House Considering National Concealed Carry Recipricity

[TPaine7]

House Considers Whether Gun Permits Can Cross State Lines

Congressional lawmakers yesterday heard testimony on a federal bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

The sponsors of the legislation, dubbed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, maintain that people’s Second Amendment rights should encompass the right to carry their firearms outside their home states.

The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing yesterday on the legislation, which is sponsored by Florida Republican Cliff Stearns and North Carolina Democrat Heath Shuler.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/09/14/house-considers-whether-gun-permits-should-cross-state-lines/

Stearns' gun bill progressing

The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held hearings Tuesday on the proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced in February by Stearns, an Ocala Republican whose district includes part of Alachua County.

...

The measure would force states that issue concealed-weapons permits to recognize valid permits held by visitors from other so-called concealed-carry states, such as Florida.

...

But opponents appear to face an uphill battle — at least in the House — in trying to stop what has proven to be a popular measure.

Stearns' bill already has enough support to pass the Republican-led House, claiming 243 co-sponsors, including 34 Democrats. The main co-sponsor of the bill is Rep. Heath Shuler, a North Carolina Democrat.

Source: http://www.ocala.com/article/20110915/ARTICLES/110919781/1402/NEWS?Title=Stearns-8217-gun-bill-progressing

It will be good to see New York, California, Hawaii and even DC (which technically has concealed carry) forced to respect CCW licenses from visitors. This country is not a collection of little kingdoms, each with its own laws that supercede the national Constitution. At least it shouldn't be.

States that have abused their power for decades by denying constitutional rights deserve to be dictated to, in the interest of their citizen's rights.

[tblue]

1. OH HELL NO!!! What happened to state's rights?

My gosh, we are going right down the toilet.

[PavePusher]

3. My books are legal in all 50 states....

and so is my immunity from slavery. ("States Rights" that? Oh HELL NO.)

Why not my firearms?

[Euromutt]

5. They went out with the Fugitive Slave Act

Oops, sorry, knee-jerk reaction on my part; that's my standard rejoinder to people who claim the South was fighting for "states' rights" in the Civil War.

No, sorry, this one falls under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution; Article IV, Section 1. Note that H.R.822 only applies to states that have provisions allowing private citizens to carry concealed. Thus, this bill, if enacted, would not permit someone from outside Illinois to carry concealed in Illinois, since Illinois does not permit concealed carry by private citizens at all.

Do you think it's an infringement of "states' rights"* that states are forced to accept each others' driver's licenses?

* - I use quote marks because in my book, states don't have rights; they have powers. Individuals have rights.

[hack89]

26. Yea - why can't states have their own laws on abortion, free speech and marriage? nt

[TheWraith]

44. Even the phrase "state's rights" bugs the shit out of me.

Because if you've read the constitution, you know that STATES DON'T HAVE RIGHTS. States have POWERS. PEOPLE have rights.

[iverglas]

47. except that you're wrong

The subdivisions of a state (i.e. "state" in the sense of a political entity on the world stage) have rights vis-à-vis the central government of the state. Where the subdivision is called a "state", and perhaps especially in the case of a federal state (a federation), the "states" do indeed have rights vis-à-vis that central government.

If the central government of the US attempted to enact legislation about some matter not within its jurisdiction, in constitutional terms, the states would quite properly assert their right to occupy that field to the exclusion of the central government.

There's nothing inherently bad about the concept of "states' rights", it just got identified in the US with a particular set of policies that it was used as cover for and that are widely despised today.

[TheWraith]

48. You're going to lecture me on US government?

In as much as the US constitution includes a number of restrictions on what the federal government may not do, I suppose you could consider those local laws which are left up to the states the "states' rights." But the real world application of those rules is the protection of the RIGHTS of people, and restrictions on what government is allowed to do--including restrictions on state government by the fed, which is vastly more extensive than restrictions ON the feds. National preemption is the basic foundation of the US system of government, and one that was made explicit with the 14th Amendment after some states did not get the message that they were not wholly independent agencies.

[iverglas]

50. for the love of fuck

Did you really think that the concept of government was unique to the US or something? That no other country in the world has or has ever had or will ever have a federal form of government? Cripes. The din in that cave must be deafening, to drown out reality as it seems to do.


