Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: National Reciprocity

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    I would love to have national reciprocity, but where does the Constitution give Congress the right to dictate these kinds of things to states? If we want to sue states in court under the 2nd Amendment, that's one thing, but I feel like national reciprocity is simply ignoring Congress'Constitutionally limited authority. It would be much more preferable to get Congress back to their proper role where they can't regulate firearms at all (unless they cross state lines).

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cincy area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    891

    Post imported post

    Wasn't it due to pressure from Congress that all the states now recognize each others' drivers licenses? I don't know if that's a comparable situation or not, but at one time the states did NOT recognize the DLs from every other state.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    The same place Congress derives its power to enact 80% of the laws it does:

    "and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . ."

    Unfortunately, our framers weren't a bit more specific on that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    The same place Congress derives its power to enact 80% of the laws it does:

    "and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . ."

    Unfortunately, our framers weren't a bit more specific on that.
    Actually James Madison commented on this very phrase from the Preamble. Seems a few raised the question back then as well. He was quite firm in his stance that "general welfare" had nothing to do with government welfare or aid.

    Incidently, you left off a very importan word. Here is the complete text of the Preamble.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    In the context of this paragraph and the times in which it was written, general welfare meant " welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    Don't forget about the Full Faith and Credit clause.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec1

    However, this would mean that nationwide standards or a federally mandated procedure could be used for permits. In essense, they would work much in the same way that marriage certificates currently do.

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    I would love to have national reciprocity, but where does the Constitution give Congress the right to dictate these kinds of things to states? If we want to sue states in court under the 2nd Amendment, that's one thing, but I feel like national reciprocity is simply ignoring Congress'Constitutionally limited authority. It would be much more preferable to get Congress back to their proper role where they can't regulate firearms at all (unless they cross state lines).
    Where congress has overstepped its charter is in the "commerce clause". A whole pot full of problems and misdeeds has arisen from the "interpretation" of this clause. Somehow, congress uses this as a catch-22 to cover everything else it misses.

    As for national reciprocity, believe me, you do not want this. It's bad enough that the state governments have seen fit to legislate our rights.. you do NOT want the federal government to do this any more than they already do. Were the feds to decide to issue national CCWs or declare national reciprocity, you can bet at that exact moment, this right would become a national privilege. And privileges can be controlled and revoked.. rights cannot.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    As for national reciprocity, believe me, you do not want this. It's bad enough that the state governments have seen fit to legislate our rights.. you do NOT want the federal government to do this any more than they already do. Were the feds to decide to issue national CCWs or declare national reciprocity, you can bet at that exact moment, this right would become a national privilege. And privileges can be controlled and revoked.. rights cannot.
    +1

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    ama-gi wrote:
    I would love to have national reciprocity, but where does the Constitution give Congress the right to dictate these kinds of things to states? If we want to sue states in court under the 2nd Amendment, that's one thing, but I feel like national reciprocity is simply ignoring Congress'Constitutionally limited authority. It would be much more preferable to get Congress back to their proper role where they can't regulate firearms at all (unless they cross state lines).
    Where congress has overstepped its charter is in the "commerce clause". A whole pot full of problems and misdeeds has arisen from the "interpretation" of this clause. Somehow, congress uses this as a catch-22 to cover everything else it misses.

    As for national reciprocity, believe me, you do not want this. It's bad enough that the state governments have seen fit to legislate our rights.. you do NOT want the federal government to do this any more than they already do. Were the feds to decide to issue national CCWs or declare national reciprocity, you can bet at that exact moment, this right would become a national privilege. And privileges can be controlled and revoked.. rights cannot.
    True....

    And imagine the criteria that will need to be met since so many states are different. It may be harder to get a permit and there can be more restrictions added.

    The bad part is that each state has different laws on where you can carry and what not. You need to research this now in states that accept your permit before you go. Having a all state carry may cause people to not research this and just carry.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP...Having a all state carry may cause people to not research this and just carry.
    Nah, nah, nah. Youse guys gots it all sideways.

    We already got an all-state permit. Well, a 44-state permit. Its called the Second Amendment. The problem is legislatures and courts monkeying with what it means.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Actually, my quote was from, if I recall, Title I, Section 8 under duties of congress. They don't gain their powers to legislate from the Preamble. And I wasn't making the argument of welfare or any other type of aid... I was replying that Congress claims most of its power to create most of the legislation they do (including gun control) based off of that one phrase.

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Wynder wrote:
    The same place Congress derives its power to enact 80% of the laws it does:

    "and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . ."

    Unfortunately, our framers weren't a bit more specific on that.
    Actually James Madison commented on this very phrase from the Preamble. Seems a few raised the question back then as well. He was quite firm in his stance that "general welfare" had nothing to do with government welfare or aid.

