Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License - Page 8 - 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; Originally Posted by Cdub If it ever passes, it would likely have a level of standards the state carry permit would need to meet 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 04-13-2017, 11:39 AM   #106
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cdub View Post
If it ever passes, it would likely have a level of standards the state carry permit would need to meet in order to pass. In KS I need to meet a higher level of requirements than if I were to apply for a "Lifetime carry license" in Indiana.
Already the federal government will not be accepting drivers licenses from Missouri, Montana, Washington state, Maine and Minnesota for ID to pass through TSA in airports as of Jan 1, 2018.
I would anticipate any national carry reciprocity would require a minimum standard for the state license to be able to be reciprocal.
Exactly, which will lead to even more restrictive requirement until it leads to a national registry. You know what comes next.
GCBHM 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, 11:52 AM   #107
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
are you suggesting that our Constitution recognizes our rights as Americans, but the states have the authority to usurp those rights as it wills with no intercession via our federal gov't?
All three branches are restricted to the scope of power delegated to the general government. One branch doesn't hold any special or specific power over the other. The Congress passes laws it is authorized to pass. The President executes those laws as bound by the powers delegated to it, and the judicial ensures all laws and actions are in accordance with the powers delegated in Article 1; Section 8. Nowhere in the entire US Constitution will you find language delegating power to the federal government to watch over and dictate policy to the States, except for those powers listed in A1S8.

Take, for example, the naturalization power delegated to the federal government. It has the power to naturalize people to become citizens, and the States must recognize that they are deemed citizens; however, the federal government does not have the power to force any one state to accept any citizen as a resident.

The citizen is free, and has the liberty, to choose any state he/she wants to reside in, but any state can banish anyone who does not obey the laws passed in accordance with the will of the people in that state. This is why a citizen from Utah can possess nearly any type of firearm they want in Utah, but if they cross over into the state of California they are subject to arrest for violating that state's gun laws. The federal government cannot make California accept the Utahan based on the laws of Utah. That is b/c the federal government has no authority to override the laws in California, although many would argue that it has violated the right of the Utahan to keep and bear arms.

To the contrary! The State of California has every right to make laws regulating guns, and if the people accept it then they get what they deserve. What the SCOTUS should do with every case brought before it over which it has no jurisdiction is refuse to hear it, and send it back to the State for the People to deal with. We have GOT to stop running to the federal government to make the States do what we want. WE are supposed to be making the States do what we want! If you don't like the laws either change them or leave, but the federal government can't do anything about it. And you don't want it to!
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 11:55 AM   #108
Senior Member
 
Steve40th's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Charleston South Carolina
Posts: 6,034
Likes Received 5696
If the Lawyers of the States knew they could circumvent the Constitution, they would have. But they havent, because somewhere, they know the way things are written, they cant ban guns. They definitely infringe, they all do..
GCBHM likes this.
Steve40th is offline  
 
Old 04-13-2017, 11:56 AM   #109
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
"Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3

1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Note the key phrase in bold, which references the powers delegated in A1S8.

The right to bear arms has been noted in our Constitution. The states ratified our Constitution, thus given submitted to the authority, that our National Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article 6c2). Thus any state Constitution or statue that in effect bans or subverts our right to bear arms can be deemed unconstitutional and struck down (A3S2). Congress can legislate for reciprocal application of our right to bear arms as long as said legislation does not also subvert our right to bear arms. A1S8:18
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 11:59 AM   #110
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
If the Lawyers of the States knew they could circumvent the Constitution, they would have. But they havent, because somewhere, they know the way things are written, they cant ban guns. They definitely infringe, they all do..
I think our problem is that we've failed to bring cases to trial allowing precedent to get set that doesn't adhere to our Constitution and it's laws.
Curmudgeon likes this.
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:01 PM   #111
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
Exactly, which will lead to even more restrictive requirement until it leads to a national registry. You know what comes next.
We can fire our local leaders but not the local ones that we elect to be national leaders.?.
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:10 PM   #112
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
The right to bear arms has been noted in our Constitution. The states ratified our Constitution, thus given submitted to the authority, that our National Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article 6c2). Thus any state Constitution or statue that in effect bans or subverts our right to bear arms can be deemed unconstitutional and struck down (A3S2). Congress can legislate for reciprocal application of our right to bear arms as long as said legislation does not also subvert our right to bear arms. A1S8:18
No dude, no they didn't. Your logic has no bearing here. Believe what you want. I've done all I can to explain it, but sometimes you can't get people to shake the chains they adore.
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:11 PM   #113
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
We can fire our local leaders but not the local ones that we elect to be national leaders.?.
No, nationally elected leaders are fired all the time. Some are voted out, some are impeached, and some are even arrested, convicted and imprisoned. I think at this point you're just arguing for the sake of trying to win something, so let me help you...you win. Keep your chains!
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:48 PM   #114
Senior Member
 
Curmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: The Wolverine
Posts: 2,223
Likes Received 3166
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
Yeah...read the constitution. Read the Second Amendment. Show me the language directing the federal government TO protect the right to keep and bear arms.
That's our job.

The 2A is there for one reason only! And that is directing the Fed. Government to STAY OUT of the discussion, regulation, licensing or whatever other perverted view they see fit to impose.

