I was readin' the Constitution when...

[AmericanFreeBird]

I came across Article IV.

It says:

"Section 1: Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescibe the Manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Now, read this whole artice and you tell me why you can't use your state's CCW permit in any state of the union? Your permit is a state record and according to this part of the constitution every other state has to honor that record.

Why have I never heard of a case based on this article IV?

What do you all think?

 

[Col. Mustard]

It's puzzling, sure enough...

There have been bills introduced in Congress that would mandate reciprocity based on that section, but they never seem to go anywhere.

The Second is just the redheaded stepchild of the BOR; not accorded the same respect as the other Amendments. As somebody said once, if the media promoted the Second the way they circle the wagons around the First, we'd all be carrying personal tactical nukes. Go figure.

 

[Bergeron]

AmericanFreeBird, you are absolutley correct, a CCW permit should be treated just like your driver's lisence. However, this will not be brought up until someone is arrested on it and decides to plead his case to the courts. Most of us would just as soon avoid that whole process, so the Consitituion remains ignored

 

[Augustwest]

This has crossed my mind before too.

If each state honors the others' drivers' licenses, why should a pistol permit be any different?

A brief search at Findlaw didn't turn up any relevant cases, but I'm far from expert at such things.

 

[Henry Bowman]

This horse is dead.

This dead horse has been beaten before. Other states will recognize that your CCW "permit" or "license" allows you to carry in that (your) state. Same with a business license or even a marriage license (license to get married in that state only). Driver's licenses are reciprically honored because of agreements between all the states, not because of the full faith and credit clause. Other states will recognize your marriage because it was a private event that took place and was then recorded with the state. The other states recognize your state's records, not its permits and licenses. The solution re CCW: obey the 2nd Amendment and do away with permits, licenses and records re gun ownership, possession, use, sale, transfer, etc.

 

[AmericanFreeBird]

I've carried my pistol with me to many states, that's not the point exactly Henry. The point is GETTIN CAUGHT carrying in another state in violation of their laws.

The Big C says the other states have to honor the public records (eg. the priveleges they grant) universally. Now, I agree with you that a right certainly isn't a privelege and it's a bad thing to think of them in that light but that is where we are today.

CCW permits are a "RECORD" of the state issuing them.

 

[BigG]

"Privileges? We don need no stinkin privileges!"

That's why I have avoided the CCW trap for so long, it's a right in my mind, not subject to approval by THE STATE.

 

[Gray Peterson]

The same reason why same sex marriage can be chosen not to be recognized by any state. Before the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, all states were required by federal law to recognize out of state marriages. However, after it looked like Hawaii was on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage, DOMA was passed, allowing the states to not recognize marriages of the same sex.

I could make arguments that it violates the spirit of the full faith and credit clause, and make allusions to other possible ways that the US government could "exclude" along, say, racial or ethnic grounds, but that's a whole 'nuther argument entirely.

 

[citizen]

"The Big C"- I like that!!

 

[mpthole]

"Privileges? We don need no stinkin privileges!"
That's why I have avoided the CCW trap for so long, it's a right in my mind, not subject to approval by THE STATE.

I refuse to get a permit for the same reason. Recently though I've really been thinking about caving and applying for the FL non-resident permit; but I just can't seem to bring myself to pay for the fingerprinting and having my "rights" infringed even more.

 

[voilsb]

this clause has been successfully used by oregonians to get out of paying sales tax in other states (oregonians don't have to pay sales tax). usually, it's a small deal, but I know some people who have used it to avoid paying sales tax on a car they bought in another states.

I was just thinking the other day that this means, constitutionally, all states are required to recognize all other states' ccw permits. however, also constitutionally, the CCW permit shouldn't even exist as it's a right, not a regulated privilege. only vermont seems to understand that

 

[publius]

mpthole,

I resisted for many years for the same reason. I finally relented and now have a FL CWP.

I appreciate the argument against CWPs. We should not need them. Here are my reasons for giving in on this one:

1. Though we should not need them, we do according to the people with the guns and the prisons. You have to pick your battles if you want to live to fight another day.

2. It really drives the gun grabbers nuts. They can't stand how relatively easy and cheap it is to get one here in FL, and they cringe every time another one is issued. Call it a cheap thrill for me.

3. Although I would prefer that the government not know the information, fact is, the information we end up collecting on concealed carry by private citizens is useful for our side of the great gun debate. The data show that lots and lots of us carry, and almost none of us go on mad rampages. I figured it wouldn't hurt for the data to show one more person carrying and not killing.

I'd love to see Vermont Carry nationwide, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime, so I'm makin' the best of a bad situation.

 

[whoami]

Now, read this whole artice and you tell me why you can't use your state's CCW permit in any state of the union?

Why not? Probably the same reason the government reps in US v. Emerson stated that the second amendment only applied to firearms that are being used in active service in the National Guard maybe?

 

[publius]

On the thread topic, I agree w/HenryB.

Other states will recognize that your CCW "permit" or "license" allows you to carry in that (your) state....Driver's licenses are reciprically honored because of agreements between all the states, not because of the full faith and credit clause. Other states will recognize your marriage because it was a private event that took place and was then recorded with the state. The other states recognize your state's records, not its permits and licenses.

They're allowed to whack gators in Louisiana. Does that mean it's not a felony for me here in Florida? I wish. I'd run right up there, buy a permit, come home, and start blastin!

