Everybody keeps comparing this issue to drivers license reciprocity.If Kansas decided that as of July 1,2008 only legal,residents of South Dakota,New York,Montana & Florida holding valid drivers licenses would be permitted to drive through Kansas and set up checkpoints at all borders to enforce it I believe that Congress would be real quick to react to that situation.CCW is not a whole lot different.Correct me if I'm wrong.
Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment
- Thread starter Texpatriate
- Start date
- Status
Te Anau, the Congress could elect to pass legislation to issue Commercial Drivers Licenses (and somewhat does that now), under the Interstate Commerce Clause. But for private citizens, going about their normal private lives?
Sorry. It would be challenged in a New York Minute. The challenger would win.
If you consider the Real ID Act, you would realize that the Congress does not actually mandate that the States have to comply. Rather, they coerce the States by withholding certain funds and making it harmful to the States residents if compliance is not accepted. That alone should cause you to think about why.
The only way a challenge to such a thing could lose, is if the Courts (rightfully) decided that private citizens required no license whatsoever to travel on public roads... That was the way it was, before the public was coerced into accepting such licensing in the first place. Thus, turning a right into a privilege.
You don't have to believe this, but if you were to do the research, all of this (and more) would become clear.
Sorry. It would be challenged in a New York Minute. The challenger would win.
If you consider the Real ID Act, you would realize that the Congress does not actually mandate that the States have to comply. Rather, they coerce the States by withholding certain funds and making it harmful to the States residents if compliance is not accepted. That alone should cause you to think about why.
The only way a challenge to such a thing could lose, is if the Courts (rightfully) decided that private citizens required no license whatsoever to travel on public roads... That was the way it was, before the public was coerced into accepting such licensing in the first place. Thus, turning a right into a privilege.
You don't have to believe this, but if you were to do the research, all of this (and more) would become clear.
A marriage has, since the dawn of English law, meant one man and one woman. Every single statute in the nation pertaining to "marriage" is premised upon that definition. Calling a "tail" a "leg" doesn't make it a leg, and calling a legally-recognized union between two men or two woman a "marriage" doesn't make it a marriage.
States which recognize same-sex unions would be bound to honor those formed in other states under Full Faith & Credit, but a push to have such unions fall under the legal definition of "marriage" is a subversion of the rule of law.
Garand Illusion
New member
Actually ... congress had to pass a law to allow this (or at least to keep it from being defeated in court challenges). But that's congress's constitutional authority, to control how these things must be accepted/can be rejected between states. Without this law, states trying to ignore gay marriage certificates from other states almost certainly would have been defeated in court.
story from 2004
Personally ... I still think if Congress were to pass a reciprocity law (they won't, at least not at this time) I wouldn't be suprised if it would stand up in court. Not everyone involved in law making is an idiot, and if such a law is passed it will be tried in the courts/resolved in the courts. Not by internet posters. And there is an argument to be made, and only whether it is a winning argument or not is yet to be determined. Remember that federal assault weapons ban? That was never defeated in court. The ban on machine guns after 198x has not been defeated in court and has been the law for over 20 years.
And I'm in favor of a reciprociy law. You should be too. Why?
It's one more law that works for us, one more "privilege" given the American people that anti-gunners have to fight against. Because the theory that this concept is bad because "what the government can give, the government can give away" is just not well thought out or rational.
If you think for one moment that if Boxer, Feinstein and Schumer find themselves with an anti-gun majority, they're going to talk about outlawing CCW in all states (how they would do this constutionally I don't know -- not part of the debate) and then say ... "Oh, but we can't do that because we don't currently have a law giving people reciprocity between states so there's no way we can take it away ..." Well, that's just naive and funny.
The fact is, if we did have reciprocity between states, the gun banners have one more hurdle to deal with. Now they not only have to take away a privilege granted by 40 states, they have to take away a privilige given nationwide. American's don't like priviliges taken away.
A law for nationwide CCW reciprocity, if it would pass constitutional muster, would be NOTHING but good for all of us.
The CDL was supposed to standardize requirements among states and provide full reciprocity among all states for commercial drivers. No one knew it wold apply to personal vans that carried 15 people. No one knew it would require mandantory drug testing. No one realized all of these requirements that are required to obtain a CDL. The feds won't take away your CWP but you can be sure that before long you won't be able to walk in you local sheriff's office and wals out with your permit in 15 minutes.
Garand Illusion
New member
I understand what you're saying ... but this bill makes it very clear that it is not a federally issued CCW license. It simply forces every state to accept other state's licenses.
So your current process will not change. You'll just be able to carry in all 50 states instead of just a few.
Sounds good to me! No downsides to it and the upside is nationwide ccw.
Garand Illusion
New member
No ... please re-read.
I'm all for the constitution. But there is a legitimate debate as to the "full faith" clause and what Congress can do with it. If this does fall within the constitution, and the courts will decide that, then it is a constitutional duty of congress to deal with these issues.
Not congress breaking the constition, but congress fullfilling its duties therein.
In any case ... congress seems to find a way to do pretty much whatever they want when it comes to guns, such as an AWB that affected all states and a continuing ban on machine gunes ... since congress has ALREADY taken that power, I'd just like to see it used in our favor.
