Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: wmenorr67 on October 06, 2014, 03:11:57 PM
-
So with the Supreme Courts decision to not get into same sex marriage and force states to allow it and at the same time be recognized not only across state lines but at the federal level, I wish I had the deep pockets to go after NYC and/or NJ not accepting concealed carry from other states. My take on it is that if the 14th "good" faith clause is to be enforced on one thing then it should be on everything else.
-
On a related note: www.nraila.org federal-legislation 2014/8 please-urge-your-us-representative-to-cosponsor-and-support-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2014/8/please-urge-your-us-representative-to-cosponsor-and-support-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act.aspx?s=&st=&ps=) The NRA is pushing a reciprocity bill at the federal level. We should all get behind this measure.
Note: This does not do anything but reciprocity, no national license. I think that is the way to go, if we had a national carry license it would stop progress, falsely legitimise requiring permits, and make all the states vulnerable to creeping incremental attacks that would be hard to repeal. Essentially it would open a new front the the gun rights battle.
We can use the gay marriage legal fights to help legitimise our cause, also the LEO reciprocity law will probably (finally) helps our cause as well.
-
I would be against anything at the Federal level other than the Supreme Court saying that the 2nd Amendment says what it does and that first and foremost that permits and/or licenses are not needed to carry where ever you damn well please but would settle for if your state trusts you all the others must.
-
DustinD added:
Note: This does not do anything but reciprocity, no national license. I think that is the way to go, if we had a national carry license it would stop progress, falsely legitimise requiring permits, and make all the states vulnerable to creeping incremental attacks that would be hard to repeal. Essentially it would open a new front the the gun rights battle.
Something like that I could get behind, but I know darned well what happens when something like this comes up on the floor. Sneaky Rules changes, slippery amendments, later twisted interpetations of "reciprocal" and "honor" and "full faith and credit," a single word here, a simple reference to other laws already on the books elsewhere, and the entire intent of the legislation can be changed right under our noses.
We got in one good zinger like that on the National Parks concealed carry thing in the form of an amendment to something the Administration really, really wanted and the Administration couldn't wiggle out of that one, but don't forget, that technique works both ways.
Let's face it, there is an inherent conflict between the "full faith and credit" and the "left to the States, or the people" clauses.
Couple this with the distortions of the commerce clause's intent which have led to outrageous encroachments on not only States' rights, but individual rights, and you can see why I, personally, feel that legislation such as this would require almost omniscient monitoring of the lawmaking process for this kind of thing.
When the NRA-recommended legislation is debated on the floor, we --all of us, you and me and the other guy at the range --will have to watch that legislative process every cotton-pickin' second like a cat watching a very clever mouse.
I hope that the NRA-ILA can be that omniscient. Even if the session goes to 2AM.
There. I said it, and I ain't takin' it back.
Terry
-
The way I take the gay rights activist, all claim rights under the Constitution to allow them to get married. I just want someone to point out to me where in the Constitution it says anyone straight or gay has the right to marry?
-
The way I take the gay rights activist, all claim rights under the Constitution to allow them to get married. I just want someone to point out to me where in the Constitution it says anyone straight or gay has the right to marry?
If I'm not mistaken, the argument being presented is that everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law, and that homosexuals are somehow being treated differently from the rest of us.
-
Everyone should be free to give up their liberty and contract with the state the terms of their servitude equally.
-
The way I take the gay rights activist, all claim rights under the Constitution to allow them to get married. I just want someone to point out to me where in the Constitution it says anyone straight or gay has the right to marry?
That would be section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, first cited by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
-
The gay marriage thing is (or at least used to be) based on 1A right of association and essentially Common Law issues of taxes and inheritance. A small amount of 14A drifted into the latter.
But getting back to universal concealed carry for a moment - it seems to me that everybody and their second cousin's nephew's brother hauls out and holds up drivers licenses as the model for what they want regarding carry issues. Folks seem to think there was some sort of law passed or court case decided that made it so one state recognizes the DL of all the other states. That could not be farther from the truth. The Driver License Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement . In plain and simple terms the states agreed to do that in order to be able to collect fines from out-of-state drivers without having to go through the expense and bother of taking them before a magistrate to post bail (or get locked up if you could not make bail).
What will make the states agree to recognize each others' carry permits as opposed to having a federal law shoved down their throats (Thanks Terry for pointing out why that is not a good idea)? I know that technically it is the middle of the morning (9:20 AM) but I'm coming off 3 1/2 hours sleep (being retired is darned hard!) so my brain is functioning even less than usual - I got nothing.
stay safe.
-
The way I take the gay rights activist, all claim rights under the Constitution to allow them to get married. I just want someone to point out to me where in the Constitution it says anyone straight or gay has the right to marry?
From the 14th amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Loving Vs Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Invalidated laws banning racial intermarriage.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the argument being presented is that everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law, and that homosexuals are somehow being treated differently from the rest of us.
Actually, they can marry someone of the opposite sex just as easily as I can. Of course, they don't agree with that limitation. =D
I would honestly see the Feds cease all regulation of marriage and leave it to the individuals and/or states. Abortion should really be that way also.
Gun control should be that way with the caveat that the 2nd amendment means it should be left to the people only, not the states.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the argument being presented is that everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law, and that homosexuals are somehow being treated differently from the rest of us.
That is the argument, but to make that argument work it is necessary to first redefine "marriage" as something other than a union between one male and one female. Taking the traditional definition of marriage as a starting point, every gay male has the same right as anyone else to marry a female, and every lesbian female has the same right as anyone else to marry a male. They just don't want to. There's no more discrimination there than someone claiming he/she's being discriminated against because he/she doesn't want to marry a redhead, and can't get a date with a blonde or a brunette..
-
From the 14th amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Loving Vs Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Invalidated laws banning racial intermarriage.
Except that Heller and McDonald "affirmed" that "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed. And that camel has settled down on the rugs inside the tent with no intention of leaving.
stay safe.
-
Except that Heller and McDonald "affirmed" that "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed. And that camel has settled down on the rugs inside the tent with no intention of leaving.
stay safe.
Please define.
You can't because what one person says is reasonable others won't.
-
Except that Heller and McDonald "affirmed" that "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed. And that camel has settled down on the rugs inside the tent with no intention of leaving.
stay safe.
"reasonable restrictions" has been around for a long time. It didn't start with those cases. The difference now is those cases pretty much said "reasonable restrictions" can't ban guns. That is new.
-
Yeah, because the constitution says "shall not be unreasonably infringed." ;/
-
Yeah, because the constitution says "shall not be unreasonably infringed." ;/
And it doesn't say, "shall not be infringed except as provided in Title Blah, Section bleebloop, Paragraph horchit."
Terry, 230RN
-
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Tell that to the police who pull you over on a contrived traffic violation and steal your cash because they don't think you should be carrying that much cash around with you....must be a drug dealer or white slaver. Give us the money, and oh, feel free to go on your way...talk to you later, maybe.
-
^ The thing is, it is "due process of law" nowadays.