House passes concealed carry bill, tosses state rights and const. out window.

[Inthemiddle]

Was said law posted somewhere? Because if it wasn't, it's an awfully obscure (and pointless) law for you to be required to know.

Where are ANY laws ever "posted"? But ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The reason for the law is because there had come to be too many problems with people having all kinds of devices attached to their license plates which obscured view of the plate at toll booths. People would run the toll and the camera would be unable to capture pictures of their plates. I do agree that overall the whole scenario became much bigger a deal than was worth while. But that's because the whole situation ends up being a much more in depth story.

 

[whitehall]

Didn't you lefties read the freaking article? You are in so much of a hurry to spin the story that you just post Soros's opinion? The bill says that the states must allow concealed permits from other states or they are not valid. In other words, urcle, the states still have the power to issue permits. You almost gotta laugh about lefties whining about concealed weapons permits when the attorney general authorized 2,000 illegal weapons to be shipped to Mexico.

 

[Dragon]

If I understand this correctly, it probably is unconstitutional. The only thing that the government is entitled to regulate between the states is commerce, and I don't see how this is commerce.

On the other hand, one could argue that a concealed-carry permit from one state should be honored in another according to the full faith and credit clause, making this law pointless as well as unconstitutional.

EDIT: On the gripping hand, maybe this could be construed as "organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia" . . .

 

[Inthemiddle]

Is marriage in the Constitution?

Is concealed carry in the constitution? No, it's not. The 2nd amendment does not protect concealed carry. You know this. The courts have already been over this before.

Licensing IS in the constitution, and you're the one who brought up the full faith and credit clause. It's a joke to suggest that full faith and credit means that each state has to make an exception to its own laws regarding concealed carry permits. Especially when arguing that the taking place of a marriage ceremony does not have to be recognized under full faith and credit. Because that's all that it is, RECOGNIZING THAT IT TOOK PLACE. Government doesn't create or define marriage. It can record that it's happened, but that's it. Anything else is big government bullshit.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So states that do not allow concealed carry should be exempt from the 2nd amendment? Not so if you read Amendment 14, section 1.

The second amendment does not protect concealed carry. The courts have already been over this. You should go educate yourself on the case law instead of saying such silly things.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I see nothing in the Bill of Rights or Constitution about the right to keep and bear license plate frames.

Well that's good. What would be even better is if you didn't waste your time with straw man arguments. Nobody said that the constitution says anything about license plate frames. Scientist suggested that enforcement of variant laws might be legally limited based on whether a person was a resident or passer-by visitor, since the non-resident doesn't have any good way to anticipate the state's laws. That's what I was addressing. Then again, I think you already knew that. You just thought you'd throw something out there and hope it sounded good. Bad news, it sounded bad. Bad bad bad.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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?

It isn't.
Your point?

We should be asking YOU what your point was, then, by using a comparative argument about driver's licenses. It's your argument, if you don't want to stand by it now that's fine, just say so.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The same people who think that marriage licenses for same sex couples should be recognized from state to state because each state must give full faith and credit to the laws of other states, want to prohiit gun licenses from being recognized from state to state.

Evidence? Actually, that's factually untrue argument that compares apples to oranges.

Each state has the right to decide whether to allow concealed carry, what requirements to put on it before someone qualifies for concealed carry. I think that some here feel that each state should retain this right. Not every state even allows it.

The state does not allow or disallow marriage. Only, it records that marriages have taken place, and all states recognize marriage. Just not all marriages. Many people want states to honor the all marriages, not just some.

 

[Navy1960]

Article 1 Sec. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Just a thought here, it would seem that congress does have the power to regulate such things and one can even argue that a persons 2nd Amendment rights are not honored from one state to another should congress neglect it's duties in regulating such things. That said, from a priority standpoint this sort of legislation does not seem to be as pressing as many other things that congress should be paying attention to. I do not see this bill however as getting very far beyond the Senate or signed into law by the President, so it does seem to be that much of an exercise that should be reserved for a later time to allow congress more time to address more pressing matters.

