National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill?

[AlbertH]

If the Democrats will vote for it, then it is because of the losing battle you described. They probably think it can only work if ALL states conform to the requirements of the most restrictive state(s). Which one would that be? Illinois? New York? California? Illyorkifornia?

BTW, NO state is lenient. Some are just less restrictive than others. There is no leniency in restricting a right.

The U S Constitution Articles of incorporation give the states the RIGHT TO REGULATE. plain and simple.. I can show it to you if you like.

Then along with rights come responsibilities.

A few states do not require fingerprinting nor photos on their CPL. with the advancement of computers and printers it is rather easy to falsify one of these documents.

Some states have shall issue leaving the decision up to the local sheriff so if he don't like you, you don't get a permit.

Maybe some of you feel that is fair, but wouldn't a true "Patriot" demand that the entire U S Constitution be followed and not just parts.

My Michigan resident CPL is accepted in 40 states, Unfortunately Michigan has decided to accept all Resident CPL permits except Illinois. I have half a notion to start a writing campaign to get our attorney general to change that policy to the "if you do, I will policy" that some states abide by. Especially considering that Michigan does require its CPL applicants to provide fingerprints, and to take handgun safety classes.

What is fair for the goose is also fair for the gander.

just my thoughts,

Al

 

[JRH6856]

The U S Constitution Articles of incorporation give the states the RIGHT TO REGULATE. plain and simple.. I can show it to you if you like.

What are these "Articles of Incorporation" to which you refer?

The US Constitution gives nothing to the states. NOTHING! The Constitution is all about what the states "give" to the federal government.

 

[JTHunter]

LNK said:

As much as we would like the idea of national right to carry reciprocity, I am a little leery of the federal government taking states power away from them. We might be setting a bad precedent. I think keeping the power in the states is the best thing for America....Just my $.02

That would require national registration. We know where that could go, don't we.

 

[AlbertH]

What are these "Articles of Incorporation" to which you refer?

The US Constitution gives nothing to the states. NOTHING! The Constitution is all about what the states "give" to the federal government.

Sorry If I don't use the exact definition or name for the U S constitution itself, its before the amendments and I mistakenly said that the states rights are in the constitution instead of in the 10th amendment:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The state legislatures are an arm of the people and thus granted the right to enact state laws

Should the citizens of said state disagree with those laws, they can try and overturn them through a ballot proposal or through the court system. Beware though, depending on the states constitution, a ballot proposal may not work. This past election, we Michiganders shot down a law by ballot vote, within 12 weeks congress and the governor passed an almost identical law but added an appropriations amendment to it so, WE THE PEOPLE cannot legally bring the law up as a ballot proposal again.

Just my interpretation

Al

 

[JRH6856]

Albert, tour interpretation may be a bit skewed. The Constitution "grants" nothing to the states. It is a document whereby the states grant certain powers and authority to the federal government. The 10th Amendment doesn't grant anything. It is simply a statement by the states confirming that powers not delegated or that the states have agreed shall be surrendered, are reserved and retained by those who hold them originally--the states or the people themselves.

The various state Constitutions operate similarly, in which the people delegate and/or surrender to the state, certain powers and authority to govern their actions and interactions with each other.

 

[AlbertH]

Albert, tour interpretation may be a bit skewed. The Constitution "grants" nothing to the states. It is a document whereby the states grant certain powers and authority to the federal government. The 10th Amendment doesn't grant anything. It is simply a statement by the states confirming that powers not delegated or that the states have agreed shall be surrendered, are reserved and retained by those who hold them originally--the states or the people themselves.

The various state Constitutions operate similarly, in which the people delegate and/or surrender to the state, certain powers and authority to govern their actions and interactions with each other.

Read the 10'th amendment a bit closer, and then do some research.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States(i.e. Federal Laws), are reserved to the States respectively(i.e. State laws), or to the people".(i.e. Individual rights)


Either the Feds have totalitarian authority which you seem to be proclaiming by saying that neither the constitution nor the 10th amendment grants the states any rights, or the States are granted some rights which is why they are allowed to enact state laws.

Sorry, but you can't use both sides of the coin.

The wording within the 10th amendment provides the individual states with rights and thus the ability to govern and to to create laws.



Al

 

[JRH6856]

Either the Feds have totalitarian authority which you seem to be proclaiming by saying that neither the constitution nor the 10th amendment grants the states any rights, or the States are granted some rights which is why they are allowed to enact state laws.

Sorry, but you can't use both sides of the coin.

Apparently we are not using the same currency. You keep saying that the Constitution grants rights to the states and to the people. It does no such thing, in either the original articles or in the amendments. The Constitution was not created by the federal government, the Constitution was created by the states (which in turn are creations of the people) in order to create the federal government. The creation can not and does not "grant rights" to the creator. It works the other way around.

The creators (the states), by way of the instrument of creation (the Constitution) delegate and surrender certain specified powers and authority to the creation (the federal government) and at the same time, confirm that all powers and authority not so delegated or surrendered are reserved and retained by the creators (the states and the people).

This was the nation created by means of the Constitution. Under this form, the states were sovereign. They were answerable to no higher authority for what occurred within their borders. This sovereignty was limited only by the Constitutions and Charters whereby the states were themselves created by the people residing within them. The federal government under the Constitution of the United States had no authority in any matter arising within the borders of any state, nor did any state have legitimate interest in matters solely within another state.

These conditions prevailed until 1866 when the 14th Amendment was ratified. By this ratification, the states surrendered a bit of their sovereignty to the federal government as the amendment created the status of Citizen of the United States, and for the first time, the federal government had legitimate interest the conditions within a state, and the authority to pursue that interest.

But, the underlying facts have not changed. The federal government legitimately has only the power and authority which it has been granted and except when acting under that authority, has no power or authority to grant or regulate what the states or the people never surrendered.

 

[brickeyee]

The feds have no power to force such a thing.

 

[Zak Smith]

AlbertH,

You are factually wrong. The USSC has ruled that certain amendments are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and apply to the states. McDonald v. Chicago established that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the statse.

 

[beatledog7]

The federal government has no legitimate power to regulate RKBA, court decisions to the contrary notwithstanding. I personally find wording in the Constitution that prohibits states from doing so as well. I have explained that here before.

When we allow the personal political agendas of robed men and women to usurp the clear and obvious wording of 2A, we are surrendering liberty that we were meant by God and nature to possess. Bad plan, my friends. If we let them infringe on RKBA in spite of the clear "shall not," what are we going to be able to stop them from doing?