We need a law...I'm confused

[zahc]

I didn't know what to call this.

Anyway, this semester I had speech class; one of the assignments was a persuaive/motivational speech where you had to find some law and say it should be changed. Topic ranged from rape to pollution to gun control (guess who did that topic).

I had to listen to 23 speeches. A common theme was something like "This law varies by state. We need a FEDERAL law so that the whole country is the same regarding this issue...". I heard this over and over. I was thinking to myself what a bad idea this was, thinking the states should be able to decide for themselves on these issues, and the scope of federal government is too big. Why have states in the first place if the fed.gov makes all the rules?

But then I get on here and read about people who think we need CCW recipricocity, and who complain about being legal until you cross a bridge (or some point on the bridge) and then being a criminal. So now I'm confused.

 

[El Tejon]

zahc, it depends.

The purpose of the federal government is to ensure the civil liberties of all citizens, not to alleviate pain and suffering (which is how modern politicians are elected by the sheople desiring something for nothing). When states fail to do so, as in after the Civil War, then federal legislation is required, see, e.g. Amend. XIV, § 5.

 

[TarpleyG]

But then I get on here and read about people who think we need CCW recipricocity, and who complain about being legal until you cross a bridge (or some point on the bridge:scrutiny and then being a criminal. So now I'm confused.

Look at it like this--If you drive from your state to the next, is it legal? Most likely, yes, unless you aren't supposed to be driving in your home state. That's all we're asking for, to be legal in every state. The FED has nothing to do with it. The states need to come together and finish it up. It is a lot farther along than it was when I got my first CHL in Texas in '94/'95. We couldn't even carry to Arkansas then.

In time, we'll be able to carry everywhere just like we can drive everywhere. MD, IL, and NJ are of course excluded since they aren't states anyway.

GT

 

[zahc]

I see a point, but what if there was (there probably is) a state that is rabidly anti-CC. They, by an overwhelming majority, do not want CC. You think you should be able to carry there anyway? The state is then prevented from doing what it wants with regards to CC. At what point do you have to repect states rights to be wrong about your issue?

 

[ARperson]

but what if there was (there probably is) a state that is rabidly anti-CC.

That doesn't matter at all. If all the people in the state wanted to violate the Constitution, it doesn't mean they get to.

The difference between the speeches you heard and the national reciprocity is that the content in the speeches probably has nothing to do with guaranteed civil rights. The national reciprocity does. RKBA and self-defense. Illinois should not have the right to limit my RKBA and self-defense when I'm driving through there to visit friends. Period. Re-read the Constitution. Any power not expressly given to the federal government is reserved for the states. Meaning the states can address any issue they want, how they want, when they want, etc. But that shouldn't allow them to violate guaranteed natural rights. I think it's the 14th amendment that prevents states from violating those rights.

Also, there is a difference between a federal law that overrides states CCW laws and a national reciprocity. We could conceivably get national reciprocity without a federal law. Personally that's the way I think it should be. But, sometimes I wonder if I would care if the federal gov came in and told Illinios (and others) to shove it and allow CCW holders in other states to carry in that state.

 

[jimpeel]

The main point of any law is "Does this law promote the General Welfare of all citizens; or does this law only promote the welfare of certain groups or individuals?" If the former, the law is Constitutional. If the latter, it is not.

The Congress just churns out law after law and they have no mandate to investigate the Constitutionality of any law they pass. They pass them and then let the courts decide if they were acting within the bounds of the Supreme Law of the Land or not. Unfortunately, while this long process grinds through the various courts -- assuming there is a plaintiff who has the vast sums of money required to mount a challenge to the law -- the law is being enforced to its maximum limits and beyond.

The problem is not the passage or repeal of certain laws but the level of enforcement that is taken against those whom the law was written against. Those laws are open to the wildest interpretation of the prosecutors who wield them. Good examples of this are the Seizure and Forfeiture laws and the R.I.C.O. Act. T.H.E. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. will soon become one of those laws as well.

Under the "Hate Crimes" laws, those same prosecutors are conferred with the power of clairvoyance as they conjure what the thoughts of the accused were at the time they committed the crime; and those are open to the wildest interpretation that the prosecutor's mind can imagine.

 

[Langenator]

Reciprocity for CCW should, by Art IV, Sec 1 of the Constitution, already exist. My driver's license, issued by the state of Washington, is recognized here in South Carolina. Likewise for my marraige license. Why then is my CPL, also issued by the state of WA, not recognized?

 

[zahc]

That doesn't matter at all. If all the people in the state wanted to violate the Constitution, it doesn't mean they get to.

I understand where you are coming from, and agree with you in that that's the way it SHOULD be.

But you're saying the 'states should be allowed to make thier own rules; people who don't like them can stay out' argument doesn't apply to CC because it is a consitiutional right, but, I live in OH. Our contitutional right to CC (if it exists) IS infringed here.

So, if OH doesn't allow CC, why should they recognize permits from other states?


KIM I think they should, in fact, I wish for VT-style everywhere.