Yes, it works for driver's licenses -- because the States have agreed to it among themselves. I doubt that a similar agreement among the States is politically viable for concealed weapons licenses.
AWESOME!!!
- Thread starter Poper
- Start date
Yes, it works for driver's licenses -- because the States have agreed to it among themselves. I doubt that a similar agreement among the States is politically viable for concealed weapons licenses.
230RN
It's like swimming to shore in an ebb tide.
Rust Collector's comments are spot on.
And Hartkopf:
<tantrum>
I've been screaming like a little girl over the very real dangers of the Federal government getting involved in any way whatsoever repeat, in any way in regulating or even smiling at national carry issues.
Ain't nobody never heard of the term "mission creep?"
Or "camel's nose under the tent flap?"
</tantrum>
Anyhow, it's good to hear of another judge swinging toward the concept that the Bill Of Rights was written "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of" the government's powers.
Terry, 230RN
REF (Often missed Preamble to the Bill Of Rights):
^That's a clickable link.
---------------------
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
And Hartkopf:
Spot on again!Nation wide carry that somehow ends up giving us federal rules and oversight?Antis would help this along.
<tantrum>
I've been screaming like a little girl over the very real dangers of the Federal government getting involved in any way whatsoever repeat, in any way in regulating or even smiling at national carry issues.
Ain't nobody never heard of the term "mission creep?"
Or "camel's nose under the tent flap?"
</tantrum>
Anyhow, it's good to hear of another judge swinging toward the concept that the Bill Of Rights was written "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of" the government's powers.
Terry, 230RN
REF (Often missed Preamble to the Bill Of Rights):
^That's a clickable link.
---------------------
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
Interesting that Full Faith and Credit is narrowly interpreted but Interstate Commerce has been used to put a federal finger in every pie.
Nope. Wildly "optimistic" and no bases for such an interpretation.
Old Dog
Member
Lawyers. Go figure.
OP
OP
Poper
Member
Maybe I should have said "Constitutional Carry for everyone?"
After all, SCOTUS has incorporated the 2nd Amendment. It has been said that it is just as meaningful and just as valid as every other right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
I'm thinking each decision like this from a lower court that is rooted in Bruen makes us (the 2A community) stronger.
We do appear to be gaining ground.
gwpercle
Member
Exactly ... "They" don't want CC Licenses to work ... that way or any way !
So you will never see it happen ... they like to put up roadblocks to our freedoms .
Government can't trust armed citizens ... too hard to control , free armed men fight too hard to stay free ... and "they" can't have that .
Gary
