SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Trump & 50-state reciprocity?
Page 1 2 3 4 5 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Trump & 50-state reciprocity? Login/Join 
Member
Picture of Rick Lee
posted Hide Post
There are tons of laws that states cannot enact and for which the feds would be all over them if they did. I don't know why guns get a pass.

It's not "policing" if it's violating a right guaranteed in the Const. And since it's specifically mentioned in the Const. (unlike abortion), the 10th Amendment shouldn't apply here.
 
Posts: 3821 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
I cannot find the relevant ruling(s), but although the Constitution was originally held/intended to apply only to the US Congress’ actions/laws, the First Amendment, among others, was later ruled by the Supreme Court to apply to all government bodies, not just Federal. As a specific example, Miranda type warnings are required to be given by all law enforcement agencies as a protection of the Fifth Amendment, not just LE agencies like the FBI or the armed forces’.

I’m certainly not going to say it would happen, but it’s not inconceivable that the Court could rule that the Second Amendment’s protections applied everywhere and that included the right to “bear arms” with all that signifies. I haven’t followed all the developments arising from the Bruen decision, but everything I’ve seen indicates it applies nationwide.

Many people don’t like when states’ rights are overridden—until they do.

As I say, I cannot find the applicable ruling(s) regarding the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments for some reason, so if any attorneys want to chime in to clarify or correct me, please do.




6.4/93.6

“I regret that I am to now die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it.”
— Thomas Jefferson
 
Posts: 47962 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
quote:
Many people don’t like when states’ rights are overridden—until they do.

Yup, and on the flip side, bad rulings, even by the Supreme Court, can be overturned. As an example, lest we forget so soon, the Supreme Court decision re: Roe v. Wade was considered 'settled law', until it wasn't! Wink


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Make America Great Again!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 9660 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Lee:
There are tons of laws that states cannot enact and for which the feds would be all over them if they did. I don't know why guns get a pass.

It's not "policing" if it's violating a right guaranteed in the Const. And since it's specifically mentioned in the Const. (unlike abortion), the 10th Amendment shouldn't apply here.


The 2nd A isn't a blanket endorsement of whatever firearms you want can be yours to carry in any manner you desire. I read, "Shall not be infringed" all the time as though it's ironclad. It isn't. People who are mentally ill, drug users, convicted felons and others are routinely denied firearms and no one here has ever made a serious argument for why mentally ill people should have access to firearms under the 2nd A.

The Supremes are already said that your right to bear arms does not mean that anyone can conceal anytime and anywhere.
 
Posts: 4332 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
^^ NOBODY but you is making such arguments. You seem to be making them to project claims not in evidence here, presumably in order to defeat them. This thread is about Reciprocity between all 50 states re: CCW Permits...That's it! Drug dealers, convicted felons, the mentally ill, etc, are simply NOT part of the discussion!


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Make America Great Again!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 9660 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
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.


This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.

All of our constitutional rights can be regulated to some degree, under some circumstances. Even our right to free speech is not completely unregulated. And that regulation is pursuant to the general police power of the States, which is the power to regulate for health, safety and welfare. And that is a STATE power, not a federal power. There is no general federal police power. (But the feds pervert the power to regulate commerce to find a de facto police power.) We shouldn't allow a usurpation of the States' police power just because we like the result. Because we won't like the next result. And the one after that.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53414 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Mr. Peteroniman
posted Hide Post
quote:
This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.


nah, I think we need to use every tool in the box to get what we want, you know, like the democrats do.
that "we're better than that/them" is what caused a lot of these problems we're facing now


-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-


All his life he tried to be a good person. Many times, however, he failed.
For after all, he was only human. He wasn't a dog.”
― Charles M. Schulz
 
Posts: 2065 | Location: Florida Panhandle | Registered: June 25, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^ NOBODY but you is making such arguments. You seem to be making them to project claims not in evidence here, presumably in order to defeat them. This thread is about Reciprocity between all 50 states re: CCW Permits...That's it! Drug dealers, convicted felons, the mentally ill, etc, are simply NOT part of the discussion!


