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

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I always heard gays had vivid imaginations. There is nothing unconstitutional about TN's state constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The second amendment does not dictate how a person can or cannot carry a firearm, all it says is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Isn't he the Senate Majority leader and responsible for which bills get debated or not? Yes, I think he is.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

oh I get it you are a partisan hack yes you are defending the democrats. I have never heard you ask when did the democrats worry about jobs. The new republican congress was not elected because they pledge to create jobs they were elected because they pledged to repeal obamacare.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

So when was the democrats focusing on Jobs?

That democrats failed to address jobs means republicans have license to do the same. The race to the bottom continues.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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 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.

This is really a non-issue dredged up by gun grabbing fascists and peple so far to the right they are not satisfied with anything less than the government allowing open carry everywhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

[

No. VT, AK,AZ and one other state allow anyone not prohibited by law to carry in any manner they want. The Constitution simply says "bear arms" and does not mention concealed or open carry.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

As I understand it, this includes marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc, but has not till now been considered for CCW licenses.

 

[rdean]

That's part of their focus on "job creation". Jobs jobs jobs.

 

[JDzBrain]

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.

Ok, I'll just address this since it puts lie to the rest of that rambling.

Hey dummy...acts are LAWS!!!!

Let me ask you something. When you got "permission"...an idiots term for usage licensing...to drive your car, did you expect other states to let you drive in their states using that license? You DO!? Huh, why is that? My state has different requirements for testing. Why should you be allowed to drive in my state?

The ONLY reason you can is because of the full faith and credit clause!

As to the NONSENSE I've been seeing about Scalia's opinion...HE'S WRONG!!!

In George Washington's time, the most advanced, devastating weapon of mass destruction was the cannon. They could lay waste to whole armies when loaded with grape shot.

So you would expect if the founding fathers had believed that such destructive weapons should only be in the hands of certain people or groups like our military...they would have regulated them.

Well, not only did they NOT regulate them, but George Washington had one...a fully functioning cannon...setting on his front lawn...as did MOST of the founders and other private citizens!

If the founders didn't believe that crap, WHAT in the HELL makes anyone think Scalia would have a freakin' CLUE what they "really" intended?

The founders managed to form the greatest country in the entire history of man with just a few thousand words. How the hell people think they didn't say what they meant and mean what they said when the founders held those words in such esteem is simply beyond me.

It's asinine!

There AIN'T no hidden codes in the Constitution folks. You've been watching to many movies. It says what it means. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Simple, direct and NOT open to interpretation....UNLESS you are a flaming liberal that believes the Constitution is a "living" document.

There ain't no "but" or "however" in the 2nd Amendment anywhere. Just the simple phrase, shall not be infringed.

By the way almost ALL of the founders carried concealed weapons. To argue that THEY didn't intend that to be a part of our right to keep and bear arms or should be criminal is STUPID....just COMPLETELY flies in the face of all reason!

All these restrictions and exceptions applied to our rights are a result of IDIOT, activist judges who think they are smarter than the founders. Well, they weren't and we have got to start fixing this crap!

I'm thinking there are some people around here that REALLY need to read the Federalist Papers. There IS a version out now written in modern english for those whose attention span is only as long as the Bill Maher show. Might try that one. ;~)

 

[Inthemiddle]

As I understand it, this includes marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc, but has not till now been considered for CCW licenses.

Full faith and credit means that each state has to recognize that things have been recorded, things have happened, etc., based on the records of all other states. Full faith and credit does NOT mean that that my state has to grant you permissions here that your state grants you there.

Imagine for a moment....let's say the state of Texas (just picking one, no particular reason) decided to reduce its drinking age to 18 and make buying and consumer alcohol by 18-21 year olds subject to licensing. Would anyone think that the FFC clause would require Alabama to allow 18 year old Texans to drink in Alabama? Or course not.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Ok, I'll just address this since it puts lie to the rest of that rambling.

Hey dummy...acts are LAWS!!!!

Not those kinds of acts. Acts, as in an actions. Oh, the irony there.

 

[pete]

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.

Its a license that your state gives you and a course taken before a concealed carry is issued so remember these are law abiding citizens that have been schooled. Law abiding assuming they didnt lie on the forms etc. So they are not murderers or thieves and have the right to own and carry and may just live on a border. If they live on a border they arent allowed to cross the street?
Guns CAN if used improperly, kill ... so do vehicles and you are allowed to use that license to roam the country and to the extreme fill that vehicle with legally purchased items that can EXPLODE causing much more death than a fucking handgun!!