    Incidently, you left off a very importan word. Here is the complete text of the Preamble.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    In the context of this paragraph and the times in which it was written, general welfare meant " welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    I would love to have national reciprocity, but where does the Constitution give Congress the right to dictate these kinds of things to states? If we want to sue states in court under the 2nd Amendment, that's one thing, but I feel like national reciprocity is simply ignoring Congress'Constitutionally limited authority. It would be much more preferable to get Congress back to their proper role where they can't regulate firearms at all (unless they cross state lines).
    Its a nice idea, but I'd like the Feds to stay out of regulating firearms as much as possible. They don't have a good track record of safeguarding our rights.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP...Having a all state carry may cause people to not research this and just carry.
    Nah, nah, nah. Youse guys gots it all sideways.

    We already got an all-state permit. Well, a 44-state permit. Its called the Second Amendment. The problem is legislatures and courts monkeying with what it means.
    You are absolutely right, we just need to get the courts and the states legislatures to actually uphold their oaths of office and obey the Constitution.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    I would love to have national reciprocity, but where does the Constitution give Congress the right to dictate these kinds of things to states? If we want to sue states in court under the 2nd Amendment, that's one thing, but I feel like national reciprocity is simply ignoring Congress'Constitutionally limited authority. It would be much more preferable to get Congress back to their proper role where they can't regulate firearms at all (unless they cross state lines).
    ANY permits when it comes to the 2nd amendment RIGHT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Permits becomes PRIVILIGES. The Goal is too be able too carry from NY thru the Country to Commifornia WITHOUT permits. "shall not be infringed"

    Just my .44

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Where congress has overstepped its charter is in the "commerce clause". A whole pot full of problems and misdeeds has arisen from the "interpretation" of this clause. Somehow, congress uses this as a catch-22 to cover everything else it misses.
    Ain't that the truth. Congress can basically pass almost anything they want to, simply by saying that not having their fancy new law negatively affects interstate commerce. It's ridiculous.

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    Actually, my quote was from, if I recall, Title I, Section 8 under duties of congress. They don't gain their powers to legislate from the Preamble. And I wasn't making the argument of welfare or any other type of aid... I was replying that Congress claims most of its power to create most of the legislation they do (including gun control) based off of that one phrase.

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Wynder wrote:
    The same place Congress derives its power to enact 80% of the laws it does:

    "and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . ."

    Unfortunately, our framers weren't a bit more specific on that.
    Actually James Madison commented on this very phrase from the Preamble. Seems a few raised the question back then as well. He was quite firm in his stance that "general welfare" had nothing to do with government welfare or aid.

    Incidently, you left off a very importan word. Here is the complete text of the Preamble.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    In the context of this paragraph and the times in which it was written, general welfare meant " welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."
    Yes, I understood your point.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    While it certainly might seem like a solution to all of the interstate problems and concerns that people have when wishing to carry arms, a national permit would be a very bad idea.

    For example, to what standard, rules, and laws would they submit us to? Virginia is more lenient than most all (perhaps all) of the other Southern states, so would Virginia become the standard? Or perhaps we'd use Texas, but there goes open carry. And then there are Vermont and Alaska. A permit would now be forced on those citizens who need no such thing at present.

    And then there is the matter of the changing of the guard. All three federal branches might be more inclined to recind the "privilege" of carry arms than states would be in the face of the rights of the people.

    And finally there is this little gem. For the past 216 years, those whom we hire to carry out the charter given them in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have seen fit to happily grow the federal government while at the same time shrink the powers of the states and the rights of the people. Gentlemen, this is NOT what the Founders designed for American and envisioned for her future. But they knew it would happen and feared future Americans would allow it in the face of vast properity.

    So, no.. we most definitely do not wish to see anything remotely resembling a national hand on any more of our rights. Especially those so entwined with our safety and security as a free people.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    I'd like now to address the concept of "interpretation" when used in the context of the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights.

    When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in 1787 and 1791 respectively, they were assumed to be cast in stone and the supreme law of the land. Article 1, Section 8 spefically lays out in relative detail what congress is permitted to do. Nothing else and no more. The states and the people fill in the blanks from there. While provision was made for altering the Constitution when necessary, no such thing was allowed or permitted to be done to the Bill of Rights. It is unamendable and unalterable.. so stated several of the Founders. They believed the Bill of Rights to be so basic and so fundamental to the continuance of a free people, that it must never be abridged. Well this can't stand. No, no, no. How is one to get around the Bill of Rights with such protections stated by the Founders?

    Enter interpretation. The concept of interpretation is a fairly new thing, having raised its sinister head in the last century, mostly during the earlier period. By interpretation, and especially when colored by "contemporary" speak, we can make the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, say most anything.. can't we? We can find clauses in there to support abortion, affirmative action, preferential treatment and set asides, public assistance to illegal aliens, and God knows what else. All we need do is interpret in today's vernacular and guess what? We can have what we want and make it appear to be within the framework of the Constitution.

    Yep, our Founders must be rolling over in their graves.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Southernboy, good posts.

