Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License - Page 6 - SIG Talk
SIG Talk Gun Forum

Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License

This is a discussion on Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License within the News forums, part of the SIG Talk category; No fed laws on 50 state reciprocity or carry. If you give federal 50 state reciprocity, then 2A unfriendly state AG's will fight it in ...


Go Back   SIG Talk > SIG Talk > News

News News Articles that SIG Talk Members wish to share and from the firearms industry.

Like Tree157Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-22-2017, 03:43 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
Scorpionbowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 326
Likes Received 216
No fed laws on 50 state reciprocity or carry. If you give federal 50 state reciprocity, then 2A unfriendly state AG's will fight it in court, those Governor's or even Mayor's of cities will say no (see immigration), and the individual citizen whistling through the graveyard will suffer because they'll arrest you.
You'll beat the rap but at the cost of your short term liberty, maybe gun confiscation, and perhaps your wallet. If states like Cali, NY, and NJ choose to limit your constitutional freedoms then don't live there, drive through them carefully, and don't fly with gun in checked baggage through NYC or Newark. You can fly in and out of Cali no problem. Bottom line is that legislation and EO's can change all 50 states reciprocity with a change of administration or Congressional majority. States need to do what states are supposed to do and foster state friendly reciprocity in state legislatures. States that don't want to play are not going to play either way.
Scorpionbowl is offline  
Register

Welcome to the SIG Talk Forum dedicated to SIG Sauer Pistols and SIG Sauer Rifles.

We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the SIG Talk Forum!

Old 04-13-2017, 04:22 AM   #77
Senior Member
 
DarthPaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: My Happy Place
Posts: 1,816
Likes Received 1207
The basis of Federalism is that the states have power to regulate within their own borders. Sometimes this bites us libertarian types on the ^ss. (Can I say ^ss?)

So long as a state doesn't outright or effectively ban handguns, it has the power to regulate them in various bizarre ways. I don't like it. Obviously those on our forum who live in those states don't like it. But in the Federalist system, states have powers reserved to them which the federal government cannot usurp. This is the core of the conservative tradition. Ironically, in this case conservatives (Republicans) don't like the effect on gun laws.

I personally believe that the Full Faith and Credit clause should cover CCW between states ("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"). But, again, under Federalism, a state which doesn't permit concealed carry by its own residents can't be forced to permit it by residents from another state, merely due to this clause. And a law mandating that CCW permits cross state lines would effectively be a federal CCW permit law.

It's a bugger.
GCBHM likes this.
DarthPaul is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 04:34 AM   #78
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthPaul View Post
The basis of Federalism is that the states have power to regulate within their own borders. Sometimes this bites us libertarian types on the ^ss. (Can I say ^ss?)
It seems to, but if "the People" would take hold of the fact that WE are the ultimate trump card then governments would not be as "powerful" as they have become today. We really do have the rightful authority to deal with the governments we elect, and should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthPaul View Post
So long as a state doesn't outright or effectively ban handguns, it has the power to regulate them in various bizarre ways.
Actually, the state can ban guns. And, the People of that state can dismiss every elected official who passed any such ban, or they are free to leave that state for another. Either way the federal government has no legal standing to meddle, period. Allowing it to only serves to give it more power, and once it has a power given, it will NEVER give it back to the people. I don't understand how more people don't understand that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthPaul View Post
I don't like it. Obviously those on our forum who live in those states don't like it. But in the Federalist system, states have powers reserved to them which the federal government cannot usurp. This is the core of the conservative tradition. Ironically, in this case conservatives (Republicans) don't like the effect on gun laws.
The States have ALWAYS retained these powers, and the federal government cannot give itself more power to usurp the State's sovereignty. The fact that it has, and that the people have accepted it, is very telling. We, as a people, do not understand our role, and we have essentially taken our place. Do as you're told!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthPaul View Post
I personally believe that the Full Faith and Credit clause should cover CCW between states ("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"). But, again, under Federalism, a state which doesn't permit concealed carry by its own residents can't be forced to permit it by residents from another state, merely due to this clause. And a law mandating that CCW permits cross state lines would effectively be a federal CCW permit law.

It's a bugger.
One thing people don't understand, myself included (until I was informed) is that all these clauses pertain only to those powers specifically delegated to the federal government in Article 1; Section 8. IF it (a specific right or power) is not listed in that single article then the federal government does not possess the authority to hold the power. We have GOT to get this, y'all! Go read the article! If the power is not enumerated there it is retained by the States (or People). It's really that simple. The federal government has ZERO authority to regulate the private ownership and use of guns; PERIOD!

