Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by LKB3rd, Jan 24, 2009.
Oh do tell.
You have not the slightest idea what it means in the context of Con Law.
It could be argued that this bill is constitutional under Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause states: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Whether you consider concealed carry a right or a privilege it is covered there.
I am not an expert to know how far that extends. In the bad old days you could be married in NY and not married in AL (mixed race marriage). That's still the case where you can be married in MA and unmarried in TN (homosexual marriage).
But I think that's a valid argument. My DL is valid, why shouldn't my HCP be?
here is a very good reason...
You could very well be able to get a CCW in one state, yet be prohibated in another... not to mention the whole, out of state issuing thing.
BTW there is federal law stating that other states do not have to reconise "common law" or "homo sexual" marrages.
Why should CCW be diffrent?
You make a good point I hadn't thought of. My daughter turns 16 this April. In TN she can get a driver's license. In NY she would have to wait until she was 18 (or whatever it is now) to get one. So her TN license would not be valid in NY.
Taurus has a great point
Although I am sure the bill indeed is well meaning, it sets precedence of federal governement interference in states' rights. IT amazes me how things that sound like great ideas, sound terrible when the possession of them changes hands.
I'm sure some thought the patriot act sounded great until it got into the hands of the other guys. As I recall the IRS was used punitively against people under certain administrations. What's to stop the same thing from happening with a redefined Patriot act or in our specific example, Federal enforcement of 2a?
Again though, we've been drifting this way ever since the Senate became a publicly elected official instead of one elected by the state govt and concerned with states' rights.:banghead:
Bad idea IMO.
Die thread die.
Anything that adds more federal oversight can't be good IMHO.
Here is the definition of "infringe" as it was used in 1791.
To Infringe: Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language 1755
1. To violate; to break laws or contracts.
Those many had not dar'd to do that evil,
If the first man that did th' edict infringe,
Had answer'd for his deed. ...............Shakespear: "Measure for Measure".
Having infring'd the law, I wave my right
as King, and thus submit myself to fight. .................Waller.
2. To destroy; to hinder.
Homilies, being plain and popular instructions, do not
infringe the efficacy, although but read. ..................Hooker
Bright as the deathless gods and happy, she
From all that may infringe delight is free. ............... Waller.
It means the same thing today:
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
v. t. 1.
To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law, right, or contract.
[imp. & p. p. Infringed ; p. pr. & vb. n. Infringing .]
If the first that did the edict infringe,
Had answered for his deed.
The peace . . . was infringed by Appius Claudius.
2. To hinder; to destroy; as, to infringe efficacy; to infringe delight or power.
v. i. 1.
To break, violate, or transgress some contract, rule, or law; to injure; to offend.
2. To encroach; to trespass; - followed by on or upon; as, to infringe upon the rights of another.
Mirriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary
infringe transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2: obsolete defeat, frustrate
infringe intransitive verb
encroach _ used with on or upon<infringe on our rights>
Since Justice Scalia, in DC v. Heller, used "Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1773 Edition" in defining words used in the Second Amendment, I do believe I'm safe doing the same. (Scalia's edition is newer, but essentially the same as my 1755 edition.)
I know what "infringe" means in constitutional law and in good old(and new) plain English. I use it as it's defined as well.
You see, it does make a difference - especially in the context of what has happened to our ability to properly and peaceably arm ourselves - knowing why we cannot lawfully carry arms in certain states. It isn't because we've lost the right, it's because the right has been infringed. It isn't necessary for us to reclaim the right, or have God re-endow us with the right. It is merely up to us to uninfringe the right.
It's hard for some people to accept that our government has done something wrong, but, it has. With the wrong people in those positions of power, all we need do is turn our backs for a few seconds and they will run amok with their agendas. Honorable people in positions of power will not deviate from that which is right whether we're watching or not; even if we DON"T realize what they are doing is either right or wrong when we ARE watching.
No one has lost the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Maryland. Maryland legislators have simply infringed their right.
You've got to know what is wrong and who did it if you wish to correct it. Now, go get the bastards!
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.
Separate names with a comma.