House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[Polk]

This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.

When the states give the federal government the authority to protect marriage you might have an argument. But you would need a constitutional amendment for that.

Where is the right to permit in the Constitution?

 

[Polk]

It all comes down to state rights and what other states are obligated to recognize.

It seems odd that you expect NY to recognize Arizonas loose gun laws but don't expect Arizona to recognize New Yorks marriage laws

If the right to marry was a protected right you might have somthjing. A right to marriage is a states right issue because it's not a protected right like the right to keep and bear arms. It's number two on the list.
Maybe there will be an amendment passed in the next few years. that gives the fed the right to tell a state that it must protect marriage.

Wrong. In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

Also, Loving v. Virginia (1967).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

this thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.

when the states give the federal government the authority to protect marriage you might have an argument. But you would need a constitutional amendment for that.

where is the right to permit in the constitution?

10th amendment

 

[Vanquish]

Yeah. I wasn't going to pile on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It all comes down to state rights and what other states are obligated to recognize.

It seems odd that you expect NY to recognize Arizonas loose gun laws but don't expect Arizona to recognize New Yorks marriage laws

If the right to marry was a protected right you might have somthjing. A right to marriage is a states right issue because it's not a protected right like the right to keep and bear arms. It's number two on the list.
Maybe there will be an amendment passed in the next few years. that gives the fed the right to tell a state that it must protect marriage.

Wrong. In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

You're forgetting thats a state issue. When did the states give the feds the right to govenr marriage?

 

[rightwinger]

If the right to marry was a protected right you might have somthjing. A right to marriage is a states right issue because it's not a protected right like the right to keep and bear arms. It's number two on the list.
Maybe there will be an amendment passed in the next few years. that gives the fed the right to tell a state that it must protect marriage.

Wrong. In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

You're forgetting thats a state issue. When did the states give the feds the right to govenr marriage?

Federal courts always have jurisdiction to ensure constitutional rights are not violated

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unlike with Marriage, the other comparable issue. The Constitution is pretty clear on our right to bear arms, and the Federal Governments obligation to protect that right.

I AM PRETTY FIRM ON THIS ISSUE A STATE SHOULD BE LEFT TO IT'S OWN DIVICES TO GOVERN ITSELF. As I said I agree with what they are tryng to do but carrying agreements should be managed with each individual states. Unless the Feds create a set standard that must be met, then we have a whole new can of worms to play with.

OH and forgive the caps lock not yelling

then states should be allowed to outlaw firearms, and free speech?

if the states hadn't already granted the feds the authority yes they could. But the states gave juridiction to the feds in those matters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong. In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

You're forgetting thats a state issue. When did the states give the feds the right to govenr marriage?

Federal courts always have jurisdiction to ensure constitutional rights are not violated

Wheres the amendment to protect marriage? Maybe in a few years but now right to marry is a state issue until you get that amendment.

 

[Yurt]

You're forgetting thats a state issue. When did the states give the feds the right to govenr marriage?

Federal courts always have jurisdiction to ensure constitutional rights are not violated

Wheres the amendment to protect marriage? Maybe in a few years but now right to marry is a state issue until you get that amendment.

have you read loving v. virginia?

 

[Yurt]

I AM PRETTY FIRM ON THIS ISSUE A STATE SHOULD BE LEFT TO IT'S OWN DIVICES TO GOVERN ITSELF. As I said I agree with what they are tryng to do but carrying agreements should be managed with each individual states. Unless the Feds create a set standard that must be met, then we have a whole new can of worms to play with.

OH and forgive the caps lock not yelling

then states should be allowed to outlaw firearms, and free speech?

if the states hadn't already granted the feds the authority yes they could. But the states gave juridiction to the feds in those matters.

actually they did not. the US constitution and then also scotus denied the states the ability to interfere with those rights. the states did not grant the federal government those powers.

 

[Polk]

when the states give the federal government the authority to protect marriage you might have an argument. But you would need a constitutional amendment for that.

where is the right to permit in the constitution?

10th amendment

10th Amendment reserves powers to the states. Hard to base a federal law in that.

 

[Yurt]

This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.

When the states give the federal government the authority to protect marriage you might have an argument. But you would need a constitutional amendment for that.

Where is the right to permit in the Constitution?

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

where is the right to permit in the constitution?

10th amendment

10th Amendment reserves powers to the states. Hard to base a federal law in that.

You are confused

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

 

[Polk]

When the states give the federal government the authority to protect marriage you might have an argument. But you would need a constitutional amendment for that.

Where is the right to permit in the Constitution?

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

 

[Polk]

10th amendment

10th Amendment reserves powers to the states. Hard to base a federal law in that.

You are confused

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

Guess you missed the "reserved to the States" part.

Also, you're admitting that, under your standard, Congress doesn't have the power to pass the law.

 

[DontBeStupid]

All joking aside, the main issue here is a state's right to know who has a gun in their state. This is issue seems to have been brushed off repeatedly in this thread. New York knowing who has concealed guns is in no way infringing on a person's right to carry that concealed gun. However, if you get a license in new Jersey and cross in New York, how does New York know you have the weapon? Or are allowed to carry the weapon? They don't.

Sadly, I think that's the main point for many of you pro-gun people. You want to carry concealed and want no one, not even the state, to know about it.

Regardless, as has been mentioned, this is DOA in the Senate.

 

[Yurt]

Where is the right to permit in the Constitution?

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

not true, hence the word IF regarding exactly what i said.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

10th Amendment reserves powers to the states. Hard to base a federal law in that.

You are confused

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

Guess you missed the "reserved to the States" part.

Also, you're admitting that, under your standard, Congress doesn't have the power to pass the law.

Right to bear arms was delegated to the feds the right to marriage has not been

 

[Ernie S.]

Where is the right to permit in the Constitution?

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty fucking absolute, don't you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All joking aside, the main issue here is a state's right to know who has a gun in their state. This is issue seems to have been brushed off repeatedly in this thread. New York knowing who has concealed guns is in no way infringing on a person's right to carry that concealed gun. However, if you get a license in new Jersey and cross in New York, how does New York know you have the weapon? Or are allowed to carry the weapon? They don't.

Sadly, I think that's the main point for many of you pro-gun people. You want to carry concealed and want no one, not even the state, to know about it.

Regardless, as has been mentioned, this is DOA in the Senate.

Thats why it's called concealed it's not concealed if you can see it