Everyone here is pro gun, myself included, but I'm not delusioned by the wet dream of national reciprocity just because Trump is the president elect, Republicans will control the Senate and probably the House too.

It makes no difference if I'm the only one here, on a gun forum, saying there's no federal authority to tell states how they will manage concealed carry. It's a dream. If it was a bona fide, no doubt about it kind of thing, this could have passed during Trump 2016-2018. The Supremes have already ruled that the 2nd A doesn't mean you get to conceal carry when and where you want, without restrictions.

There's no mechanism to make any state accept the CCW laws or permits of every other state. It just isn't an area reserved to the Feds under the constitution.

Since there are approximately 34 states that already have reciprocity agreements with each other, the better focus would be on getting the 16 remaining states to change the reciprocity agreements.
 
Posts: 4332 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
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.


This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.

All of our constitutional rights can be regulated to some degree, under some circumstances. Even our right to free speech is not completely unregulated. And that regulation is pursuant to the general police power of the States, which is the power to regulate for health, safety and welfare. And that is a STATE power, not a federal power. There is no general federal police power. (But the feds pervert the power to regulate commerce to find a de facto police power.) We shouldn't allow a usurpation of the States' police power just because we like the result. Because we won't like the next result. And the one after that.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Very true.
 
Posts: 4332 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'm making the argument that 2A should be absolute. It will work itself out on who should or shouldn't carry a weapon right quick.

That being said, I also believe mental health care needs a radical new approach with institutions and psychedelic therapy.


Beagle lives matter.
______
(\ / @\_____
/ ( ) /O
/ ( )______/
///_____/
 
Posts: 897 | Location: Panhandle of Florida | Registered: July 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Optimistic Cynic
Picture of architect
posted Hide Post
I think I'd be fairly happy if there were a general recognition in Govt. that Federal < State < Human when it comes to rights (or more precisely, the privilege to restrict/abuse them). The Bill of Rights seems to be based on this notion, and many judicial rulings over the centuries appear to validate it. Not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, just trying to make sense of things.
 
Posts: 6945 | Location: NoVA | Registered: July 22, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Peteroniman:
quote:
This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.


nah, I think we need to use every tool in the box to get what we want, you know, like the democrats do.
that "we're better than that/them" is what caused a lot of these problems we're facing now


No, it makes the Constitution meaningless to do that. It would make all the protections of the Constitution essentially void. If we don't insist on adherence to the rules, anytime the other side can get enough of Congress to do something and have a Supreme Court that will go along, they can do it.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53414 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Now Serving 7.62
Picture of 10X-Shooter
posted Hide Post
I would LOVE it if Mr Trump revoked all previous Presidential orders that are gun related such as the ones done by Bush Sr and Reagan banning certain guns from being imported.
 
Posts: 6066 | Location: TN | Registered: February 12, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Only recipropicity required is constitutional carry. All infringements to keep and bear are by definition, Unconstitutional. As the 2nd has been incorporated there is no "States right". It is a right reserved to the people. Justice dept should sue all non constitutional carry states. With the unlimited budget, and fast track through the courts. Should be resolved very quickly.
 
Posts: 1107 | Location: New Jersey | Registered: August 16, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
No More
Mr. Nice Guy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by xd45man:
I'm making the argument that 2A should be absolute. It will work itself out on who should or shouldn't carry a weapon right quick.

That being said, I also believe mental health care needs a radical new approach with institutions and psychedelic therapy.


The Bill of Rights is so simple that people think it must be complicated! Yes, the 2nd is absolute, because it is written that way in clear language.

2A) RKBA shall not be infringed.

5A) No person shall be deprived life, LIBERTY, or property without first receiving Due Process.

Ergo, someone adjudicated mentally ill or guilty of a crime can be deprived of their RKBA as prescribed in law. The rest of us should be able to Carry On! Any "arm" is something we have a pre-existing right to possess. No state permission required.
 
Posts: 9859 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I’ve always been fascinated why nobody has tested the full faith and credit clause of CCW. I think you can logically split the baby and say MY STATE (FL in this example) gives me a CCW your state of MA or HI or wherever you may as well grow a third hand first. It’s still respectful of states rights but also that hostile state must respect other states documents. Does that give me super rights when visiting a hostile state ? Maybe. Has a CCW full faith and credit test ever been tested at the federal district or Supreme Court level ?