National preemption is the basic foundation of the US system of government, and one that was made explicit with the 14th Amendment after some states did not get the message that they were not wholly independent agencies.

And this has precisely bugger all to do with anything I said, which is that there are spheres of jurisdiction assigned to different orders of government in a federal state, and if a subdivision ("state") of the federal state has jurisdiction over particular matters, it has the right, as against the central government, to legislate in relation to those matters to the exclusion of the central government.

Once again, this has nothing to do with the constitutionality of state legislation in terms of guarantees of individual rights in a constitution. Nothing. If a subdivision ("state") of a federal state has exclusive jurisdiction over, say, marriage in the state, the state may not outlaw marriage between people of different religions -- but it may assert its right to legislate in relation to marriage against a central government that tries to intrude into that sphere of jurisdiction.

I dunno, maybe if I say it a few more times ...

[TheWraith]

53. I think that if I decided to lecture you about how Canadian government works...

...without any special understanding of it, just blithely assuming it's all the same, you'd rip me a new asshole.

The fact of the matter is that there is really next to nothing that US states have exclusive jurisdiction over. Including marriage, firearms laws, commerce, etcetera. That's why I brought up the 14th--it holds the states to the principle of equal protection, and hence to the laws formed by the rest of the country.

[iverglas]

55. ah, I see

The fact of the matter is that there is really next to nothing that US states have exclusive jurisdiction over.

That would be why every time the proposal to require NICS checks on private sales of firearms is made, several people start hooting and hollering about how the federal government in the US doesn't have authority over private transactions in states ...

:eyes:


That's why I brought up the 14th--it holds the states to the principle of equal protection, and hence to the laws formed by the rest of the country.

Wowsers. Have you ever read it?

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now maybe you can tell me where that says that people licensed to do something in State A are automatically licensed to do it in all 49 other states and the District of Columbia, I presume.

You could start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning. ...

And once again, for the love of every holy gun in the union, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT legislation that violates the constitutional Bill of Rights. Read that again, now. And again. I am not talking about legislation that violates the Bill of Rights.

I am talking about legislation that is constitutionally acceptable but is DIFFERENT. States can have DIFFERENT LAWS relating to matters that are within their sphere of jurisdiction.

Some states have "castle doctrine" laws. Some don't. Leaving aside the fact that I and others consider those laws to be unconstitutional in themselves, let's just say that states that do not have "castle doctrine" laws are NOT violating the US Constitution.

Under the rules laid down in Roe v. Wade, states may prohibit abortion at certain points in a pregnancy. States that do not do that are not violating the US Constitution, even though some states do it.

States have margins of manoeuvre within their spheres of jurisdiction.

If the licensing of individuals to carry firearms in public is a matter within state jurisdiction, then states may enact different rules governing that process, and none of those different rules is necessarily unconstitutional.

Why do you not understand this? Different laws in different states. When there are different laws in different states, one set of laws is not automatically unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment only applies to laws that violate the Bill of Rights.

As a result of the 14th Amendment, the Constitution also protects rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments. The 14th Amendment DOES NOT MEAN that if one state enacts a particular law, all states must enact the same law. It DOES NOT "hold the states to the laws formed by the rest of the country".

Do you actually not see how ridiculous that statement is??

[TheWraith]

61. The same way someone married in one state is entitled to their it being recognized by other states.

In your desperate haste to simply argue contrary to anything I say, you're pitching the same basic principle as DOMA, that one state can blithely ignore the laws of any other state and the nation at large if they feel like it.

You're also, by the way, arguing against the same principle that says a felony conviction in Nebraska makes it impossible to buy a firearm in Rhode Island.

You might want to look up the phrase "full faith and credit."

[PavePusher]

56. Are you willing to extend that to the Thirteenth Amendment?

Yes or No?

[SteveM]

57. Last I saw, there are only state powers, not rights.

;-)

[slackmaster]

62. States don't have rights. States have powers. Only people have rights.

HTH

[bluestateguy]

2. Since almost every state now has a right to carry law, this makes sense

nt

[MyrnaLoy]

4. I'm sure

all the people who have been murdered by concealed weapon permit holders will love this. Oh...wait. Nevermind, they are dead. Just like the girl at the University of Idaho. Yeah, Sheriffs here thought giving a gun to a guy who had threatened to kill other women was a good idea. Too bad the background check couldn't include his school records. That girl might still be alive.