 

[lizzie]

Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be given precedence over the state's desire to deny those rights to citizens.

I agree you on substance, except for the fact that the feds have been trying to step all over the 2nd amendment for many years now. The feds themselves have placed limits on our constitutional rights to bear arms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The 10th amendment stats
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Any second amendment issue was delegated to the United States by the Constitution

Case closed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be given precedence over the state's desire to deny those rights to citizens.

I agree you on substance, except for the fact that the feds have been trying to step all over the 2nd amendment for many years now. The feds themselves have placed limits on our constitutional rights to bear arms.

I hope we have placed people in congress that can fix that mess.

 

[lizzie]

Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be given precedence over the state's desire to deny those rights to citizens.

I agree you on substance, except for the fact that the feds have been trying to step all over the 2nd amendment for many years now. The feds themselves have placed limits on our constitutional rights to bear arms.

I hope we have placed people in congress that can fix that mess.

I doubt it. Not many politicians have the balls to do it.

 

[Warrior102]

One more reason the Boehner House will go down as the most do-nothing and divisive Congress in the history of the United States. As pointed out above, where IS the jobs bill?

Never mind the jobs bill, where are the jobs Mr. President promised ??

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

One more reason the Boehner House will go down as the most do-nothing and divisive Congress in the history of the United States. As pointed out above, where IS the jobs bill?

Obama's jobs bill died because not all the dems in the dem controlled senate would support it.

Republican jobs bills? Which one do you want to talk about there are over a dozen:

House Passed Jobs Bills

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act

The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state may not require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the application of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act would ensure that pesticide users are not faced with unnecessary regulations that harm job growth.

H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act

The bill would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Without this legislation, the agency will continue with its plan to implement burdensome new rules and regulations on American businesses that will have a significant negative impact on America’s economy while having virtually no positive impact on global temperatures.



H. J. Res. 37, Disapproval of FCC’s Net Neutrality Act

H.J. Res 37 would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from imposing net neutrality regulations on Internet providers. Net neutrality is likely to cripple competition, restrict innovation, reduce employment and raise costs for all consumers—all of which would only exacerbate the current economic downturn. These job-killing regulations would involve significant new controls on the Internet that would have significant implications for investing in innovation and broadband deployment.


H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act

The bill would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards. This would reduce the federal government’s power over individual state’s water quality standards to help increase job growth.

H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act

This bill is will amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The increased accountability will help to prevent harmful job-killing regulations.

H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act

The bill would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstance. Federal bureaucrats should not be reversing the business decisions of private employers. Washington already has too many harmful regulations that hurt job growth. The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act would help ensure that the government agency does not over step their bounds by dictating decisions made by private sector companies.



H.R. 2401, Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN ACT)

The TRAIN Act would establish an 11-member committee, chaired by the Department of Commerce, to analyze the impacts of a number of major Environment Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. The agency often understates the negative impact its rules will have on jobs and energy prices. This is why we need a committee whose sole purpose is to analyze the cumulative impacts of EPA regulations. The TRAIN Act would push back against the EPA's unconstitutional, outrageous rules and regulations that raise energy prices for consumers, destroy jobs and increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy.


H.R. 2681, Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act

The bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations from coming into effect which would place burdensome regulations on the cement industry. The cement industry estimates that the rule could destroy as many as 4,000 jobs. The Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act would stop the unnecessary cement MACT rule which will cost thousands of jobs and hamper economic growth.



H.R. 2250, EPA Regulatory Relief Act

The bill would help to curtail the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Boiler MACT regulations on boilers and industrial incinerators. The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners estimates that the regulations will cost 244,000 jobs. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act would help to roll back unreasonable regulations and save thousands of American jobs.



H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

The bill would prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash as a toxic waste in any state which prefers to develop its own plans in that regard. This bill would further slow the EPA’s Regulatory Trainwreck and could save thousands of jobs in coal-rich states such as West Virginia and Ohio.