Or revoke that other remaining rule about full auto weapons.
JuanCarlos
New member
Which do you think is more likely? That a relatively restrictive may-issue state will suddenly throw open its doors to permits issued in states that are less restrictive by a few orders of magnitude...or that they'll simply do away with their own may-issue permits and become no-issue states instead?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you: “The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment...” Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 262.Garand Illusion said:
There are also a long line of citations that go directly to the power of licensing (taxation). The point being, that the power to regulate how a State issued license is observed by other States, is also the power to prohibit. One goes with the other.
Suppose this bill is passed. Later (say, the next year), another bill comes up (a "simple" revenue bill) that simply states that you must have a Federal Tax Stamp affixed to your CHL, without which your CHL would only be valid in your Home State. But with the stamp, your CHL would then be valid in all the States. Don't think it wouldn't happen?
Add to this other unintended consequences, like a Federal Tax Stamp to your Drivers License (but only if your State adheres to certain Federal standards) and viola! The Real ID. Mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause....
Oh yes, this is such a good idea! The unexplored Federal revenue streams that could be made to happen! Kind of like the Commerce Clause and the way it has been abused....
And this is what you want?
Garand Illusion
New member
So ... the tax stamp allows me to carry in all 50 states. Or I can not get it and then just carry in my state. Well ... the way it is now, there's no way in hell I'll ever be able to carry in NJ, NY, CA, etc. So the tax stamp would be a good value. And it's the only way to get what I want.
And it's not like this CCW tax stamp is going to make congress realize they can do the same thing with driver's license. 2 separate issues -- it's not like they're too stupid to think of that on their own/pass it with or without the discussion on CCW reciprocity. Total strawman.
I would still say that first paragraph is a strawman. Congress, especially with dems, is brilliant at thinking of ways to tax and raise money.
As for the last part ... is this what I want? YES!!!!
Look at my reasons above. It's NOT going to change our driver's license system or anything else; those are separate issues. It would just give me the option (if the scenarios you describe play out) of paying a tax and being able to carry in 50 states.
And here's another plus ... if those tax stamps become a source of revenue for the feds ... guess what? ANOTHER reason the Fed's will have to maintain legal CCW, and even expand upon it!
Like I said ... no downsides, only upsides.
Thanks anti! Now you've got me even more excited about the prospects!
Garand Illusion
New member
If may issue states become no issue states ... at least that will be fair and consistent. But at least past bills have put in a minimal concealed carry ability in all states. If that is true with this one, then even Wisconsin and Illinois would have to accept permits from other states.
Not at all expecting the doors to be thrown open by the states themselves, but have them pried open with crowbars. Even if they become no issue states, the residents can simply get a FL or similar out of state CCW and get around them entirely. Take away their ability to exclude their people from CCW rights. It is a right by virtue of being a logical extention of the 2nd Amendment just as posting stuff on the Internet is a logical extension of the 1st Amendment: it is how it is practicable today.
Garand Illusion
New member
No ... like I said, there is a respectable constitutional argument to be had. Snide comments don't change that.
But it is also logical that if such types of legal concepts are successfully being used against us, we should use them in our favor as well. Fight fire with fire.
While apparently you think that it's noble to watch others benefit from the current state of legal affairs while you refuse anything that would help you ... it doesn't make sense. It's irrational.
I'm not in favor of most government money give-away programs. But if I were starting a small business and was of an ethnic minority that could autmotically receive some kind of state aid, would I turn down free money? Not in this lifetime!
What kind of moron would do that?
No its no logical at all. You keep protesting my statement and then you keep saying it in all sorts of different ways.
Because liberals or those that take away our rights do something doesn't make it right or "fair game". At least not if you respect the constitution.
A moron who believes in the constitution. You've made your point clear. Because of this I don't ever want to hear you complain when anyone passes a law violating the 2nd amendmend or any other freedom we enjoy.
After all, they are just fighting fire with fire right
Garand Illusion
New member
*sigh* You're right, Stage 2. You're totally on to me.
Because I believe the "full faith" part of the constitution might CONSTITUTINOALLY protect such a law (there are good arguments against by other posters, but also a a good argument for) I am clearly trying to just pee on the constitution anytime it works in my favor to do so.
Because I see how Federal anti-gun laws have gone against my ability to own guns (I won't call it a 2nd amendment right, because SCOTUS has yet to actually confirm that I have such a right) I would like to see the same mechanisms used for pro-gun rights, which takes away my right to complain about anything anti-second amendment.
Good job!
Because I believe the "full faith" part of the constitution might CONSTITUTINOALLY protect such a law (there are good arguments against by other posters, but also a a good argument for) I am clearly trying to just pee on the constitution anytime it works in my favor to do so.
Because I see how Federal anti-gun laws have gone against my ability to own guns (I won't call it a 2nd amendment right, because SCOTUS has yet to actually confirm that I have such a right) I would like to see the same mechanisms used for pro-gun rights, which takes away my right to complain about anything anti-second amendment.
Good job!
- Status