No, we must have a perfect background check system because now you want other states to just open the doors to other states weak background checks. Yeah, great system, ask the dead people.

[Euromutt]

6. It's the same background check in every instance, namely a federal one

Are you under the impression the FBI conducts a different type of background check on, say, an applicant from Washington state than it does for one from Idaho? The weakness in the background check system, as seen in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, is that it won't turn up anything if the state fails to provide records of persons made ineligible to possess firearms to the FBI. But that can happen with or without a National Reciprocity Act, and in Bustamante's case, he doesn't appear to have had any criminal convictions to pop up in a background check. And as long as we pay at least lip service to due process in this country, merely being accused of wrongdoing is insufficient grounds to deprive a person of life, liberty or property.

[MyrnaLoy]

9. wrong once again

yes the federal portion is the same, the local check differs. His actions were reported but because of State policy couldn't be reported. They are asking the court to change that now. You should really research a little more before popping off. Here's a tip, look at the state guidelines required for background checks. They vary from state to state.

[Euromutt]

34. "His actions were reported but because of State policy couldn't be reported." Say what?

They were reported, but they couldn't be reported?

Has it occurred to you that maybe the reason people seem to have such a hard time understanding you is not due to lack of intellect on their part, but because you're completely fucking incoherent?

Look, Idaho is a "shall issue" state, so the issuing authority can only refuse to issue a concealed carry permit if certain criteria (set out in the statute) are met, such as the applicant being ineligible to possess firearms due to a prior felony conviction. As far as I can make out, Bustamante didn't have anything on his record that would have been grounds to refuse him a permit. You can argue that there should have been, and I'd be hard pressed to disagree, but I repeat that we have things like presumption of innocence and due process in this country, and we (notionally) don't permit government to deprive citizens of life, liberty or property on the basis of suspicions that have not been proven in a court of law.

[TPaine7]

7. How do you think the dead victims murdered by police feel about the fact

that current and retired police officers can carry in all 50 states and the District of Columbia?

In my last seance, they expressed extreme displeasure. YMMV.

Two quibbles:

1) If sherrifs are actually giving away guns, you guys really have it easy.
2) The FBI performs background checks, or so I've been told.

[MyrnaLoy]

12. anecdotal much?

how many dead people killed by off duty and retired police do you have vs people killed with firearms by non-police officers? You made a claim, lets see your numbers.

[TPaine7]

15. When you point out my numbers, I'll support them. n/t

[MyrnaLoy]

17. wait, what?

your words, "When you point out my numbers, I'll support them" I have to prove your claim? Are you getting enough sleep man? I just want you to show me the list of crime weapons bought at a gun show, you seem to think a list exists. I mean it doesn't ya know and you know why? Fear.

No, I can't prove your claim, your numbers for the same reason I can't prove mine. The list doesn't exist. I know why it doesn't, fear and stupidity. You don't want the list to exist. Fear. Responsible gun owner? Really? I would figure a responsible gun owner would want to know how many guns were purchased by criminals and try to stop the loophole that allowed it. Guess not. I'll let you try to prove your unprovable claim. At least I know why it's unprovable. Fear.

[TPaine7]

19. Wow!

Here's what I said:

TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep-19-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. How do you think the dead victims murdered by police feel about the fact

that current and retired police officers can carry in all 50 states and the District of Columbia?

In my last seance, they expressed extreme displeasure. YMMV.

Two quibbles:

1) If sherrifs are actually giving away guns, you guys really have it easy.
2) The FBI performs background checks, or so I've been told.
Beware the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.

Pointing out my numbers would mean pointing out where I made a NUMERICAL claim about the number of police officers who murdered or the number of their victims. As for the rest of it, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[MyrnaLoy]

21. "I have no idea what you're talking about."

I'm sure you don't. That goes without saying.

"How do you think the dead victims murdered by police feel about the fact that current and retired police officers can carry in all 50 states and the District of Columbia?"

Well you made this claim and I want to see your names and numbers to make sure it's not anecdotal. I want to see it's statistical impact. I want to plot it against let's say husbands who kill their wives. Maybe next to people without criminal records who murder. You always want statistical as opposed to anecdotal right? I mean that's what you scream so lets see your numbers. Do you have one case or thousands of victims? How many off duty police officers kill innocent people? This is your defense so maybe you should show us how prevalent it really is. Lets compare it to CWP holders who kill, gimmie something man, you made a claim.

