Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment

[STAGE 2]

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.

No. Because you have clearly stated that we should stoop to the same tactics as those that subvert the constitution because it works in your favor you are peeing on the constitution. Because you think the ends justify the means, you are peeing on the constitution. Because you have ignored the cites and precedent given to you that contradicts your arguments you are peeing on the constitution.

Ignoring one part of the constitution to support another is no different than simply ignoring it altogether. It simply amazes me how many people here who say they are advocates of our rights are so willing to trample over everything as long as it means more guns for all.

Of course this isn't the first time you have put gun ownership over other rights, so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[apr1775]

Part of the problem here is that many of us who like to think of ourselves as constitutional scholors, don't have much research background in the "full faith and credit" clause. Are there any Supreme Court cases or other authoritative sources to explain it.

 

[Yellowfin]

(I won't call it a 2nd amendment right, because SCOTUS has yet to actually confirm that I have such a right)

Therein lies part of the problem in and of itself. The Supreme court are not gods, nor are they some sacred arbiters without whom none of the Constitution stands. The 2nd Amendment says what it says, as does the rest of the document, with or without them. To hell with waiting for them to approve--if you wait on other people's approval for things, you get nothing. As Jefferson, Madison, and lots of others said at the time, these are rights we have as human beings whether they get put on paper or not.

 

[Al Norris]

Apr1775, way back in Post #20, I gave a link to the Findlaw annotated discourse on just what the FF&C clause was about. It is 13 pages long and full of legal citations (Court cases). That is my authoritative source.

If 13 pages of legal discourse is too much for anyone, then you simply will go one believing that a State License is somehow a public Act or a judicial proceeding and its records. Notice how I reworded this? This was for clarity. Consider:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

That comma after Records has thrown some of you. The next sentence is even more clear:

"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

What acts? Marriage, divorce, adoption, contracts... These kinds of public acts. What Records and Proceeding? Judicial records and proceedings of the [State] Court. Both Civil and Criminal.

Those are among the most prominent. There are a few other things, but they do not include "acts" of intrastate commerce (such as business licensing) or the police power of a State (drivers and concealed carry licenses).

This is settled law.

Further, the States went through a long and involved process to obtain reciprocity of each others drivers licenses, just as they are now doing with CHL'S. The Feds couldn't intervene then, with the sole exception of interstate carriers, and they darn well can't intervene now.

For the Courts to agree that the Congress has such power now, would unravel anything left of Federalism. It would also negate the many, many precedents set with all the cases reaching back almost to the beginning of the judiciary.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Apr1775, way back in Post #20, I gave a link to the Findlaw annotated discourse on just what the FF&C clause was about. It is 13 pages long and full of legal citations (Court cases). That is my authoritative source.

If 13 pages of legal discourse is too much for anyone, then you simply will go one believing that a State License is somehow a public Act or a judicial proceeding and its records.

So why kill our buzz?

It's a long and boring discourse, but I did read through it. Most of it. Not every word, but enough to get a feeling for it's direction.

It's written by a person or group of people, not the SCOTUS. IT's a view of a group of people of what the law is, and seems plenty educated. Beyond what I'm willing to do for a post on TFL, anyway.

Google "full faith and credit" and "drivers license" and you will get a whole lot of websites that would say different. They are of various levels of authenticity and education, but there is a strong belief that driver's licenses in particular would fall under this clause. And if driver's licenses do, then so could CCW's.

In the 1960's/70's there were many documents written, and it was taught to many, that the 2nd amendment had to do with militias, and was not an individual right. There are many educated documents written on this. With any luck SCOTUS, in June, will invalidate all of them.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

That comma after Records has thrown some of you. The next sentence is even more clear:

That's a weird thing to say. That comma is just separting a list, and most schools of thought say you can either include a comma before the "and" in such a list or not, but it has no real meaning. When they wrote the constitution they were even less concerned about commas -- i.e. the final version of the 2nd amendment the last comma was included by the printer to make it easier to read and wasn't included in the original draft.

So perhaps you could explain why you think this comma is throwing any of us?

This is settled law.

right up until the black robed 9 unsettle it. Or such a law gets passed and withstands the test of time, if not the courts.

Further, the States went through a long and involved process to obtain reciprocity of each others drivers licenses, just as they are now doing with CHL'S. The Feds couldn't intervene then, with the sole exception of interstate carriers, and they darn well can't intervene now.

For the Courts to agree that the Congress has such power now, would unravel anything left of Federalism. It would also negate the many, many precedents set with all the cases reaching back almost to the beginning of the judiciary.

Long and involved process of reciprocity? It was before my time, but not my parents. Some states began issuing driver's licenses in the early 1900's, but I believe it was North Dakota that didn't issue any until the 1950's (I can't find a reference, but my parents were actually living there when they received their license through the mail just by mailing in a request) or at least began requiring them.

