Senator Vitter To Offer Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment

[STAGE 2]

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.

What you believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the constitution and caselaw says. You keep saying that there are "others" that disagree with both of these. Lets see your bonafides. "Cause I said so" is not authoritative.

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.

Yes. Bold and beautiful and clear that you have no respect for federalism or our constitution.

2. Our enemies have no problem passing laws, and they don't agonize over what the constitution says.

And thats what makes them our enemies. They don't follow the constitution.

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.

Fight dirty all you want. However do it within the confines of the constitution. When you stop doing this, you've lost what your fighting for.

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.

Not a personal interpretation. A constitutional view supported by legislative history, judicial precedent and a clear understanding of the constitution. You've made it blatantly clear that everything is negotiable as long as it deals with guns. Thats not what the constitution says, nor what the framers intended.

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

Yup, I'm a brady planted troll. I've done pro bono work on behalf of gun owners, contributed to amicus briefs and legislative proposals in support of the second, worked on congressional campaigns of pro liberty and pro 2nd congressmen. But I'm really Sarah's super secret silent assassin.

Keep on with the personal stuff. It lets me know you've run out of legitimate support.

 

[apr1775]

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.

Yes, Antipitas, you did give a link, I missed that. I need to read it. Thanks.

 

[Garand Illusion]

What you believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the constitution and caselaw says. You keep saying that there are "others" that disagree with both of these. Lets see your bonafides. "Cause I said so" is not authoritative.

Like I said ... google it. There are many sites.

Yes. Bold and beautiful and clear that you have no respect for federalism or our constitution.

Uhhhhh. Yeah. Sure.

And thats what makes them our enemies. They don't follow the constitution.

Actually, what makes them our enemies is that by any means they can they intend to take away our RKBA. If SCOTUS reads the 2nd as being a States' right, and they get a federal gun ban passed in some manner that is not overturned in court (like the AWB or ban on machine guns) then they HAVE followed the constitution.

Fight dirty all you want. However do it within the confines of the constitution. When you stop doing this, you've lost what your fighting for.

If we pass this law and it survives court scrutiny, then we HAVE stayed within the confines of the constitution. The courts define the constition, not you or any other individual here.

Passing laws that pass court challenge may seem like "dirty" fighting to you, but that's the way laws go.

Not a personal interpretation. A constitutional view supported by legislative history, judicial precedent and a clear understanding of the constitution. You've made it blatantly clear that everything is negotiable as long as it deals with guns. Thats not what the constitution says, nor what the framers intended.

Your personal opinion. The judges make decisions, you state opinions.

Legal decisions are more important.

Yup, I'm a brady planted troll. I've done pro bono work on behalf of gun owners, contributed to amicus briefs and legislative proposals in support of the second, worked on congressional campaigns of pro liberty and pro 2nd congressmen. But I'm really Sarah's super secret silent assassin.

I was going to do some pro bono work on behalf of the 2nd amendment, but my busy schedule as an astronaut and CIA agent precluded it.

If you'd like to identify yourself, your law firm, etc., please do. I will certainly extend to you a great deal more courtesy and respect.

But I have read whole novels of your posts, and I have read amicus briefs ... I don't see any comparisons. Debate all you want, but if you're going to declare yourself a professional legal expert than we need some proof, or you're just another repetitious poster on the internet.

So am I ... but that just means we're on totally equal footing.

 

[STAGE 2]

Like I said ... google it. There are many sites.

No, thats not how it works. You are asserting that this is perfectly fine. Lets see some supporting evidence. "Google it" is the battle cry of the lazy and disingenuous.

Actually, what makes them our enemies is that by any means they can they intend to take away our RKBA. If SCOTUS reads the 2nd as being a States' right, and they get a federal gun ban passed in some manner that is not overturned in court (like the AWB or ban on machine guns) then they HAVE followed the constitution.

And thats the shortsightedness that is going to kill this country. The 2nd amendment is no more or no less important than all of the other constitutional principles. You may be fine with trashing the rest of the constitution, but I'm not.

If we pass this law and it survives court scrutiny, then we HAVE stayed within the confines of the constitution. The courts define the constition, not you or any other individual here.

Passing laws that pass court challenge may seem like "dirty" fighting to you, but that's the way laws go.

Ok, so if the courts rule that the warrant requirment is an unnecessary formality and a "reasonable" search and seizure is when the police think a crime could possibly be happening, thats just fine with you.

Your personal opinion. The judges make decisions, you state opinions.

Legal decisions are more important.[/qutoe]

Apparently not since you've dismissed all the legal arguments given to you thus far. At least you're consistent in that regard.

I was going to do some pro bono work on behalf of the 2nd amendment, but my busy schedule as an astronaut and CIA agent precluded it.

If you'd like to identify yourself, your law firm, etc., please do. I will certainly extend to you a great deal more courtesy and respect.

But I have read whole novels of your posts, and I have read amicus briefs ... I don't see any comparisons. Debate all you want, but if you're going to declare yourself a professional legal expert than we need some proof, or you're just another repetitious poster on the internet.

So am I ... but that just means we're on totally equal footing.

Why? I'm just a brady troll right

 

[Playboypenguin]

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.

And in doing so you open the door to the whole sha-bang. Once you establish the fed's power to impose it's rules upon the states you cannot start picking and choosing how it does so.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Why? I'm just a brady troll right

I don't know. More likely that than a lawyer.

I have yet to see anything interesting or inciteful in your posts, but they are condescending without adding much to the discussion (i.e. accusing someone of being anti-constitution because they dare to disagree with you). So I changed my setup so that from now on all I see on your posts is:

This user is on your Ignore List.

I suggest you do the same for me. We just don't seem to play nice together.

Enjoy your retort. I'll never see it.

 

[Garand Illusion]

And in doing so you open the door to the whole sha-bang. Once you establish the fed's power to impose it's rules upon the states you cannot start picking and choosing how it does so.

Yes ... but if it's is constitutional Federal power to do so, how can we change that?

Doesn't the constition establish the power we're talking about (at least over marriages, if not over CCW or Driver's licenses?).

 

[Al Norris]

And with the insults being flung, we're done.