alfon99
Member
And there was a beavis and butthead episode where they brought down a jumbo jet while shooting skeet. xD. I guess that's where anti's get their facts.
Sam1911 said:He's looking at an Uberti or some such SAA clone, and as we get there he takes a big step back and -- if I'm lyin', I'm dyin' -- starts TWIRLING it!
Originally Posted by Sam1911
He's looking at an Uberti or some such SAA clone, and as we get there he takes a big step back and -- if I'm lyin', I'm dyin' -- starts TWIRLING it!
Somewhere in the Constitution it reads that something authorized for a resident in one state has to be recognized by other states. I'm sure there are court cases but Drivers licenses were mentioned as an example when I read this. Concealed handgun license and firearms transport would be an interesting subject for somebody that would be willing to be a test case.So true.
It does make me wonder how the population would react to a privelage (driving) being treated like gun owners are. e.g.
*You have to be 21 to drive a car or truck
*You'd have to pay a heavy tax to drive a car with over 100 h.p.
*They'd ban cars with cosmetic features like a sun roof, dual a/c, blue tooth, etc.
*They'd not allow you to drive your car out of state because your license isn't recognized.
*They'd limit gas tanks to 5 gallons in case of a rear end collision
*They wouldn't allow people with a felony to drive.
*You'd lose your right to drive forever if you get 3 speeding tickets in your lifetime.
etc.
What would the public outcry be if that happened?
Remember, driving is not a right so it can be at the government's discretion.
Gun control is like trying to stop drunk driving by making it harder for sober drivers to get cars.So true.
It does make me wonder how the population would react to a privelage (driving) being treated like gun owners are. e.g.
*You have to be 21 to drive a car or truck
*You'd have to pay a heavy tax to drive a car with over 100 h.p.
*They'd ban cars with cosmetic features like a sun roof, dual a/c, blue tooth, etc.
*They'd not allow you to drive your car out of state because your license isn't recognized.
*They'd limit gas tanks to 5 gallons in case of a rear end collision
*They wouldn't allow people with a felony to drive.
*You'd lose your right to drive forever if you get 3 speeding tickets in your lifetime.
etc.
What would the public outcry be if that happened?
Remember, driving is not a right so it can be at the government's discretion.
Somewhere in the Constitution it reads that something authorized for a resident in one state has to be recognized by other states. I'm sure there are court cases but Drivers licenses were mentioned as an example when I read this. Concealed handgun license and firearms transport would be an interesting subject for somebody that would be willing to be a test case.
I was told one time by a constitutional lawyer that after spending about fifteen minutes with me asking him questions was looking for a window to jump out of that many laws are probably unconstitutional it's just that no one has ever challenged them. Also that many SCOTUS decisions are not definitive but actually open the door to more legal confusion.Yeah, it's a cop out answer, but if you read the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause), especially the part about "After the Civil War" it explains that this clause is mostly interpreted to mean that a citizen has the right to travel between the states, and may do so in order to enjoy the benefits of the laws of another state, but doesn't mean that the laws of one state are in effect in another state.
Certainly it is an area subject greatly to interpretation, but the fact that a lawyer licensed to practice in New York isn't automatically licensed to practice in Florida says a lot about how it is interpreted.
Where this is getting really getting a workout (or MAY) these days is with the question of one state recognizing another's marriage license under "alternative" unions.