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.