H.R. 1230, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act

The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230) would establish statutory deadlines for sales of certain oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce net direct spending by $25 million over the 2011-2016 period and about $40 million over the 2011-2021 period. Restarting offshore leasing will help restore thousands of jobs.

H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act

The bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to facilitate the production of American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico. The Obama administration has delayed or canceled offshore lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill would jump start offshore oil drilling by implementing a 30-day deadline in which the secretary of the U.S. Interior Department would have to make a decision on the Gulf of Mexico drilling permit applications. The bill would likely help to create tens of thousands of jobs and strengthen the economy.



H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act

The bill would reverse President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act and amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources and would establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal. Reversing the offshore moratoriums will help restore thousands of jobs.

H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011

The bill would eliminate needless permitting delays that have stalled important energy production opportunities off the coast of Alaska. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and rescinded by the agency and its review board, the EPA will be required to take final action – granting or denying a permit – within six months. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 would speed up the permit process to help create jobs.

H.R. 1938, North American-Made Energy Security Act

The bill would require the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL 30 days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement, but in no event later than November 1, 2011. A Canadian pipeline company, TransCanada, has long sought to increase the capacity of its Keystone pipeline system in order to bring more Canadian crude oil to American refineries. The North American-Made Energy Security Act would boost jobs and lower the price of gasoline for all Americans.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One more reason the Boehner House will go down as the most do-nothing and divisive Congress in the history of the United States. As pointed out above, where IS the jobs bill?

Never mind the jobs bill, where are the jobs Mr. President promised ??

They were finished when the census ended.

 

[lizzie]

So states that do not allow concealed carry should be exempt from the 2nd amendment? Not so if you read Amendment 14, section 1.

The second amendment does not protect concealed carry. The courts have already been over this. You should go educate yourself on the case law instead of saying such silly things.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Federal law is supreme, that’s been true since the early 19th Century, see: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). The doctrine was established as settled law in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), when the Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas law prohibiting the Little Rock school district from ending segregation.

Unlike the First Amendment, for example, the Second Amendment has very little in the way of case law for guidance. Heller didn’t address ‘carry issues,’ concealed or open. And McDonald only struck down the banning of firearms by local jurisdictions.

We don’t know yet what constitutes a ‘reasonable restriction’ with regard to firearms or what measure might meet the compelling interest requirement with regard to preempting Second Amendment rights.

But as with any other right, the states must be consistent in their regulation.

But the fact of the matter is that each state is entitled to have its own laws.

Not if those laws conflict with Federal law or are otherwise un-Constitutional.

Actually the Constitution very plainly states that the citizens of every State should have the same rights as each other.

Correct. Just as states must allow equal access to marriage laws, including same-sex couples.

And if a state has access to abortion without having to watch an ultrasound or seeing a photo of a fetus, then the Federal Government has every authority to create a FEDERAL law that requires those States to honor each others same laws.

Such a measure would be subject to a challenge with regard to an ‘unnecessary burden’ per Casey. In this case, however, Federal legislation is less restrictive than some states’ measures:

Noting that their states generally have tighter restrictions on firearms, Lautenberg and McCarthy also argued that "it is particularly surprising for congressional Republicans to be pushing a measure that directly goes against their deep-rooted support for states' rights."

Someone with standing in New York or New Jersey could file suit arguing that their respective state’s gun restrictions are un-Constitutional, particularly in light of the Federal legislation, if passed.

Is marriage in the Constitution?

Yes, see Loving v Virginia (1967); indeed, marriage is considered a fundamental right.

Note also that just because a given word isn’t in the Constitution, it doesn’t mean the doctrine isn’t part of the Founding Document. The words ‘self-defense’ and ‘individual’ aren’t in the Second Amendment, however each American has a right to self-defense and the right to own a gun to realize the former nonetheless.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

The second amendment does not grant an absolute right, just like the first amendment does not.

Justice Scalia in Heller:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Also if relevance, Henry Brown's treatment of the Bill of Rights in Robertson v. Baldwin

But we are also of opinion that even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the Thirteenth Amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people

Page 165 U. S. 282

to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.