat
11-17-2011, 14:34
I agree we do not need any more laws but this is also a second amendment issue at heart.

maybe instead of this bill, there should be a "federal" CCW permit. it could involve a thorough back ground check, and an even more thorough training requirement to include a realistic qualification with the weapon carried.
this would be similar to the commercial drivers license.

most people are going to be satisfied carrying in and around their own area but lots of people would benefit from something like this.

bluebb
11-17-2011, 15:41
So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do? :munchin

Blue

GratefulCitizen
11-17-2011, 15:59
Wouldn't mind seeing the bill passed, and then ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that the feds can't make state gun laws.

akv
11-17-2011, 17:23
So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do?

Not often, the Feds's are a tar baby, but more so on Bill of Rights issues. Frankly living in SF, unless your last name is Pelosi, a federal carry permit is a law abiding citizen's best chance for a CCW permit.

Streck-Fu
11-17-2011, 17:47
So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do? :munchin

Blue

If we're going to daydream like that, why not just repeal the 14th and17th amendments?

longrange1947
11-17-2011, 18:15
I can see a federal CCW becoming the only one allowed and the price 200.00 a year for the ticket and 500 a year for the mandatory sustainment training and 1000 for the base training.

Think I'm kidding? Take a look at some of the tax proposals for ammo.

That would insure only the Pelosi's would get them. :munchin

This is what we all bitch about, the Feds dictating to the states. Sorry, facts are facts.

I would rather see a court order striking down the laws preventing you the citizen from protecting yourselves with firearms at all times. That is the 2d amendment.

Paslode
11-17-2011, 18:57
So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do? :munchin

Blue


Nope.

Oldrotorhead
11-18-2011, 09:10
Wouldn't mind seeing the bill passed, and then ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that the feds can't make state gun laws.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual rights and that trumps States Rights. I know it isn't exactly working that way, but is should. I don't think this Bill will get through the Senate and I'm sure the President will not sign it if it gets through the Senate.

longrange1947
11-18-2011, 10:48
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The kink in the armor. :munchin

Oldrotorhead
11-18-2011, 12:25
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The kink in the armor. :munchin

That is true, and with respect to the 2od Amendment the states are not supposed to limit citizens right to self defense in reality they do limit the 2od.It is a shame there are so many cowards in Congress and they don't clarify the 14 th Amendment to stop illegal immigrants' little snot suckers from being citizens. I do agree with you, I just get there by a different route.;)

cat in the hat
11-18-2011, 13:12
So ya'll agree with the Federal Government telling the states what to do? :munchin

Blue

Yes i do believe in the Federal Govt telling the states what to do. that is what the first 8 amendments were for.

state governments cannot take away my right to free speech, assembly, due process etc.... the right to bear arms is also mentioned somewhere in there.

opponents of the second amendment like to focus on the meaning of 'Militia" but never want to address "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED"

i have no problem with background checks. they keep some guns out of the hands of criminals. waiting periods? I can see the logic in them as a cooling off period but still not convinced. as far as how many I want to own, what type, caliber, capacity, that is my business as a responsible owner.

full auto, suppressors explosive projectile, I'l let others argue those.

Streck-Fu
11-18-2011, 13:25
Yes i do believe in the Federal Govt telling the states what to do. that is what the first 8 amendments were for.

The Constitution as a whole defines the powers permitted to the federal government by the states and the people. The only reason the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution is due to the insistence of the Anti-Federalist whom did not trust the new federal government to not increase it power and erode liberty. The Federalists believed it unnecessary to define specific rights untouchable by the federal government thinking that the Constitution was clear enough in defining its powers and that the people would not let the new government become tyrannical.

The first 10 amendments define the most important rights that the federal government may not abridge or infringe upon. They do not 'grant' rights....

state governments cannot take away my right to free speech, assembly, due process etc

The states' powers are defined by their individual constitutions and the state governments that the citizens of those states elect. The US Constitution was to have no influence over the states....hence the reason the 14th and 17th amendments killed the power of states as the primary government over the citizens.

sinjefe
11-18-2011, 14:25
The Constitution as a whole defines the powers permitted to the federal government by the states and the people. The only reason the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution is due to the insistence of the Anti-Federalist whom did not trust the new federal government to not increase it power and erode liberty. The Federalists believed it unnecessary to define specific rights untouchable by the federal government thinking that the Constitution was clear enough in defining its powers and that the people would not let the new government become tyrannical.