If leftists can have a states right meltdown and some states a woman can have an abortion the day before birth and some states will say 6 weeks or some other cutoff is the limit, I don’t see how it’s much different for CCW.
 
Posts: 5112 | Location: Florida Panhandle  | Registered: November 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Mr. Peteroniman
posted Hide Post
quote:
No, it makes the Constitution meaningless to do that. It would make all the protections of the Constitution essentially void. If we don't insist on adherence to the rules, anytime the other side can get enough of Congress to do something and have a Supreme Court that will go along, they can do it.


fair point


-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-


All his life he tried to be a good person. Many times, however, he failed.
For after all, he was only human. He wasn't a dog.”
― Charles M. Schulz
 
Posts: 2065 | Location: Florida Panhandle | Registered: June 25, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ElToro:
I’ve always been fascinated why nobody has tested the full faith and credit clause of CCW. I think you can logically split the baby and say MY STATE (FL in this example) gives me a CCW your state of MA or HI or wherever you may as well grow a third hand first. It’s still respectful of states rights but also that hostile state must respect other states documents. Does that give me super rights when visiting a hostile state ? Maybe. Has a CCW full faith and credit test ever been tested at the federal district or Supreme Court level ?

If leftists can have a states right meltdown and some states a woman can have an abortion the day before birth and some states will say 6 weeks or some other cutoff is the limit, I don’t see how it’s much different for CCW.


As the Supremes said last summer, abortion is not a protected constitutional right but instead a state issue. They very likely would follow the same rationale if presented with a nationwide CCW issue.

There are a number of sites that have discussed, and dissected this argument and the bottom line, up front, is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause was never intended by the framers for the use you want. It was a limited recognition clause so you didn't have the other states having original jurisdiction over issues and cases that have already been decided in other states.

As an example, if you sue me in CA and lose, you would be precluded from then running to NV and filing the same suit to get another bite of the apple. If you lost again, the FF&C Clause would bar you from trying it in the other 48 states.

With firearms, the biggest argument in favor of a national reciprocity bill is that it would force CA to accept your FL license. What if CA doesn't allow CCW? There's no federal interest under the constitution that says CA must now suddenly have an involuntary CCW permit program.

Same with attorney licensing. If you're licensed in CA, it doesn't mean other states have to recognize your CA license and allow to you to practice there, without passing their bar admission requirements. Same with accountants, cosmetologists or any other occupation that requires a CA license.

The framers didn't intend the FF&C Clause to be expanded as you're suggesting and there's no federal constitutional authority to make, what are state licenses in all 50 states, federal license and permits.

I'm not popular around here when I say I like the national CCW idea but follow it up with an explanation of why it's not going to pass and ultimately become law.

As jhe said earlier, the constitutional paths and guidelines have to always be followed, even if it's for a sacred desire we all have.

34 states have reciprocity agreements with themselves. The other 16 are the issue and they need to be where the attention is at to get to true national reciprocity.
 
Posts: 4332 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Ice Cream Man
posted Hide Post
I honestly do not think that there is a legitimate argument for saying the First, Fourth, and Fifth are universal, but not the Second.

In nuance, maybe. States/localities have long had various zoning restrictions/permitting requirements to protect society from rock concerts in the middle of residential neighborhoods, etc, but to deny the right to bear arms at all, does not seem possible.
 
Posts: 6040 | Location: Republic of Ice Cream, Low Country, SC. | Registered: May 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 10X-Shooter:
I would LOVE it if Mr Trump revoked all previous Presidential orders that are gun related such as the ones done by Bush Sr and Reagan banning certain guns from being imported.


Reagan sold us out on the machine-gun ban. He was not the best 2A ally. Remember, he put some additional gun control in place in Cali when he was governor, because of a panic over the Black Panthers. Trump did us dirty on bump stocks. I'll take him in a New York minute over Harris, but . . .




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53414 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Trump & 50-state reciprocity?

© SIGforum 2024