I'll re-quote you, "I have no idea what you're talking about." Yeah, you sure don't. Well, ,unless you're now trying to back away from your anecdotal statement. "dead victims murdered by police" how many? I can see why you don't want to understand though. You made a claim you can't support.

[TPaine7]

27. " You made a claim you can't support."

No I didn't. If your reading comprehension and reasoning are really that poor, I won't waste any more time talking to you.

Bye.

[iverglas]

35. ah, several wrongs make a, er, right

current and retired police officers can carry in all 50 states and the District of Columbia

Whose stupid idea was that, anyhow?

Does compelling a state to accept one bunch of gun-toters, even if they would not qualify to tote guns under local law, make it fit and proper to compel it to accept another?

Not seeing it, myself.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. The law in US generally allows active and former LEOs to carry a weapon without a local CCW permit

While I know you find it distasteful, it is the norm here and is extended for what many of us consider good reason. Retired LEO carry is not always recognized out of state, but active LEO and Federal always is honored.

[Union Scribe]

8. Maybe that school shouldn't employ violent nutbags. nt

[MyrnaLoy]

10. or give them guns

you missed that part. Well, LOL if you had thought before you posted you would realize that If the school gave this guy a job then the background check you're defending gave him a gun. LMAO!!! Please at least try to make it a challenge, that was way too easy.

[MyrnaLoy]

11. Still amused at your post

so I had to come back. So you don't want the school employing violent nutbags right? Your words correct? Now, tell us in your infinite wisdom how they know the guy is a "violent nutbag"? Should we use the same system that does background checks for firearms? Well not that one, it didn't work. So how do we fix it? Hmmm, hiring the unknown violent vs giving the unknown violent a permit to carry a concealed firearm? Wonder how we do that?

You say don't hire the "violent nutbag" correct? Seems your ok giving the "violent nutbag" a gun though. I mean seriously, here you had the option of discussing giving a "violent nutbag" a gun and you tell us "violent nutbags" shouldn't be hired. Do you see yet why your response is so funny? I could draw a diagram I guess. I'll try once more.

Your response, "school shouldn't employ violent nutbags". You could have responded with, "don't give violent nutbag guns!". Odd that you didn't choose that one, very odd. Your outrage was the hiring. Not the giving guns to "violent nutjobs". How odd. He didn't shoot this girl with his job you know, he used a gun he was given a permit for. Hard to kill someone with a teaching job, very easy to kill them with a gun.

Hope this helps you understand the hilarity of your response. Killing someone with a job, LOL. Good one man! It almost seems like you're saying his employment killed her. No, buddy it was the gun he used to kill her. Didn't have nothing to do with his job.

[Union Scribe]

13. Lol, calm down.

I must've hit a nerve, eh? The point is, you ignore everything about stories like this except for the object used. There is a hell of a lot that goes into each murder, leads up to it, and the onus cannot be placed entirely on one instant where a background check is employed. If it were that simple, they could've avoided putting this whackfuck and his victim in the same sphere in the first place. It isn't. That was the point. Now, carry on with your stream-of-thought posts, they don't bother me since I'm barely skimming them.

[MyrnaLoy]

14. hahahaha!

"barely skimming them!" Sure you are,LOL. Hey by the way, have you heard his job didn't kill her, he killed her with a gun that he got because our background check system is flawed and weak. Want to know why it's weak? Because over a million idiots send money to a gun club called the NRA to keep it weak. Barely skim that.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

16. If concealed carry is so bad then I am sure that you are willing, nay eager

to surrender yours. Ya know, the one you claim to have obtained for the convenience of not having to wait to get a firearm.
Hypocrite.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[MyrnaLoy]

18. already did

Check the forum, discussed weeks ago. I hope they let your childish name calling stand. Makes you look, well, you know.

[TPaine7]

20. Did you give up your guns, too? n/t

[MyrnaLoy]

23. No

Unlike you, I'm a responsible gun owner who realizes we can have a better system. I'm a gun owner who doesn't live in fear of NRA/GOP sponsored propaganda. I'm a responsible gun owner who wants a better system. You?

