Be still my heart - any corroborating sources here:

https://x.com/mostlypeacefull/status/1855424435727007961

AI makes me question my own reflection some days - anyone else can support this item?

The President doesn't have the authority to do that by decree/executive order.

It would have to be legislation proposed in one of the houses of Congress, passed in both, and then eventually signed into law by the President.

So he can say that he supports it, and that he will sign it if it's presented to him, but it's still contingent on Congress initiating the process and then passing it, before it ever gets to the President.

Like they did in the 2000s by passing the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which allows LEOs to carry concealed in any state.

Shall not be infringed.

It will not happen. There's no federal authority for it in the constitution.

Policing is a state and local issues, just like speed limits and punishment for state crimes. The constitution doesn't allow for the feds to pass state policing laws. This is why when the feds came to L.A., in 2001 for a corruption investigation, they can't invoke their view of how things should be but rather, they obtained a consent decree from L.A.

As much as I think it's a great idea, IMO, it doesn't survive constitutional muster.

I don't believe there are the votes for it. Obviously, the anti-gun states aren't going to. And while their measures do violate the "shall not be infringed" part, there are still states' rights issues. Even freedom to choose stupid things is still freedom. Those are going to have to be sorted out by "compstitutional" scholars.

If they can mandate 50-state recognition of same-sex marriage, driving licenses, and auto registrations, they sure as hell can justify universal recognition of carry permits, perhaps under the equal protection clause.

Not that there should be any requirement to obtain a permission slip in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
If they can mandate 50-state recognition of same-sex marriage, driving licenses, and auto registrations, they sure as hell can justify universal recognition of carry permits, perhaps under the equal protection clause.

Not that there should be any requirement to obtain a permission slip in the first place.

Equal protection does not apply to concealed carry preferences and the examples you cited are covered under different laws.

I would like to see the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department start to protect the civil rights of gun owners.

The Justice Department should be bringing lawsuits against the states that have magazine bans and draconian limitations on concealed carry.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "not be infringed by the federal govt".
It doesn't say "not be infringed except by individual states".

It says "shall not be infringed".
The end.

It's not a question of whether the fed gov has the authority for this.
It's a question of why the hell have they not crushed those laws in every single state with anti-gun laws on the books.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
If they can mandate 50-state recognition of same-sex marriage, driving licenses, and auto registrations, they sure as hell can justify universal recognition of carry permits, perhaps under the equal protection clause.

Not that there should be any requirement to obtain a permission slip in the first place.

Same-sex marriage was not recognized via legislation. SCOTUS struck down prohibitions against it.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It will not happen. There's no federal authority for it in the constitution.

Policing is a state and local issues, just like speed limits and punishment for state crimes. The constitution doesn't allow for the feds to pass state policing laws. This is why when the feds came to L.A., in 2001 for a corruption investigation, they can't invoke their view of how things should be but rather, they obtained a consent decree from L.A.

As much as I think it's a great idea, IMO, it doesn't survive constitutional muster.

Full faith and credit?

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
If they can mandate 50-state recognition of same-sex marriage, driving licenses, and auto registrations, they sure as hell can justify universal recognition of carry permits, perhaps under the equal protection clause.

Not that there should be any requirement to obtain a permission slip in the first place.

Equal protection does not apply to concealed carry preferences and the examples you cited are covered under different laws.

Could you please elaborate on what law supersedes the US Constitution?

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It will not happen. There's no federal authority for it in the constitution.

Policing is a state and local issues, just like speed limits and punishment for state crimes. The constitution doesn't allow for the feds to pass state policing laws. This is why when the feds came to L.A., in 2001 for a corruption investigation, they can't invoke their view of how things should be but rather, they obtained a consent decree from L.A.

As much as I think it's a great idea, IMO, it doesn't survive constitutional muster.

Well, there is that thing called the Supremacy Clause...

Article VI, Clause 2:

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 Second Amendment Trumps EVERYTHING...'Any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of Any State'! Shall NOT Be Infringed!

^Yup

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
It will not happen. There's no federal authority for it in the constitution.

Policing is a state and local issues, just like speed limits and punishment for state crimes. The constitution doesn't allow for the feds to pass state policing laws. This is why when the feds came to L.A., in 2001 for a corruption investigation, they can't invoke their view of how things should be but rather, they obtained a consent decree from L.A.

As much as I think it's a great idea, IMO, it doesn't survive constitutional muster.

I'm always super confused by this. Isn't the right recognized by the second amendment federal?

edit: nevermind I should have read the rest of the thread. Several others pointed this out

I'd rather not see the federal government getting into the business of drafting gun legislation. That inevitably ends badly, and has brought us things like the AWB and the NFA.

We already have federal gun law. It's the second amendment to the US Constitution. Instead of adding more stuff to the books, sick the DOJ on those states that are violating the law we already have, get them in front of the Supreme Court, and get their infringements smacked down.

The job for the legislature is to get rid of the NFA.

All laws not specifically granted to the federal government under the constitution are reserved to the states.

CCW laws on a national level would be usurping state and local policing laws. As dumb as it might be, CA is allowed to determine their own CCW criteria and qualifications. ND can determines their own laws but there's no federal authority that allows the Feds to say ND law voids CA policing laws.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Flashlightboy,

Then there's this thing called the Full Faith and Credit Clause...

Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. 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 language of our founding documents, including the U.S. Constitution (and especially the Bill of Rights!), is elegant but unambiguous. It is NOT hard to understand and one certainly does not need a JD to interpret it! What is it that makes this so difficult?

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Then there's this thing called the Full Faith and Credit Clause...

Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. 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 language of our founding documents, including the U.S. Constitution (and especially the Bill of Rights!), is elegant but unambiguous. It is NOT hard to understand and one certainly does not need a JD to interpret it! What is it that makes this so difficult?

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd A right doesn't include a right to carry concealed at one's whim. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, along with the Commerce Clause, require reaches that the Supreme Court has rejected.

As an example, say CA decides to prohibit all concealed carry. A National Reciprocity law would not allow someone from, say, Texas, to come to CA and carry concealed. If you have a state that allows CCW in a bar, that doesn't override CA's prohibition of CCW bar carry.

The Feds would have a very hard time passing a law that overrides the state law that was enacted by democratically elected members the state and local people elected.

I like the idea but there are significant constitutional obstacles, none that are trivial.

I’d be happy if we just made it legal and easy to get suppressors in CA.