I suffer from conflicting wants. I want to be able to carry in any state. I also want the federal government’s power and reach to be drastically shrunk, not expanded. If anybody come up with a legit way to both of those, I’m all for it. Until then I’ll limit my travel to those states that honor my permits (or don’t require one, better yet!) and call that good.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I suffer from conflicting wants. I want to be able to carry in any state. I also want the federal government’s power and reach to be drastically shrunk, not expanded. If anybody come up with a legit way to both of those, I’m all for it. Until then I’ll limit my travel to those states that honor my permits (or don’t require one, better yet!) and call that good.

How about a SCOTUS ruling that in fact a person has an unrestricted right, nationwide, to RKBA. Including open or concealed carry, without requiring prior approval from any level of government. That right exists as a natural right, which can only be removed or limited upon that individual receiving Due Process per the 5A.

This does not increase the Federal government power, it limits state and local governments from violating the Bill of Rights.

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..." clause

Those four words do not resolve the constitutional issue, and that clause involves judgments being honored in other states.

It's already been explained more than once in this thread.

Here's the rest of the words...

quote:

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.

Apparently it involves more than judgements, like records and stuff! Apparently Congress can even have a say in such matters!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Here's the rest of the words...

quote:

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.

Apparently it involves more than judgements, like records and stuff! Apparently Congress can even have a say in such matters!

Congress has little to non-existent say in local policing policies.

If CA didn't allow CCW but your state did with no restrictions on carrying and magazine capacity, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel CA to allow you to carry. CA would recognize you have a permit but it's not required to have policing or CCW laws to accommodate you.

People love to say "LEOSA" as a magic wand but even the DOJ said it was subserviant to state laws, and that's because of constitutional restraints.

Remember the Bill of Rights was designed to limit federal action and overreach. Its not an omnipotent document that grants the Feds rights to determine state's rights. To the contrary, all rights not expressly given to the Feds under the constitution are in the near exclusive domain of the states. Policing isn't found anywhere in the constitution. Its a local and state issue only.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
If CA didn't allow CCW but your state did with no restrictions on carrying and magazine capacity, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel CA to allow you to carry. CA would recognize you have a permit but it's not required to have policing or CCW laws to accommodate you.

People love to say "LEOSA" as a magic wand but even the DOJ said it was subserviant to state laws, and that's because of constitutional restraints.

As I posted earlier, while we'd all like free and unrestricted carry anywhere anyhow, that's not realistic. However, most, if not all, folks would be happy with complying with the laws of whichever state you are in. Unless I'm mistaken, this is what LEOSA does: Allows one to carry, provided you abide by said state laws.

How is it unconstitutional to expand LEOSA to everyone?

Full faith and credit does not mean one state has to cede the power to enforce its laws within its territory. Texas does not have to let Oregonians grow psylicibin mushrooms when they are in Texas, even were Oregon to issue a mushroom growing license.

^^ Spurious arguments...Once again, NOBODY is proposing ANYTHING even remotely like that! Why are you even bringing it up? Is this a tactic taught in Law School, diverting from specifics of the case with unrelated claims to distract/confuse/befuddle the jury, just for the sake of making an argument?