The first 10 amendments define the most important rights that the federal government may not abridge or infringe upon. They do not 'grant' rights....



The states' powers are defined by their individual constitutions and the state governments that the citizens of those states elect. The US Constitution was to have no influence over the states....hence the reason the 14th and 17th amendments killed the power of states as the primary government over the citizens.


YEAH! What he said!:p

cat in the hat
11-18-2011, 14:52
"The first 10 amendments define the most important rights that the federal government may not abridge or infringe upon. They do not 'grant' rights...."


you are correct that the Constitution does not GRANT rights, it guarantees that they cannot be taken away by state or other lower governments.

Imagine if South Dakota decided that law enforcement officers no longer needed "probable cause" and started searching any car or house they wanted any time they wanted. they CANNOT because the 4th Amendment says they cannot. It is an inherent right.

the 9th and 10th amendment are the keys. For example 'Obamacare" is unconstitutional because it is not specifically "delegated" to the United States. (10th amendment)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The states' powers are defined by their individual constitutions and the state governments that the citizens of those states elect. The US Constitution was to have no influence over the states....hence the reason the 14th and 17th amendments killed the power of states as the primary government over the citizens."

sorry, false. see amendments 9 and 10 again. Other than the powers allowed to the Federal Government, states are free to govern themselves. For example, gambling in Nevada or non smoking laws in California.

I would agree that the Federal Govt has overstepped its authority many times in many ways (obamacare, speed limits, drinking ages....) by threatening to withhold federal money, BUT as I mentioned earlier, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that means that an individual State cannot take away that right.

Streck-Fu
11-18-2011, 15:22
you are correct that the Constitution does not GRANT rights, it guarantees that they cannot be taken away by state or other lower governments.

Respectfully, but you are incorrect. The US Constitution does not define or limit powers to the states. It defined the powers of the Federal government only.
This is why I state the 14th Am through the Due Process Clause (section 1) removed the states as the primary government and is why, now, the states are forced to adhere the Bill of Rights (at least as far as the BS concept of incorporation allows).
If the first 10 amendments always applied to and were enforceable upon the states, why was the 14th Amendment necessary?


Sorry, false. see amendments 9 and 10 again. Other than the powers allowed to the Federal Government, states are free to govern themselves.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 9th Am states that the BoR are not the only rights retained by the people.

The 10th clearly states the the people delegate powers to the federal government, not the other way around.

Sigaba
11-18-2011, 15:25
The US Constitution was to have no influence over the states.Among other things, you've overlooked Article VI, specifically:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The US Constitution does not define or limit powers to the states.Article II enumerates a number of activities that states cannot undertake.

AMP
11-18-2011, 15:30
The great state of Indiana, $125.00 = lifetime concealed carry permit. My son just applied for his.

Streck-Fu
11-18-2011, 15:49
Art. IV refers to laws passed within the scope of the Constitution.

A review of James Madison's presentation of the proposed Bill of Rights as well writings by Thomas Jefferson and others will support this.

I am posting from the phone but will add references after I get home.

Ultimately, if the federal government was primary, why even write the 9th and 10th amendments as they would have no standing?

Streck-Fu
11-18-2011, 15:51
The great state of Indiana, $125.00 = lifetime concealed carry permit. My son just applied for his.

The wife and I got ours....there is a movement to stop offering it as they lose a lot of money from renewals.

Buffalobob
11-18-2011, 16:22
The bill would have been better with the Broun provisions incorporated.

Sigaba
11-18-2011, 17:14
Ultimately, if the federal government was primary, why even write the [ninth] and [tenth] amendments as they would have no standing?Post number 30 answers this question.

Also, I do not think that quoting Jefferson and Madison will strengthen your point. The reasons why options are offered are not always the same reasons why stakeholders accept those options.

For example, if certain members of this BB who like hotwings recommended a PS.COM meet-up at a Hooters, it would not necessarily follow that everyone who went likes hot wings.