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. You *claim* to be a responsible gun owner. Why should we believe you?

You are also the person that claimed Operation Fast And Furious wasn't a bad idea, so your grasp of reality is demonstrably tenuous.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. I'm a responsible gun owner...

I'm a responsible gun owner who won't be pushed around for the sake of the actions of criminals.

[spin]

33. I am a responsible gun owner with a carry permit....

I have absolutely no intention of not renewing my permit when it expires and I have no intention of selling off my collection of firearms.

I agree that the NRA-ILA propaganda is largely designed to cause paranoia and increase donations and is not based on reality. This is also true of the propaganda pushed by organizations such as the Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

I also agree that our current gun laws need improvement. I agree with Obama that our guns laws should be enforced and the NICS background check system needs better financing and needs to encourage the states to input the names of violent criminals and those legally adjudged as having disqualifying mental illness on a more timely basis. I would also like to see the NICS background check required for all firearms sales, over the counter and private, as long as the fees are reasonable and no further registration of the firearms involved is required then is currently used by dealers.

I also want to insure that the ATF enforces existing law and does not allow the trafficking of firearms in misguided efforts to catch the leadership of drug cartels in Mexico.

We can indeed have a better system and not discourage or limit firearm ownership for honest and sane individuals. Unfortunately, both sides of the gun control issue are locked in their own positions and are unwilling to compromise in the least. The school yard style fighting between the two major political parties is largely the cause of the problems we have in our nation today. We need to elect mature, intelligent and responsible representatives to Congress who will work together to solve problems rather than put the future of their party before the plight of the nation.

Basically we need to guarantee that firearms end up in the right hands as much as possible. Future gun laws should focus on taking firearms away from criminals and people with severe mental issues and insuring that they have a very difficult time obtaining them. Honest and responsible gun owners are not a major issue.

Unfortunately there will always be accidents and tragic incidents involving the misuse of firearms when we live in a nation with well over 300,000,000 such weapons. We all need to work together to reduce them to an absolute minimum.

It's also necessary to realize that firearms in the right hands are used for many legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting and self defense. Many people today owe their life or their health to the fact that they had access to a firearm when they were attacked by an individual who intended to seriously injure or kill them.

It is quite possible that banning or confiscating firearms might lead to an increase in violent crime.

I suspect that since you say that you are a responsible gun owner that you will largely agree with what I have said.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

25. Irrelevant

Legal activity is not restrained just because someone may choose to be criminally irresponsible.

Soon as you learn that, you may be able to have an intelligent and rational discussion regarding firearms. Until then, you'll simply appear an irrational, emotional ideologue who will accept nothing less than her own uninformed beliefs.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. "anecdotal much?"

[rl6214]

40. Just like the girl...blah, blah, blah, University...blah, blah, blah

Keep beating that deat horse to advance your agenda.

[ileus]

22. It would be nice to never have to roam alone...safety first.

[Hoopla Phil]

30. Looks like a good clean bill. The only problem I see though

is that the "anti" states that have may issue will use an obscure state law to charge an out of state CCWer. I'm thinking something like New Jersey charging a person with having hollow point ammo in their handgun. I can also see prosecution of someone daring to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

This is a good law but people will still have to beware and study state laws that they may be CCWing in.

[spin]

32. Good point ...

I have a Florida concealed weapons permit which allows me to carry weapons such as knives.

If I go to another state that has reciprocity with Florida, I have to be aware that I may be able to carry a concealed firearm but not a knife.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity

***snip***

It is important for license holders to understand that when they are traveling in or through another state they are subject to the firearm laws of that state. We have provided links to the state laws or to the licensing authorities' Web page of each of our reciprocity states so that licensees can do the necessary planning and research when preparing to travel.

***snip***

(b) While Florida's law allows licensees to carry stun guns, knives, and billy clubs in a concealed fashion, the laws in these states allow for concealed carry of handguns or pistols ONLY, NOT WEAPONS IN GENERAL. Florida license holders are prohibited from carrying other types of weapons while in these states....emphasis added
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

edited to add comment

[iverglas]

37. well, why?

Why would you not call for the bill to provide for complete reciprocity?

Only guns matter?

Yeah, that must be it. It's really about guns.

Who'd 'a thunk ...