I wonder WHY it is so hard for these people, that took an oath BTW, to uphold and defend the Constitution, to understand this concept..
Animator likes this.
Curmudgeon is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:49 PM   #115
Senior Member
 
Curmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: The Wolverine
Posts: 2,223
Likes Received 3166
Quote:
Originally Posted by inovermyhead View Post
i think our problem is that we've failed to bring cases to trial allowing precedent to get set that doesn't adhere to our constitution and it's laws.
this ^^^
Curmudgeon is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:50 PM   #116
Senior Member
 
Steve40th's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Charleston South Carolina
Posts: 6,034
Likes Received 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
I think our problem is that we've failed to bring cases to trial allowing precedent to get set that doesn't adhere to our Constitution and it's laws.
Money, money and more money to get to the SCOTUS. Most cant afford to fight a parking ticket.
Steve40th is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:53 PM   #117
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
No, nationally elected leaders are fired all the time. Some are voted out, some are impeached, and some are even arrested, convicted and imprisoned.
I'm picking up your inference about tossing out our local representatives if they do something that doesn't cut Constitutional mustard while seeming to shy away from applying the same responsibility and ability concerning our national representatives.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
I think at this point you're just arguing for the sake of trying to win something, so let me help you...you win. Keep your chains!
That's not cool and don't be like that.
If I wanted to argue for the sake of winning I wouldn't have waded in: by the time my windshield time comes to a close, I always win whatever I'm arguing .

I'm attempting to better understand our model of mixing sovereignty (Fed and State) which is our current model of gov't, a gov't that was reestablished under our Constitution. I believe I've laid out a valid case for Federal Legislation concerning national carry and/or authority for our Supreme court to strike down state statue in a fairly simple linear argument.

I recognize that you believe you've also laid out a valid argument for the opposite. The tension and unresolved point, that I see, is that my argument relies on the authority that you cite to make my case. Namely legal supremacy and valid legislation/enforcement based upon said supremacy. I think I made it in three points.
What hasn't been tackled it what does bear arms "look like"?

^That's where the states differ and where they are applying States Rights authority. Which is fine, except when they define bearing arms in a manner that in effect subverts our right as Americans to bear arms. In those cases, the Fed has the Constitutional authority to rule counter and to enforce the ruling in order to protect the right of the American over the "citizenship of the Coloradoan". If Colorado wanted to maintain ultimate authority over it's citizens, it shouldn't have petitioned to become part of America. That doesn't imply that the Fed has the justification nor authority to run roughshod over the state, simply that the state is to comply with particular nationally recognized realities.

I see your argument as offering the greatest chance of being enslaved, as we see currently, while my argument, having historical precedent, offering the greatest chance of not being chained.
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:56 PM   #118
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
Money, money and more money to get to the SCOTUS. Most cant afford to fight a parking ticket.
True that.
I donate a fair amount of money to various advocacy groups. You? I think together we can raise enough money to present cases to the courts. At this point those advocacy groups seem less interested in setting precedent than they are in gaining influence and affluence........idk...
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 01:31 PM   #119
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
I'm picking up your inference about tossing out our local representatives if they do something that doesn't cut Constitutional mustard while seeming to shy away from applying the same responsibility and ability concerning our national representatives.




That's not cool and don't be like that.
If I wanted to argue for the sake of winning I wouldn't have waded in: by the time my windshield time comes to a close, I always win whatever I'm arguing .

I'm attempting to better understand our model of mixing sovereignty (Fed and State) which is our current model of gov't, a gov't that was reestablished under our Constitution. I believe I've laid out a valid case for Federal Legislation concerning national carry and/or authority for our Supreme court to strike down state statue in a fairly simple linear argument.

I recognize that you believe you've also laid out a valid argument for the opposite. The tension and unresolved point, that I see, is that my argument relies on the authority that you cite to make my case. Namely legal supremacy and valid legislation/enforcement based upon said supremacy. I think I made it in three points.
What hasn't been tackled it what does bear arms "look like"?

^That's where the states differ and where they are applying States Rights authority. Which is fine, except when they define bearing arms in a manner that in effect subverts our right as Americans to bear arms. In those cases, the Fed has the Constitutional authority to rule counter and to enforce the ruling in order to protect the right of the American over the "citizenship of the Coloradoan". If Colorado wanted to maintain ultimate authority over it's citizens, it shouldn't have petitioned to become part of America. That doesn't imply that the Fed has the justification nor authority to run roughshod over the state, simply that the state is to comply with particular nationally recognized realities.

I see your argument as offering the greatest chance of being enslaved, as we see currently, while my argument, having historical precedent, offering the greatest chance of not being chained.
I'm not mad, brother, just tired of debating it. You're going to believe what you want regardless of the truth. You don't understand that by vesting more power in the federal government that what is actually delegated to it (for a reason) you're literally forfeiting your rights. Once the federal government gets the power, illegitimate or not, it will never give it back. So here is what's going to happen, as the result of that brainwashing. Either the progressives are going to push until they get a civil war, or the federal government is going to collapse under the weight of its own power. Either way, we'd better agree to disagree on these issues and stick to getting along where guns are concerned. We're going to need them before it's all over.
Curmudgeon likes this.
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 01:45 PM   #120
Senior Member
 
Steve40th's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Charleston South Carolina
Posts: 6,034
Likes Received 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
True that.
I donate a fair amount of money to various advocacy groups. You? I think together we can raise enough money to present cases to the courts. At this point those advocacy groups seem less interested in setting precedent than they are in gaining influence and affluence........idk...
If all judges followed the rule of law, and not interpret it to their agenda driven financiers, then we wouldnt need to take cases to the scotus.
Like Roe vs Wade, the whole case was a lie, and about privacy, not abortion.
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.