So why do we let it?
GCBHM is offline  
 
Old 04-13-2017, 05:34 AM   #79
Senior Member
 
Steve40th's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Charleston South Carolina
Posts: 6,034
Likes Received 5696
The people, We the People, can change anything we set our minds too. Collectively we did it to Hillary..
we need to be UNITED.
GCBHM likes this.
Steve40th is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 06:16 AM   #80
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
The people, We the People, can change anything we set our minds too. Collectively we did it to Hillary..
we need to be UNITED.
Agreed! If we can get enough to understand that...
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 06:19 AM   #81
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
The people, We the People, can change anything we set our minds too. Collectively we did it to Hillary..
we need to be UNITED.
Including our Constitution and it's history.
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 06:42 AM   #82
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
Including our Constitution and it's history.
I'm beginning to rethink this notion that the US Constitution is "ours". It really has little to do with the People, and more to do with the General (or federal) Government. Granted, it is considered by many to be the backbone of our country, but is that really the case? I tend to believe THE PEOPLE are the actual backbone, and the "constitution" is merely a document that created a general government that has been used by elitist progressives to hijack our republic turning it into a quasi-Oligarchy. The US Constitution is all but dead, used as a punch line rather than honored and obeyed. Nah...it's not "mine". I'd rather trash it and start over than to continue down this path of lies believing we're really free. I mean, anytime you have to tell the government why you NEED something before it LETS you have it...you're not free. Just food for thought.
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 09:18 AM   #83
Senior Member
 
lpesenson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 240
Likes Received 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
Actually, the state can ban guns.
Not unless the 2nd amendment is read out of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, which it then does at the peril of other Bill Of Rights amendments getting limited as well, such as free speech.

Even some liberals understand this:
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― Alan M. Dershowitz

States cannot nullify rights specified in the Constitution, and all regulations they impose cannot have essentially the same effect, but again that is something for SCOTUS to determine on a case by case basis. This is why it was so important to get a Constitutionalist on the court, and if we are lucky enough for a Liberal justice to retire before the end of 2018, it could result in a strengthening of the 2nd amendment.
bumper likes this.
lpesenson is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 09:29 AM   #84
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
I'm beginning to rethink this notion that the US Constitution is "ours". It really has little to do with the People, and more to do with the General (or federal) Government. Granted, it is considered by many to be the backbone of our country, but is that really the case? I tend to believe THE PEOPLE are the actual backbone, and the "constitution" is merely a document that created a general government that has been used by elitist progressives to hijack our republic turning it into a quasi-Oligarchy. The US Constitution is all but dead, used as a punch line rather than honored and obeyed. Nah...it's not "mine". I'd rather trash it and start over than to continue down this path of lies believing we're really free. I mean, anytime you have to tell the government why you NEED something before it LETS you have it...you're not free. Just food for thought.
If I understood her, that was Hillary's and the regressives line of thinking as well. Just food for thought.

Our Constitution, recognizes the intrinsic rights of Liberty. It establishes a frame work in which to build governance around the premise that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,......
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 09:48 AM   #85
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpesenson View Post
Not unless the 2nd amendment is read out of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, which it then does at the peril of other Bill Of Rights amendments getting limited as well, such as free speech.

Even some liberals understand this:
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― Alan M. Dershowitz

States cannot nullify rights specified in the Constitution, and all regulations they impose cannot have essentially the same effect, but again that is something for SCOTUS to determine on a case by case basis. This is why it was so important to get a Constitutionalist on the court, and if we are lucky enough for a Liberal justice to retire before the end of 2018, it could result in a strengthening of the 2nd amendment.
I'm afraid your wrong about this. The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over any State, except for the powers specifically delegated to it under Article 1; Section 8 of the US Constitution. Nowhere in the A1S8 is the general government granted the power to subject the States to the "federal" Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, each state has its own Constitution which is designed to safeguard the rights of the people who reside in that state. What you, along with so many others, don't seem to understand is that our rights are not confined to the US Constitution, nor are they granted by the US Constitution. The ONLY reason our natural rights appear in the US Constitution is to tell the FEDERAL government that IT cannot infringe those right. If you will notice, nowhere in the Bill of Rights, from its preamble to the last amendment, is there language granting anything to the States or the People. It is all written in prohibitive language literally telling the FEDERAL government what IT cannot do. That is all!

The only authority that can dictate change to the local State governments is the People OF THAT STATE, except where the States ceded the power to the federal government, which is found in A1S8 only. The federal government cannot grant itself more power than what was delegated to is by the states. Those who stand on the 14th Amendment as the authority giving the SCOTUS the power to strike down state law are simply either intentionally seeking to circumvent the confines of the US Constitution, or uninformed. First, the 14th Amendment was passed for one reason, and one reason only; to bolster the Civil Rights Act of 1866 giving former slaves citizenship rights. That is all.