[X_Digger]

38. Cars and driving is the same way..

Why should guns be any different.

For instance, in some states, those under 16/17/18 can't drive after dark or with more than one passenger. A young person from another state of the same age has to follow those regulations as well. States have different regulation of things like bumper height, window tint, mud flaps, and whether or not your headlights have to be on when your windshield wipers are on.

Just like the driver's license compact didn't take away states' ability to regulate things like bumper height or window tint, this doesn't remove states ability to regulate what weapons a licensee may carry, or where they cannot go while carrying.

No, it's not 'really about guns', it's about reciprocity alone. One couldn't carry a 'non-approved' gun in California, nor carry a magazine containing more than 10 rounds in {some northeastern state, I forget which.}

[iverglas]

41. you thought you had a point?

For instance, in some states, those under 16/17/18 can't drive after dark or with more than one passenger. A young person from another state of the same age has to follow those regulations as well.

Um, duh.

And people who are legal to drink at 18 in one state may not drink in states where the age is 21. (The son of a friend of mine experienced this to his detriment when at a gathering in the US when he was legal to drink in Ontario but not in the state in question; he almost got thrown out of military college as a result.)

May lawyers called to the bar in one state practise in another? Nah, didn't think so. It really is about guns, eh? Of course it is.

[X_Digger]

43. *pat* *pat* *pat* If you say so.

:eyes:

Nurses licensed on one state may not work in all other states (some can, depending on which states-- reciprocity agreements again.) Same with insurance agents, contractors, plumbers, electricians, etc.

And in states that do have reciprocity agreements, the licensee has to abide by the rules set forth in the state where the work is.

This follows a long-established tradition of reciprocity.

Why would you not call for the bill to provide for complete reciprocity?

Because reciprocity agreements leave it up to individual states to determine under what conditions one may carry. Exactly what has your knickers in a twist now?

[iverglas]

36. why not just eliminate state laws?

No regulation of any activity should be different in one state from what it is in another, surely.

Why should a North Carolinian driving in Illinois not be permitted to observe the North Carolina speed limits while doing that?

[TPaine7]

39. Yes, iverglas. The Constitution of the United States of America is comparable

to local traffic speed laws.

If only the US Constitution were deserving of respect, like the supreme law of the land in, say, Canada.

Recently, I observed that some on this board despise America and her legal traditions. I'm sure you still can't think of anyone in that category, can you, Your Sophistry?

[iverglas]

42. it must be sad

to be afflicted with that disability that involves inability to detect sarcasm, eh?

Of course, it would be sadder still to be afflicted with the awful drive to misrepresent that calls for pretending one is unable to detect sarcasm. Tsk.

[TPaine7]

45. Oh, I saw the sarcasm.

No regulation of any activity should be different in one state from what it is in another, surely.

Why should a North Carolinian driving in Illinois not be permitted to observe the North Carolina speed limits while doing that?

The point of the sarcasm was that states should be able to regulate things like speeding laws in their boundaries. By analogy, your sarcasm says that states should have the power to "regulate" carriage of guns in public by the public--and your posting history shows that your preferred "regulation" of bearing arms in public by ordinary people is a ban.

However, bearing of arms--a constitutional right--is not comparable to speeding laws. Implying that a constitutional right is on the same level as speeding laws shows the level of your respect for the US Constitution.

[iverglas]

46. oh gawd

By analogy, your sarcasm says that states should have the power to "regulate" carriage of guns in public by the public--and your posting history shows that your preferred "regulation" of bearing arms in public by ordinary people is a ban.

However, bearing of arms--a constitutional right--is not comparable to speeding laws. Implying that a constitutional right is on the same level as speeding laws shows the level of your respect for the US Constitution.

It's pretty much hopeless trying to conduct any kind of discussion with you as the interlocutor, isn't it?

The constitutionally protected nature of an activity has nothing to do with any of this. Ye gods and little fishies.

Individuals in the US have a constitutionally protected right to counsel in certain situations. This does not mean that one state must allow a person authorized to practise law in another state to practise law within its borders.

If a state is alleged to be imposing unconstitutional restrictions on an activity, that is a matter to be determined by the courts of competent jurisdiction, and the impugned legislation struck down if appropriate.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the state (or any jurisdiction of any polity that has constitutional powers to regulate certain activities) must be compelled to allow persons who have not qualified for a licence to engage in the activity in that state to do so.

Obviously, there are gradations of regulation that will be constitutionally permissible. The fact that one form of regulation is permissible does not mean that it must be adopted, so different jurisdictions will predictably adopt different forms of regulation, all of which may be entirely constitutional. (You're familiar with Roe v. Wade, I'm sure, by way of analogy. Your Supreme Court held that states may regulate abortion in certain ways, not that they must; hence there are different forms of regulation of abortion in different states, all of which may be entirely permissible under that decision.)

None of this has the least thing to do with my opinion of anything, of course. Why would you pretend that my opinion that the carrying of firearms should not be permitted is relevant to this subject? Just to be as incoherent as possible?

[TPaine7]

58. No, I'm just a mortal. Even so, I'm right and your analogies fail.

Individuals in the US have a constitutionally protected right to counsel in certain situations. This does not mean that one state must allow a person authorized to practise law in another state to practise law within its borders.

In your example, the right belongs to the client and the authorization requirement to the lawyer. In the case at hand, the right and the licensing requirement belong to the same person.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the state (or any jurisdiction of any polity that has constitutional powers to regulate certain activities) must be compelled to allow persons who have not qualified for a licence to engage in the activity in that state to do so.

One problem is that the unconstitutional enclaves ban open carry and refuse to license ordinary folks to carry concealed. That is the way it is done in New York City, in New Jersey, many areas of California in Hawaii and in D.C.

Obviously, there are gradations of regulation that will be constitutionally permissible. The fact that one form of regulation is permissible does not mean that it must be adopted, so different jurisdictions will predictably adopt different forms of regulation, all of which may be entirely constitutional. (You're familiar with Roe v. Wade, I'm sure, by way of analogy. Your Supreme Court held that states may regulate abortion in certain ways, not that they must; hence there are different forms of regulation of abortion in different states, all of which may be entirely permissible under that decision.)

The "gradation", as practiced in the anti-constitutional enclaves, is ZERO carrying of guns by ordinary people. If most states required a license to get an abortion (not to perform one) and some states recognized other state's licenses (but others didn't) and some states only gave licenses to rich, famous or connected people (and government employees), then this would be comparable.

INone of this has the least thing to do with my opinion of anything, of course. Why would you pretend that my opinion that the carrying of firearms should not be permitted is relevant to this subject? Just to be as incoherent as possible?

You actually have a point here. In principle, your opinion has nothing to do with the validity of your analogies (they fall under their own weight). I would have been more easily understood had I explicitly pointed out the connection between your views and the "gradation" of "regulation" practiced in the anti-constitutional enclaves. You and they are in perfect agreement that ordinary people must not be "allowed" to carry guns.

New York City, New Jersey, many areas of California, Hawaii and D.C believe that their power to forbid the people to BEAR arms is as legitimate as their power to forbid people to drive faster than X mph. Like you, they're wrong.

[TheWraith]

49. Analogy fail. Speed limits ARE pretty much universal across state lines.

And a person with a driver's license from NC is fully able to drive legally in Illinois, even though the requirements for getting a license in Illinois may be more difficult.

[iverglas]

51. not last time I was there

... which was why I chose NC as an example.

Do catch up, though. Replying to a post which has already developed into a subthread, without regard to the ensuing discussion, is really just kind of pointless.

A person who has been called to the bar in State A is not automatically permitted to practise law in State B.

Surely there should be no such restrictions; once one has been called to the bar in State A, i.e. has met that state's requirements for authorization to practise law, one must be permitted to practise law in all other states. No?

[TheWraith]

52. I thank you for your petty snark and goalpost moving.

It shows you have no reasonable counter-argument.

[iverglas]

54. I know, I know

Nobody here has yet grasped the concept of "analogy", and I didn't expect anyone to start today.

Offering an analogy is not "goalpost moving", and I'm afraid you don't seem to have a clue what that one means either.

[gejohnston]

60. One issue is knowledge of that state's law

and precedents set by that state's supreme court.

[eallen]

59. The problem is resolving different standards....

Texas requires classroom training and a firing range proficiency exam before issuing a CCP. Which seems perfectly sensible to me. In contrast, some states require nothing at all.

I'm in favor of CCPs. But I'm also in favor of testing those who want that.

:hippie: