Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, number one, it'll probably never get past the senate and number two, even if by some extraordinary happening it does Obama will veto it so I don't know what all the hoopla is about. Oh wait, yes I do, political posturing. Never mind..........
Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be given precedence over the state's desire to deny those rights to citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War. It was created primarily to ensure that the rights of former slaves (freed by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865) would be protected throughout the nation. The need for the Amendment was great because up to this time, the provisions of the Bill of Rights were not enforceable against state governments. This was due to the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1835). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only enforceable against the federal government (and not against state governments) due to the federal structure of the nation. Therefore, without a Constitutional Amendment justifying federal intervention in the affairs of the states, states hostile to the interests of the newly freed slaves might still legally discriminate against or persecute them.
While some of the Amendment's supporters felt that the Amendment would incorporate all of the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states, this was not to be. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1875), the view of these supporters was rejected and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "privilege and immunities" clause did not automatically incorporate (apply) all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. Over time though, the Court began to use the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to achieve the same end.
You got popped because you moved to Texas. If you were just passing through the Cop couldn't have written you up amirite?
The cop had no way to know if I was a new resident or a passer through. And in truth it doesn't matter. That was the law of the state, and he snagged me for it.
Point well taken, xotoxi.each State HAS THE RIGHT to govern themselves, no? We are a constitutional Republic no?It doesn't prohibit states from regulating licensing... though it could be argued that the Second amendment does that.
What it does it keep people from getting arrested if they are traveling in other states. It's completely ridiculous that if you want to defend yourself while traveling you need to read up on each states laws.
I had a client once, his only crime was that he was licensed in the wrong state. You seriously think we should be arresting people for exercising their second amendment right because the license isn't accepted across state lines?
I disagree with the Law, and I strongly support Gun rights....but the person carrying his gun over state lines SHOULD ALWAYS read up on the other state's gun laws and NOT be a Lazy rearend, on something soooo important and potentially dangerous or life saving!
Good point. A gun toter on a multi-state tour who does not know the various states' gun laws is very lazy indeed.
Do you think the Senate will pass what this House is asking for without a huge demand for something far more repressive to be amended onto the bill?It doesn't prohibit states from regulating licensing... though it could be argued that the Second amendment does that.
What it does it keep people from getting arrested if they are traveling in other states. It's completely ridiculous that if you want to defend yourself while traveling you need to read up on each states laws.
I had a client once, his only crime was that he was licensed in the wrong state. You seriously think we should be arresting people for exercising their second amendment right because the license isn't accepted across state lines?
Now that makes really good sense.Teh Supreme Court ruled in McDonald that the 2A applies to states as well. Thus, just as states cannot deny 1A rights to citizens, as defined by the Federal government, so too they cannot deny 2A rights. Since the issue they are regulating is interstate travel, it may properly come under the interstate commerce clause, just as the civil rights era legislation came under that clause. There is no infringement here on states rights. Further, there is the full faith and credit issue: just as my driver's license is good so should my carry permit be good (and in TN they even have the same number).
Good point, Warrior102. Hopefully everyone would have your attitude about using a gun for protection as it should be, not crime proliferation which tends to happen in areas where citizens lose gun privileges while criminals ignore them.I think this is great. I have a CWP in Virginia and have to disarm myself when I travel into D.C. That's precisely where one needs to be "packing heat," especially on the Metro.
House votes to expand concealed gun law CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Now that I have your attention, I'm not 100% sure it would be unconstitutional, but my first impression is that this would violate the state's rights to regulate licensing on its own. At the very least, it certainly is ideologically opposed to respecting state rights. I'm very perplexed by this. I support individual rights to carry a gun. But I think that it's over stepping for the federal government onto the states.
Teh Supreme Court ruled in McDonald that the 2A applies to states as well. Thus, just as states cannot deny 1A rights to citizens, as defined by the Federal government, so too they cannot deny 2A rights. Since the issue they are regulating is interstate travel, it may properly come under the interstate commerce clause, just as the civil rights era legislation came under that clause. There is no infringement here on states rights. Further, there is the full faith and credit issue: just as my driver's license is good so should my carry permit be good (and in TN they even have the same number).
Teh Supreme Court ruled in McDonald that the 2A applies to states as well. Thus, just as states cannot deny 1A rights to citizens, as defined by the Federal government, so too they cannot deny 2A rights. Since the issue they are regulating is interstate travel, it may properly come under the interstate commerce clause, just as the civil rights era legislation came under that clause. There is no infringement here on states rights. Further, there is the full faith and credit issue: just as my driver's license is good so should my carry permit be good (and in TN they even have the same number).
Just as my marriage license is "good" in my state and should be in all states, right?
House votes to expand concealed gun law CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Now that I have your attention, I'm not 100% sure it would be unconstitutional, but my first impression is that this would violate the state's rights to regulate licensing on its own. At the very least, it certainly is ideologically opposed to respecting state rights. I'm very perplexed by this. I support individual rights to carry a gun. But I think that it's over stepping for the federal government onto the states.
I have the right, under both the 2nd ammendment and my state's constitution, to conceal carry a weapon which I do daily.
I personally find it a violation of my rights that I am not allowed to enjoy my rights if I go to another state that does not allow conceal carry.
This bill gives us more liberty and upholds our 2nd ammendment rights but it does trump some state's laws which I have a problem with. Its tough to say I support it 100% but its equally tough to speak against it as it secures our constitutional liberty.
House votes to expand concealed gun law CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Now that I have your attention, I'm not 100% sure it would be unconstitutional, but my first impression is that this would violate the state's rights to regulate licensing on its own. At the very least, it certainly is ideologically opposed to respecting state rights. I'm very perplexed by this. I support individual rights to carry a gun. But I think that it's over stepping for the federal government onto the states.
I see nothing in the Bill of Rights or Constitution about the right to keep and bear license plate frames.What it does it keep people from getting arrested if they are traveling in other states. It's completely ridiculous that if you want to defend yourself while traveling you need to read up on each states laws.
When I first moved to Texas many years ago, I got pulled over for having a license plate frame on the back of my car. It was perfectly legal where I'd come from, but Texas has laws restricting them. There are many people who might pass through a portion of Texas for a day. All they want to do is go visit a friend, maybe they just want to go out to dinner. But the fact of the matter is that each state is entitled to have its own laws.
I had a client once, his only crime was that he was licensed in the wrong state. You seriously think we should be arresting people for exercising their second amendment right because the license isn't accepted across state lines?
I think it should be for each state to decide how it wants to handle those cases. If my state legislature were considering a bill on whether to accept out-of-state CCW permits, would I support it? Probably. I just don't think the federal government has any place inserting itself into this. It should be up to the states.
Teh Supreme Court ruled in McDonald that the 2A applies to states as well. Thus, just as states cannot deny 1A rights to citizens, as defined by the Federal government, so too they cannot deny 2A rights. Since the issue they are regulating is interstate travel, it may properly come under the interstate commerce clause, just as the civil rights era legislation came under that clause. There is no infringement here on states rights. Further, there is the full faith and credit issue: just as my driver's license is good so should my carry permit be good (and in TN they even have the same number).
Just as my marriage license is "good" in my state and should be in all states, right?
Is marriage in the Constitution? No, I didnt think so either.
Your "marriage license" is a sham, the product of politicians bending over to the gay lobby. Fortunately my home state bars such perversion.
Actually the Constitution very plainly states that the citizens of every State should have the same rights as each other. If a State has a concealed carry law then the Federal Government has every authority to create a FEDERAL law that requires those States to honor each others same laws.
Just as my marriage license is "good" in my state and should be in all states, right?
Is marriage in the Constitution? No, I didnt think so either.
Your "marriage license" is a sham, the product of politicians bending over to the gay lobby. Fortunately my home state bars such perversion.
Where is "Driver's License" menitoned in the Constitution?
Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be given precedence over the state's desire to deny those rights to citizens.