(Of course, this is a counterfacual example. Everyone who goes to Hooters only does so for the wings.)

sinjefe
11-18-2011, 17:54
sorry, false. see amendments 9 and 10 again. Other than the powers allowed to the Federal Government, states are free to govern themselves. For example, gambling in Nevada or non smoking laws in California.

Actually, this is not correct. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make applicable the Bill of Rights to the states.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

sinjefe
11-18-2011, 17:55
(Of course, this is a counterfacual example. Everyone who goes to Hooters only does so for the wings.)

Is there any other reason to go?;)

Streck-Fu
11-18-2011, 18:41
Also, I do not think that quoting Jefferson and Madison will strengthen your point. The reasons why options are offered are not always the same reasons why stakeholders accept those options.

Spoken like a lawyer or someone trying to be a lawyer....

Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle.
..............Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
...................Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.
.........James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
................James Madison, Federalist No. 39, January 1788

For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects.
................James Madison, Federalist No. 47, February 1, 1788

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.
......................James Madison, Essay on Property, March 29, 1792

If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
.................James Madison, Federalist No. 57, February 19, 1788
^^^^ How successful has this been?


A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
..............Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

Streck-Fu
11-18-2011, 19:05
And some things to consider from the Anti-Federalists that distrusted a strong central government and insisted on the Bill of Rights....

"I am confident it must be, and that it is, the sincere wish of every true friend to the United States, that there should be a confederated national government, but that it should be one which would have a control over national and external matters only, and not interfere with the internal regulations and police of the different states in the union."
......An Observer, Anti-Federalist #5, 1787

"if a Continental collector, in the execution of his office, should invade your freedom (according to this new government, which has expressly declared itself paramount to all state laws and constitutions) the state of which you are a citizen will have no authority to afford you relief."
.....A Federal Republican (from Virginia, Anti-Federalist #8
^^^before creation of the Bill of Rights.

"It is beyond a doubt that the new federal constitution, if adopted, will in a great measure destroy, if it does not totally annihilate, the separate governments of the several states."
......An Old Whig, 1787

Streck-Fu
11-18-2011, 19:15
Back onto the original topic.....

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson

Sigaba
11-18-2011, 19:42
Spoken like a lawyer or someone trying to be a lawyer.With all due respect, I don't think this is a good approach for you to take in a discussion about American history. Call it a hunch.

cat in the hat
11-18-2011, 21:19
not very. or at all.

you miss the point. the Constitution IS the law of the land. that is why many laws have been overthrown as "unconstitutional" it what every service member has sworn to uphold.

yes people have other rights not mentioned in our Constitution. (I for one believe in the right of a woman to sell her body but few places in the US are legal for such commerce.) and there are still dry counties where alcohol cannot be sold. a state constitution only grants powers to that state. for example, Medical marijuana is legal in Colorado so state law enforcement will not pursue those who use it according to state law; however, that medical marijuana card is useless in any other state. if the federal govt decided to legalize medical marijuana, states would not have to follow suit because the right to smoke pot is not guaranteed in the Constitution.

BUT free speech and many other rights including the right to bear arms are guaranteed and no city, county or state can take that away. that was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

our Constitution has been amended many times because the founding fathers knew that it would need to be. so any amendment also becomes part of that law.

GratefulCitizen
11-18-2011, 22:01
The orginial 13 colonies and when they did away with state religions:

Virginia: 1830
New York: 1846
Massachusetts: 1833
Maryland: 1867
Delaware: 1792
Connecticut: 1818
New Hampshire: 1877 (effectively 1868 because of the 14th amendment)
Rhode Island: 1842
Georgia: 1798
North Carolina: 1875 (effectively 1868 because of the 14th amendment)
South Carolina: 1868
Pennsylvania: 1790
New Jersey: 1844

Ratification of the bill of rights: 1791

FWIW the first part of the 14th amendment does have some circular reasoning:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

How exactly is this determined?

What does article 1, section 8 say?
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)

What do the 9th and 10th amendments say?

Yeah, we all know the answer: it means whatever 9 people (5 people) say it means.

I beg to differ.
The Constitution means whatever the people holding the guns say it means.