All the clauses within the 14th Amendment pertain only to the intent and purpose of the 14th, which is restricted to broad citizenship rights alone. The notion that it somehow gave the SCOTUS the power to subject the States to the federal Bill of Rights is absurd. It's nothing more than the crafty and underhanded meddling of slick lawyering specifically intended on getting around the sovereignty of the States for personal gain. As to the Supremacy Clause, the part that is overlooked is the "in pursuance of" phrase. What THAT means, quite literally, is that only those powers delegated specifically to the federal government, BEFORE that clause, is what it (the federal government) has supremacy over. All other powers are retained by the States (or People).

The reconstructionist era, which began with Lincoln, served to undermine all that and give the federal government supreme power of all matters it choose to control. That, however, is not what the US Constitution affords the federal government. At any rate, now that you know how to build a watch, you'll never have to ask the time again.
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:00 AM   #86
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
If I understood her, that was Hillary's and the regressives line of thinking as well. Just food for thought.
Not exactly. As it relates to dissolving the government, that was a natural right the founders recognized in the Declaration of Independence, and although it is not a matter to be taken lightly, the people to retain the right to do so and start over. That is what I referred to, not simply doing away with the Constitution so that I can do whatever I want to control the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
Our Constitution, recognizes the intrinsic rights of Liberty. It establishes a frame work in which to build governance around the premise that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,......
Actually, you're quoting the Declaration of Independence, which sounds good, but it is not the Constitution. The primary intent of the Constitution is this. First, to create a central government to deal with general matters to serve the interests of the States. Secondly, it empowers the general government to do specific things with limited powers. Lastly, it serves to restrict the general government from intruding into sovereign state affairs b/c each state is a sovereign and independent state free to govern as IT sees fit, according to the will of the people of that state (or country). What the US Constitution does NOT do is erase all state lines to create one large state over which the general government is to rule, with a president serving as the elected king. However, that is essentially what we have today simply b/c the Constitution failed to do what it was implemented to do. Why? B/c people...
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:42 AM   #87
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
A1S8 doesn't deal with the SCOTUS. It establishes the Legislature (Congress).

A6 establishes the supremacy of our National Constitution and Federal law, in fact State Constitutions are subordinate to Federal law. The caveat being that Federal law is derived from the Constitution (Federal law can not subvert your right to bear arms). Our US Constitution recognizes our right - 1st as American citizens - to bear arms therefore State constitution nor statue can not violate that right. Period. They can re-enumerate that right. Nor can states enact a series of laws that effectively violate our right as a citizen of the US of America to bear arms. period. (which have been the essential arguments in the last many years) The SCOTUS has the duty and authority to discern whether laws or statues violate the Constitution and Fed law properly derived from the Constitution. If anything, we have been weak willed in bringing various states to court concerning the violation of our Constitutionally recognized rights, forcing them to be discerned by the our Supreme Court.

I believe s8c18, the Necessary and Proper clause, could be properly used to establish a "national carry law" since it deals with both our right to bear arms and the crossing state lines. It has also been used to justify laws inherent to correct operation of the Federal Gov't, which in this case is the protection of our right to bear arms.

Again, we don't seem to have trouble with free speech or religion being protected as we cross state lines, I'm not sure why that same reality doesn't apply when it comes to guns. Unless it's ok for Colorado to ban pro gun speech (to include a bumper sticker) and enforce it with punishment, while it's perfectly legal in....Arizona.
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:44 AM   #88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
A1S8 doesn't deal with the SCOTUS. It establishes the Legislature (Congress).
Article 1; Section 8 deals with ALL, and the ONLY, powers delegated to the entire general government. The following articles outline specific jurisdiction for each branch, but all of them are restricted to operating within the boundaries outlined in Article 1; Section 8. I think you may be InOverYourHead on this one.
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:47 AM   #89
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
A6 establishes the supremacy of our National Constitution and Federal law, in fact State Constitutions are subordinate to Federal law.
Only within the powers delegated in Article 1; Section 8. If the power is not found in that article then it retained by the States.
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:48 AM   #90
Senior Member
 
Steve40th's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Charleston South Carolina
Posts: 6,034
Likes Received 5696
So, we need to kick butt and do some reconstruction, and undo what Lincoln started?
GCBHM likes this.
Steve40th is offline  
Closed Thread

  SIG Talk > SIG Talk > News


Search tags for this page

news

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar SIG Talk Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illinois State Rifle Association Update on IL State’s Concealed Carry Progress Malicious Compliance News 0 10-11-2013 08:09 AM
Cross draw carry Broncs Concealed Carry 15 02-10-2013 05:14 PM
Introduced at the Shot Show th3ug1y0n3 Guns 26 02-06-2013 04:25 AM
p229 tac rail first introduced. srice425 SIG Sauer Pistols 1 03-10-2011 01:05 AM


Top Gun Sites Top Sites List

Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2010 - 2020 SIG Talk. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.SIG Talk is a SIG Sauer Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent SIG Sauer, Inc. of Exeter, NH.