    My main concern, besides the constitutionality, is that once the feds grab ahold of something, they NEVER let go. I have more faith that VA may one day allow freedom in self-defense than I do that the feds ever will. Frankly, I don't want Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer voting on ANY laws that have to do with my RKBA in VA.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    For example, to what standard, rules, and laws would they submit us to? Virginia is more lenient than most all (perhaps all) of the other Southern states, so would Virginia become the standard? Or perhaps we'd use Texas, but there goes open carry. And then there are Vermont and Alaska. A permit would now be forced on those citizens who need no such thing at present.
    So use Vermont as the standard... No permit required in the US. Sounds good to me
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Brian D. wrote:
    Wasn't it due to pressure from Congress that all the states now recognize each others' drivers licenses?
    No. There is no national mandate that states recognize each others' drivers licenses. The several States voluntarily agreed to recognize licenses when they signed the Interstate Motorists Compact in the 1970s. Not all states even issued drivers licenses until 1953, when South Dakota was the last state to require driver licensing.

    "What the feds mandate, the feds can take away." Don't let the feds' nose under the tent when it comes to concealed carry. What a can of worms that would be! How long do you think "national CCW" would last under President H. Clinton, or President Pelossi?

    Kevin



  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    roscoe13 wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    For example, to what standard, rules, and laws would they submit us to? Virginia is more lenient than most all (perhaps all) of the other Southern states, so would Virginia become the standard? Or perhaps we'd use Texas, but there goes open carry. And then there are Vermont and Alaska. A permit would now be forced on those citizens who need no such thing at present.
    So use Vermont as the standard... No permit required in the US. Sounds good to me
    In the strict sense, I agree. Vermont is the model. Virginia follows closely behind.

    Where is it stated in the Bill of Rights and in the state constitutions that a right must be regulated as a privilege?


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Brian D. wrote:
    Wasn't it due to pressure from Congress that all the states now recognize each others' drivers licenses?
    No. There is no national mandate that states recognize each others' drivers licenses. The several States voluntarily agreed to recognize licenses when they signed the Interstate Motorists Compact in the 1970s. Not all states even issued drivers licenses until 1953, when South Dakota was the last state to require driver licensing.

    "What the feds mandate, the feds can take away." Don't let the feds' nose under the tent when it comes to concealed carry. What a can of worms that would be! How long do you think "national CCW" would last under President H. Clinton, or President Pelossi?

    Kevin

    Your second paragraph is dead on in regards to the idea, and concerns, about letting the federal government be a party to our rights. We have seen time and time again the folly of such actions. Nothing but trouble and nothing but loss of rights.

    It's as simple as this. Governments, all governments, are essentially evil, and they only know how to do one thing.. and that is to grow. Left unchecked, they will eventually swallow up the governed because that's what they do. It is the right and the duty of the people to control their government, by armed force if need be, in order for them to insure their own peace and tranquility, and the future security of their progeny. To do less is to reap the tides of evil and slavery.

    Our Founders were most aware of this which is the reason that Patrick Henry and George Mason convinced James Madison of the absolute need for a Bill of Rights. Think about this. In all of history, we are the only nation which at the time of our creation, reserved to the people the right to throw off their government, and institute new government, using any force necessary to achieve the desired end. This has never occurred before or since. Here is the proof;

    "..Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
    Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Very true. I can see why the founding fathers feared a strong central government. Going to war with out the authorization of Congress, suspension of habeas corpus, warrentless wiretapping, its pretty frightening what is happening to freedom in our country. Some people argue that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that doesn't make any sense to me. If you use that line of reasoning then the rest of the bill of rights doesn't apply either. These are rights that apply to all human beings and the states cannot infringe upon them any more than the federal government can.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    massltca wrote:
    Very true. I can see why the founding fathers feared a strong central government. Going to war with out the authorization of Congress, suspension of habeas corpus, warrentless wiretapping, its pretty frightening what is happening to freedom in our country. Some people argue that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that doesn't make any sense to me. If you use that line of reasoning then the rest of the bill of rights doesn't apply either. These are rights that apply to all human beings and the states cannot infringe upon them any more than the federal government can.
    I have a pretty good idea I know who you might be voting for (initials: RP).



    As far as Vermont being the national model, I think Alaska is an even better model. No permit required, PLUS there's a permit you can get if you want that quite a few states honor.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    massltca wrote:
    Very true. I can see why the founding fathers feared a strong central government. Going to war with out the authorization of Congress, suspension of habeas corpus, warrentless wiretapping, its pretty frightening what is happening to freedom in our country. Some people argue that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that doesn't make any sense to me. If you use that line of reasoning then the rest of the bill of rights doesn't apply either. These are rights that apply to all human beings and the states cannot infringe upon them any more than the federal government can.
    I have a pretty good idea I know who you might be voting for (initials: RP).



    As far as Vermont being the national model, I think Alaska is an even better model. No permit required, PLUS there's a permit you can get if you want that quite a few states honor.
    Yup you have me pegged I'm a staunch libertarian and I support Ron Paul. He's the only one running that has the balls to speak the truth. I've said it and I've heard other people say that no candidate that supports the war will win this election. I'm sick of it and I think that most of America is too. We need a president that will bring some integrity back to the office and whohas gone on record that he supports the freedoms that our country was founded on.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •