National Reciprocity

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).

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

+1

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP...Having a all state carry may cause people to not research this and just carry.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP...Having a all state carry may cause people to not research this and just carry.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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).

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

Yes, I understood your point.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

So use Vermont as the standard... No permit required in the US. Sounds good to me

imported post

Brian D. wrote:

Wasn't it due to pressure from Congress that all the states now recognize each others' drivers licenses?

Click to expand...

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