That's why we have the 2nd amendment.

hurly
11-19-2011, 09:06
Supreme Court Upholds Warrantless Searches to Protect Destruction of Evidence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkerschberg/2011/05/17/supreme-court-upholds-warrantless-searches-to-protect-destruction-of-evidence-scolded-by-justice-ginsburg/

I wish our rights were not subject to review and/or revision, but apparently that is wishful thinking.

Iraqgunz
11-19-2011, 14:58
This is the same argument that I have been making as well. If you have a court order (say child support) from one state and you live in another it is completely enforceable. The same goes with high school diplomas, divorce decrees, birth certificates, etc...

The argument that different states have different requirements really doesn't hold water to me.

In almost every single state, the requirement to obtain a firearm is the same, to include disqualifiers. The same goes for CCW/CWP. The exception being for states like California or New York that have a discretionary system which usually means very rich or connected people.

Yes, it's true that same states have a requirement to attend training and fire the weapon but it's a joke. I have permits from 3 different states and the shooting part was so easy that even a mediocre person would pass the test.

As much as I dislike the federal government sticking their noses in shit, I think that this bill is a positive. It will not creat a database, or a federal license or anything else. it simply tells the states that they must give full faith a credit to a license or permit issued by another state.

IIRC all of the stupid amendments that were offered to the bill were killed.

AMEN Brother.


So my question is if all states, by the law, have to recognize marrage lic, drivers lic contracts etc etc why is a CCW permit any diffrent? There is no federal probition against CCW just some laws restricting where you can posses a firearm such as federal bldg etc etc. According t the feds it is NOT illgeal tp walk down the street packing a firearm. If the states can not refuse to honor your drivers lic then how can the legally refuse to honor your CCW?

BOfH
11-21-2011, 13:39
I hope Mayor Bloomberg is shitting razor wire.

I doubt it. NYC will probably ignore it, just like they do FOPA. On the flip side (and as mentioned by some others on this thread), I wonder what would happen to states stand on federal law vs. states right's when certain federal funding "mysteriously" dries up... :munchin

Ret10Echo
01-18-2012, 06:03
I doubt it. NYC will probably ignore it, just like they do FOPA. On the flip side (and as mentioned by some others on this thread), I wonder what would happen to states stand on federal law vs. states right's when certain federal funding "mysteriously" dries up... :munchin


Speaking of NYC...picked up this little tidbit:

The New York Police Department is working with the Department of Defense to further crack down on illegal guns in the city by researching technology that could detect concealed weapons on people as they walk down the street.

Infrared rays would scan a “form of radiation emitted from the body” on a person carrying a gun on the city’s streets, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Tuesday at a State of the NYPD event, the New York Post reports.

Full article here (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/17/nypd-researching-gun-scanning-technology-for-city-streets/?test=latestnews)

"the scanner would only be used in reasonably suspicious circumstances"

Reasonable???

:munchin

JJ_BPK
01-18-2012, 06:21
"the scanner would only be used in reasonably suspicious circumstances"

Reasonable???

:munchin

Every street corner South of Zuccotti Park..

The Wall Street Wussies (WSW) want protection from the (OWS) crowd.. :rolleyes:

Sarski
01-18-2012, 08:23
The last thing we need from congress is ANY more laws. I think we can get along fine without anymore of their meddling.

I agree. I still can't find any mention of any kind of permit requirements, concealed or open carry, in the 2nd Amendment.

greenberetTFS
01-18-2012, 08:37
From day one the constution mandates all states recognize marrage certificates etc etc from other states. There is no exception for firearms nor are the states given any wiggle room it says ALL not the ones that are politaccly convient.

Why the NRA has not taken this to court i do not know. I an sure some lane ass lawyer can spin a good yarn about how it does not apply and erode our rights a little more.



I wonder why the NRA isn't doing sh*t about this also.........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

Paslode
01-18-2012, 08:44
[/COLOR][/B]

I wonder why the NRA isn't doing sh*t about this also.........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin


Politics & $$$$$

BOfH
01-18-2012, 11:10
Politics & $$$$$

The Full Faith and Credit clause is pick and choose, until 1967 and SCOTUS's interpretation of the EPC, interracial marriage was not recognized by many states. Gay marriage is going to face this issue as well. Things like driver's licenses are a given, they directly affect commerce, 2nd amendment rights, not so much, especially when you can manipulate crime statistics and proclaim "the safest city in the nation"...