They can gamble in Vegas. I think I'll go buy some land on the ocean and set up a huge casino in Florida. I mean, once I get my permit from the Nevada Gambling Commission or whatever, it should be OK, right?

 

[AmericanFreeBird]

Unlike building a casino eg. having an Arizona permit to do so, which may actually be covered by the 9th amendment (The right of the people to build casinos shall not be infringed?), the 2nd Amendment is clearly spelled out in the Big C.

A state then reasonably (debateable) regulates that right to say "If you want to carry a pistol you have to jump through these hoops and then your right to arms will be honored." Well, obtaining a CCW in your own state should activate that right in all states due to this clause because the clause says "Full faith and credit (credit meaning recognition of merit) shall be given IN each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of EVERY OTHER STATE..."

Every state is required to recognize and transfer the merit (substance of) other states records, acts (blah blah) and confer any such priveleges granted by such to the individual IN THEIR STATE regardless of the individuals state of residence.

I rest my case, I have the right to carry anywhere. Now if only the US Congress will clarify this...

 

[Henry Bowman]

OK, AFBird. Come to Ohio and carry concealed. Let us know how it works out for 'ya.

 

[CleverNickname]

I think there's a big difference between trying to make two states that have CCW permit laws recognize each other's permits, and trying to make a state that has no provision for permits recognize a permit from another state. In the first instance, they're regulating the same activity. In the second instance, they're not regulating the same activity, because it's illegal to CCW those states.

 

[Quartus]

the CCW permit shouldn't even exist as it's a right, not a regulated privilege.

Hmmm. Interesting twist. Since the CCW itself is a violation of the Constitution, how could you go before SCOTUS and argue that the same Constitution requires that it be given full faith and credit?


Methinks this would be tantamount to surrender! If SCOTUS agrees with your argument, you have got SCOTUS implicitly okaying the issue of CCWs, which is NOT what we want them to do!

 

[AmericanFreeBird]

Quartus,

Well I agree with you and certainly you are right, this is a right, not a regulateable privelege. Fact!

Now for reality it IS regulated. Regulation of rights is acknowleged as an acceptable practice in the SCOTUS, The US Congress, and the Executive branch. Rights can be and are regultated. They should not be I agree, but they are.

We are all fooling ourselves if we think that something short of a civil war will fix the problem of regulating rights. There will never be a SCOTUS decision that allows you to again mail order a belt fed .30cal machinegun or 20mm anti-armour cannon. You will not be allowed to posses grenades, rockets, mortars, and armoured vehicles without permits and licences. Not to mention the everyday garden variety S&W .357mag six shooter. There will never be a legal victory that finally restores this kind of freedom. Mark my words carefully, if that is what you want, a totally unregulated return to freedom, then start planning for war right now. There is no other way to get that freedom back, check your history books.

On the other hand, putting up with licences and forcing their mutual acceptance would be a step toward "reasonable" regulation. I don't like it either but that is where we are. If that is unacceptable then show me the war plan?

 

[Henry Bowman]

AFBird: The plan can be found in "Unintended Consequenses" by John Ross (Accurate Press, 1996). This is a must read for everyone on this board (and should be required reading for all elected public servants).

 

[AmericanFreeBird]

Henry,

I've read the book and by the looks of your username, you're going to be starting this little party right? You start it and I'll be there.

The government is in the process of making the UC senario impossible to pull off. Being able to track everyone all the time they will "know" who's missing in action and soon have the dogs on their trail(s). Better start soon before Ridge gets his KGB department in order.



AFB

 

[Henry Bowman]

AFB: You are so right. As HB said in the book, the problem is knowing when to act -- not too soon, not too late. I'll let you know when my alarm clock goes off.

 

[AmericanFreeBird]

In the somewhat less than imortal words of an actress in "Aliens" (the second movie)...

"Let's rock <rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat boom>"

I would prefer peaceful demostrations and strikes to accomplish the goal but you need a lot of people motivated to get those and there may not be many willing to commit to doing it.

Maybe the American Freedom expiriment has failed, people are too stupid to be free. Maybe they need fences put up by their handlers to keep them moving in the right direction? I for one am sick to death of this nanny state PC garbage.

We shall see...

 

[Quartus]

I understand your point, 'Freebird, but I think we may see some partial restoration, if we can get SCOTUS to clearly recognize the individual right aspect. As long as that faint possibility exists, I wouldn't want to push it further away by getting a ruling on CCW that implicity legitimizes them.


As for knowing when....

Hmmm. The FF had to rouse a populace that was, by and large, moral, educated, and interested in the future. They built a revolution on a very different foundation than we have today. Most Americans are none of the above. "I want mine!" is the highest virtue in our society today.

Military considerations aside (high tech on thier side, small arms on ours) I don't think we can get a revolution going today.


:banghead:

 

[CaesarI]

I've analyzed the military situation before. I concluded that the only way to start a revolution and succeed was with at least part of the US military.

Jim Bell's work, Assassination Politics was a good idea too, but it scared the G-men, and they're taking steps against it.

I don't think we could raise a revolutionary army large enough today, moreover, we don't have the distance from our oppressors advantage the FF's had.

I think a better alternative was proposed by Ms Rand in Atlas Shrugged.

-Morgan