Anyway ... there was never a problem driving between states back then. My parents drove all over the country, between different states, and didn't even have a driver's license for many years.

There's not as much left of federalism as there probably should be, but don't be so dramatic about how such a ruling would destroy the last vestiges of Federalism. It will empower the feds to make laws on how licenses are accepted between states, something many believe they already have (right or wrong). I didn't research every case in the annotation you cited, but I didn't see any that involved recognition of driver's licenses or other licenses.

And just because congress didn't get involved before, doesn't mean the court wouldn't have upheld their ability to.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good argument, and I'm even willing to assume it's right. But I still say if we can pass this law we do it and let the court's decide.

Not let some internet posters or even the article writers at that legal review site determine what we should/shouldn't support.

Thanks for the good post, but I'm still undeterred in my support of this law. I hope the rest of y'all are too.

 

[STAGE 2]

Don't get me wrong, it's a good argument, and I'm even willing to assume it's right. But I still say if we can pass this law we do it and let the court's decide.

So lets use this reasonsing for an assault weapons ban and see how open you are to this logic.

right up until the black robed 9 unsettle it

And again, this is what the brady bunch want to do to the 2nd amendment. Sure heller said the right was individual, but now that we have 6 or 7 justices we like, lets unsettle the 2nd.

 

[Garand Illusion]

So lets use this reasonsing for an assault weapons ban and see how open you are to this logic

Well ... there actually was an assault weapons ban, and the court's didn't overturn it. Where the government got the authority to do this ban I don't have any idea as it didn't involve taxes as the NFA did -- perhaps somebody else does?

But that wasn't a case having to do with "full faith and credit." Just another case where the government seems to have managed to pass a law that trumps state rights. And another reason that we need pro-gun laws at the Federal level, so that we have one more hurdle for the feds to overcome before they can create another AWB.

And again, this is what the brady bunch want to do to the 2nd amendment. Sure heller said the right was individual, but now that we have 6 or 7 justices we like, lets unsettle the 2nd.

Yeah ... so? Whether we like it or not, whether it should be that way or not, SCOTUS determines whether laws are constitutional or not. The brady bunch would like to use that to their favor, we pro-gunners would like to use it for ours. What's your point?

 

[STAGE 2]

But that wasn't a case having to do with "full faith and credit." Just another case where the government seems to have managed to pass a law that trumps state rights. And another reason that we need pro-gun laws at the Federal level, so that we have one more hurdle for the feds to overcome before they can create another AWB.

And again thats not the point. Your attitude of "who cares what the constitution says, lets just do it and see if it will stick" is repugnant to the constitution...period. You can't sit there and say you support it while at the same time dismantle it.

Yeah ... so? Whether we like it or not, whether it should be that way or not, SCOTUS determines whether laws are constitutional or not. The brady bunch would like to use that to their favor, we pro-gunners would like to use it for ours. What's your point?

My point is that you are absolutely no different than the gun grabbers. You don't care about the process or the system as long as you get what you want.

 

[Yellowfin]

My point is that you are absolutely no different than the gun grabbers. You don't care about the process or the system as long as you get what you want.

Actually the end product makes it entirely different. The process and system are messed up if they produce anything other than supporting RKBA. How is bending the system back to the way it should be to get the Constitution to actually be enforced at face value being repugnant to it? What CA, NJ, IL, and various other places do needs to be rectified but their political systems are rigged to where nothing will be done about it. I too hate using the courts for anything or the Fed for anything but something MUST be done about the situation.

 

[Playboypenguin]

So I assume that everyone that is in favor of this measure will also be in favor of the federal government making all states recognize all marriages from every state.

 

[STAGE 2]

Actually the end product makes it entirely different. The process and system are messed up if they produce anything other than supporting RKBA. How is bending the system back to the way it should be to get the Constitution to actually be enforced at face value being repugnant to it?

I already explained this. Strengthening one part of the constitution at the expense of another is not helping it, its hurting it.

 

[Yellowfin]

^ But you're doing precisely that by not doing so, so which to do? Due process and rights come first or process comes first?

 

[Garand Illusion]

So I assume that everyone that is in favor of this measure will also be in favor of the federal government making all states recognize all marriages from every state.

But see ... I don't think anyone, including antipitas, believes they don't constitutionally have that power. They have currently passed a law that states don't have to recognize gay marriage, which is exactly within their powers and was appropriate to do so. Of course, if our elected officials reverse that policy, then that's the law as well.

Nothing to do about it. Except pass the constitutional amendment about marriage being currently considered.

And again thats not the point. Your attitude of "who cares what the constitution says, lets just do it and see if it will stick" is repugnant to the constitution...period. You can't sit there and say you support it while at the same time dismantle it.

You and your "logic" crack me up. But I'll keep responding until I get tired of it.

Again ... you need to reread. I was very clear on both of my points.
1. I believe there IS a case to be made that such a law falls within full faith and credit, which would make it CONSTITUTIONAL regardless of what you think. Anti has posted a link to asite that would seem to indicate otherwise, but there are others with education who disagree with that site. As long as there is a case to be made that it is constitutional, I will support it. Court's decide what is and isn't constitutional, not internet posters.

For myself, I don't know if this would pass constitutional muster. But even if it does get reversed, we will have made a bold statement by getting it passed.

2. Our enemies have no problem passing laws, and they don't agonize over what the constitution says. And these laws stand up to court review, or at least stand up without getting review. For us to take some kind of mythical constitutional "high ground" and refuse to even support or present laws unless a majority of TFL readers, especially the few pompous ones who beliee they know everything, agree ... well, it's like unilateral disarmament. Politics is a battlefield. Either fight as dirty as your opponent or expect to lose. I don't want to lose.

That brings up a lot of questions about you, however. From a rabid belief in mythical property rights to your poo pooing other pro-gun measures because you'd rather pre-emptively refuse to fight for them based on a personal interpretation of constitutional law.

Which one of us sounds most like a Brady planted troll? Hmmmmm?

 

[Playboypenguin]

But see ... I don't think anyone, including antipitas, believes they don't constitutionally have that power. They have currently passed a law that states don't have to recognize gay marriage, which is exactly within their powers and was appropriate to do so. Of course, if our elected officials reverse that policy, then that's the law as well.

That doesn't answer the question. The whole point is you are supporting the feds telling the states they have to honor other states standards of licensing in one instance but saying it is okay to not accept it in another.

How do you justify that double standard?

 

[Garand Illusion]

That doesn't answer the question. The whole point is you are supporting the feds telling the states they have to honor other states standards of licensing in one instance but saying it is okay to not accept it in another.

How do you justify that double standard?

Yessir I am. It's the job of congress to resolve those things (whether it extends to driver's licenses or CCW is still in question, I know).

But congress can set those standards on a case by case basis.

So yes ... they can definitely pass a law that says that gay marriages in one state can be ignored in another state or must be acknowledged. They can do either.

And if they DO have constitional jurisdiction over CCW or driver's licenses, they can pass a separate law on that.

It's the job of congress to settle these types of issues between states. How they do it depends on what people we elect, but there will always be individual laws.

 

[Playboypenguin]

But congress can set those standards on a case by case basis.

Ahhh...so it has nothing to do with fairness or equality. It is simply about whatever you (and people in congress) personally support.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Ahhh...so it has nothing to do with fairness or equality. It is simply about whatever you (and people in congress) personally support.

I honestly don't understand. What's the comparison between whether congress forces states to accept/not have to accept gay marriages or accept/not have to accept CCW's or even driver's licenses from other states?

I don't know how to compare those apples and oranges, but the same people who gave individuals the RKBA gave congress the authority to at least determine how states acknowledge some things (I believe we all agree marriage licenses are there) and so I respect that they have that power.

So I would like congress to pass laws on these issues as they are always supposed to act, at the will of and in the service of we the people.

Do you not?

 

[Playboypenguin]

I honestly don't understand. What's the comparison between whether congress forces states to accept/not have to accept gay marriages or accept/not have to accept CCW's or even driver's licenses from other states?

You honestly can't see the double standard???

You don't see that it is the same process? That allowing the feds to tell the states that have to accept another states standards in one case but not in another.

You are saying the feds have the right to force states to lower their standards to the lowest common denominator of other states. If that is the case then the feds have the right to do this in all categories so you would have to be okay with them saying that all states have to honor temporary work visas and marriage licenses. You would have no right to disagree since you support this federal power.

 

[STAGE 2]

^ But you're doing precisely that by not doing so, so which to do? Due process and rights come first or process comes first?

No I'm not. Because I support the constitution I have an obligation to work within the system to fix the various wrongs that occur. Anything less is simply a personal agenda.

 

[Garand Illusion]

You are saying the feds have the right to force states to lower their standards to the lowest common denominator of other states. If that is the case then the feds have the right to do this in all categories so you would have to be okay with them saying that all states have to honor temporary work visas and marriage licenses. You would have no right to disagree since you support this federal power.
__________________

I think we are talking about the full faith and credit clause, which is part of the constition. So at least in terms of marriage, and other judgments, and possibly CCW's or driver's licenses ... yes. That would appear to be the case.

But with all things, I can lobby my lawmakers to pass laws that I agree with.

Do you not believe in this part of the costitution? Would you like an amendment stripping power of Congress of all abilities to resolve these issues/control how states have to accept judgments etc. from other states?

if so ... then push for such a thing.