Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
You brought up the FF&C clause dipshit.
Fortunately, the law of your state will be found unconstitutional when marriage equality reaches the SCOTUS.
Republicans support the constitution as long as it suits them.
This will never pass the senate though.
and nice to see how the republicans are focusing on the economy and jobs.
Sorry...nope. Wrong on all counts middle. This is EXACTLY how the founding fathers intended our government to work.
Article IV --- Section 1 --- 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.
Sorry, nope, wrong on all counts. A permit being issued in one state does not have to be honored by other states. Each state can set it's own laws upon which to regulate concealed carry. The fact that one state allows someone to conceal carry does not mean that the next state must adopt the permit of the first. The full faith and credit clause does not come anywhere close to applying here. FFC deals with acts, records, and proceedings, such as court cases, graduating HS, or birth records. It does not deal with permissions granted to one state, which another state must also grant.
When a majority of the several states passes legislation...such as conceal carry...it is the job of the Congress to insure Full Faith and Credit is given the law by ALL states....as long as it is a constitutional law.
No, it's not. FFC has nothing to do with permissions granted by one state being honored by another state. My state is under no constitutional obligation to grant you the same permissions that your own state grants you. My state has requirements for concealed carry. Your state might not have the same requirements. Your state might grant you a conceal carry permit based on requirements that are less than that which my state has set for itself. The Congress telling my state it has to reduce its standards to that of another state violates the rights of my state, and I will wager the federal constitution as well.
No, they are not. You clearly are uninformed on this matter.
The second amendment does not protect concealed carry. Even Scalia has written a recent opinion affirming this fact.
The problem you're facing is that you are arguing that the 2nd amendment creates an absolute right, which isn't anymore true than the 1st amendment creates an absolute right. There are limits on free speech just like there are limits to the right to bear arms. The constitution does not protect a right to concealed carry.
The ONLY say a federal, state or local government should have in conceal carry is in if the people...through their elected representatives, decide to ban conceal carry in specific areas for the general welfare. That's IT!
That's what state laws are that regulate conceal carry. They are expressions of the people acting through their elected representatives to ban concealed carry under certain circumstances for the general welfare.
And since holsters for open carry of firearms were SELDOM seen in his day...you can BET that his was constantly concealed under his coat...even in the oval office! ;~)
That was before concealed carry laws were enacted by the people through their elected representatives.
The second amendment does not protect concealed carry. Even Scalia has written a recent opinion affirming this fact.
Republicans support the constitution as long as it suits them.
This will never pass the senate though.
and nice to see how the republicans are focusing on the economy and jobs.
Republicans support the constitution as long as it suits them.
This will never pass the senate though.
and nice to see how the republicans are focusing on the economy and jobs.
Harry Reid has an A rating from the NRA and was instrumental in the national parks carry bill.
How many times has someone posted a list of all the jobs bills the House has passed and the Senate refuses to act on? How many times will it take until you learn that your comments are a lie?
He will never get it.Republicans support the constitution as long as it suits them.
This will never pass the senate though.
and nice to see how the republicans are focusing on the economy and jobs.
Harry Reid has an A rating from the NRA and was instrumental in the national parks carry bill.
How many times has someone posted a list of all the jobs bills the House has passed and the Senate refuses to act on? How many times will it take until you learn that your comments are a lie?
Republicans support the constitution as long as it suits them.
This will never pass the senate though.
and nice to see how the republicans are focusing on the economy and jobs.
So when was the democrats focusing on Jobs?
Republicans support the constitution as long as it suits them.
This will never pass the senate though.
and nice to see how the republicans are focusing on the economy and jobs.
Harry Reid has an A rating from the NRA and was instrumental in the national parks carry bill.
How many times has someone posted a list of all the jobs bills the House has passed and the Senate refuses to act on? How many times will it take until you learn that your comments are a lie?
Harry Reid? You would have to pick one of the worst Demoncrats.
Republicans support the constitution as long as it suits them.
This will never pass the senate though.
and nice to see how the republicans are focusing on the economy and jobs.
So when was the democrats focusing on Jobs?
I dunno, I doubt that they are very much either.
Repubs do control the house and both partys are now controlled by corporations.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I like or will blindly defend the demoncrats. they just screw things up at a slower pace than the republicans do.
Carrying a concealed weapon should NOT require a government license. Licenses are PRIVILEGE licenses intended to support the cost of regulating that privilege. To keep and bare is a right, not a privilege that needs regulation.
So when was the democrats focusing on Jobs?
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.
Carrying a concealed weapon should NOT require a government license. Licenses are PRIVILEGE licenses intended to support the cost of regulating that privilege. To keep and bare is a right, not a privilege that needs regulation.
Carrying a concealed weapon is a felony in most jurisdictions, if not all hence the license. Open carry can be argued a Constitutional right.
[
The Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility to enforce the inter-state agreements
and among them are mutual recognition of each others licensing and such, like drivers licenses and marriage licenses.
The courts have backed this up forever.
The Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility to enforce the inter-state agreements
What?
and among them are mutual recognition of each others licensing and such, like drivers licenses and marriage licenses.
If they are "agreements," the states would already be doing it. But many states do not wish to recognize CCW permits from other states. This law would REQUIRE them to, without regard to the state agreeing or not.
The courts have backed this up forever.
Citation needed.
In 1790, shortly after the Constitution had been ratified, Congress took action under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, enacting that "the records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every Court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the Courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken."[11] In 1813, the Supreme Court interpreted this federal statute, in the leading case of Mills v. Duryee.[12] Justice Joseph Story wrote for the Court that it was the federal statute (rather than the constitutional provision) that made records from one state effective in another state:
It is argued, that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence, when admitted. This argument cannot be supported. The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court.
Ok, I'll just address this since it puts lie to the rest of that rambling.FFC deals with acts, records, and proceedings, such as court cases, graduating HS, or birth records. It does not deal with permissions granted to one state, which another state must also grant.
As I understand it, this includes marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc, but has not till now been considered for CCW licenses.
Ok, I'll just address this since it puts lie to the rest of that rambling.
Hey dummy...acts are LAWS!!!!
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.