HR 197

imported post

And the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which states, in part,

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

The Supreme Court needs to stay out of this too!. They are Judicial, not Legislative...They need not clear up any Constitutionallity, it is clear the 2nd is enumerated, therefor the Feds need to get lost as well as the states. Anything not enumerated, what part of "Not Enumerated" don't they get

Click to expand...

I also think that a strong argument argument could be made that it is somewhat hypocritical if one gets a CPL and then argues that HR197 is wrong because neither the states nor the Feds have been delegated the power to decide who can carry or how they carry.

Click to expand...

I see this point, Dr. Todd. Unfortunately, the Gov't has made it necessary for me to make the decision to go against what I believe in. I moved to Flint, and will not be caught here without the means to defend my family and myself in any situation. In a lower risk area...maybe, but I doubt that. I also can not afford to tell my Gov't that their laws on firearms possession are unconstitutional from behind bars, while my family and my home are free for the criminals to take. By simply standing for what I believe, and carrying in any manner that I see fit, the law of the state would make me a criminal, no matter how unconstitutional it is. As a CPL holder, I have had to take what I believe to be the lesser of two evils. I don't like it at all, as I have said before, but it's what I have had to do.

imported post

Because it is violating my right as an individual to choose. My personal belief is that the 2nd is telling the Feds. they have no rights at all on this topic, & since the right to keep & bear is enumerated, the states have no right to say anything either. How ever since both believe they can regulate concealed and existing laws will never be repealed I do not want to see the feds overstep their bounds by forcing all to comply with a few. If texas or anyother state wishes to believe that they do have rights to regulate, I don't think it is fair for someone who don't live there to dictate what they can do. I especially don't want to givefederal goverment getting their foot in that door.

imported post

I don't like the idea of "incorporation" either. Why is it necessary? The Constitution was written as the law of the land, and in order to be admitted to the Union, each state had to ratify it. Through ratification, they agreed that what was written was IT. Anything specifically enumerated was to be off limits. That changed in 1833 in Barron vs. Baltimore. The Supreme Court held, erroneously, in my opinion, that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. If it wasn't for that stupid decision, the issue of "incorporation", and the issues with restrictive laws against firearms possession, would be a non-issue. That said, I would have to pick the lesser of two evils, again, and be on board with full incorporation of the Second, which I never see happening.

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

I don't like the idea of "incorporation" either. Why is it necessary? The Constitution was written as the law of the land, and in order to be admitted to the Union, each state had to ratify it. Through ratification, they agreed that what was written was IT. Anything specifically enumerated was to be off limits. That changed in 1833 in Barron vs. Baltimore. The Supreme Court held, erroneously, in my opinion, that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. If it wasn't for that stupid decision, the issue of "incorporation", and the issues with restrictive laws against firearms possession, would be a non-issue. That said, I would have to pick the lesser of two evils, again, and be on board with full incorporation of the Second, which I never see happening.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly... the whole concept of incorporation is, in my opinion, legal fiction.

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

<SNIP> I don't think it is fair for someone who don't live there to dictate what they can do. I especially don't want to givefederal goverment getting their foot in that door.

Click to expand...

For most issues I would agree, but not for a right which is listed in the Bill of Rights... that should be held as valid against the powers of the Government at either the state or federal level.

Nothing seems to cuurently limit the federal governments "foot in the door" as they DO regulate firearms. I don't think that the legislation would be a deciding factor in this regard. They already believe that they can. Likewise, I don't think the states should be given a "foot in the door" either. Did you argue against Michigan making CPLs "shall issue"? If you did on the grounds you mentioned above, I see your point. But, as I've previously said, a small improvement, a "shall issue" cpl system for example, is at least a better situation. I have many friends and aquaintences who refuse to get a cpl because they believe states shouldn't regulate the issue. But I think it would be shortsighted to say that "shall issue" legislation should be defeated.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

<SNIP> I don't think it is fair for someone who don't live there to dictate what they can do. I especially don't want to givefederal goverment getting their foot in that door.

Click to expand...

For most issues I would agree, but not for a right which is listed in the Bill of Rights... that should be held as valid against the powers of the Government at either the state or federal level.

Nothing seems to cuurently limit the federal governments "foot in the door" as they DO regulate firearms. I don't think that the legislation would be a deciding factor in this regard. They already believe that they can. Likewise, I don't think the states should be given a "foot in the door" either. Did you argue against Michigan making CPLs "shall issue"? If you did on the grounds you mentioned above, I see your point. But, as I've previously said, a small improvement, a "shall issue" cpl system for example, is at least a better situation. I have many friends and aquaintences who refuse to get a cpl because they believe states shouldn't regulate the issue. But I think it would be shortsighted to say that "shall issue" legislation should be defeated.

Click to expand...

Had I been involved when the idea for "shall issue" came up, I would most certainly have been in favor, because it would be a small step in the direction of returning the rights to the people in the state, and had no bearing on any other states right to decide for themselves, other than a possible positive reference for another state to do the same thing. This federal issue would be another usurpation of the individual states' power to decide for themselves how to run their business, and must be avoided on principle.

imported post

Sounds like you believe states can do as they please, even trample 2A rights. That being the case, nothing can convince you otherwise.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Sounds like you believe states can do as they please, even trample 2A rights. That being the case, nothing can convince you otherwise.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can assume this given what I've written.


ETA:
Our system of gov't was set up so that the central gov't is relatively weak. States were to have more power than the Fed. The exception, of course, is in the BOR. On that, neither local nor central gov't is supposed to regulate. HR 197 would be in direct opposition to the founding principles, on it's PRINCIPLE. Nevermind that the whole can of worms is unconstitutional.

imported post

The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.

I'd much rather have the state trample the 2nd than the Federal. I can fight the State a lot easier than D.C. If you read the tenth Amend. you will see that it clearly defines the right of the people to be ultimate beneficiaries

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.

imported post

conservitave85, Article IV sec.1 IS a power granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.

It reads:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


Basically, if states refuse to honor the public acts, records and judicial proceedings from other states, the federal government does have the authority to force them to honor them.

imported post

I see no need to re-invent the wheel.springerdave.

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Sounds like you believe states can do as they please, even trample 2A rights. That being the case, nothing can convince you otherwise.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can assume this given what I've written.


ETA:
Our system of gov't was set up so that the central gov't is relatively weak. States were to have more power than the Fed. The exception, of course, is in the BOR. On that, neither local nor central gov't is supposed to regulate. HR 197 would be in direct opposition to the founding principles, on it's PRINCIPLE. Nevermind that the whole can of worms is unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

This is my reasoning: the feds in this instance are furthering a right guaranteed by the Constitution (2A), albeit in a fairly small way. You stated that "state's rights" should trump this action. Well, since the constitution is a FEDERAL DOCUMENT, as states also have constitutions, you seem to be advocating that it does not matter what the US Constitution says; a state's autonomy dictates that they can do as they please.

If you argue that position, and since the final arbitration of the "constitutionality" will probably take place at the federal level, a notion you also find untenable, you are apparently convinced that the Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper... unenforceable against a state unless a state decides that it should be.

If that is the case, then I would reiterate that you will not be convinced by anything said here. Under your interpretation of of the history and issues regarding power among governmental units, the state is considered the only arbiter of what transpires within its boundaries.

Is there anything here about your beliefs which I've misconstrued?

P.S. Your contention that the Feds were to be "weaker" than the states is not entirely accurate, but I'll leave that to another day...

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

DrTodd wrote:

Sounds like you believe states can do as they please, even trample 2A rights. That being the case, nothing can convince you otherwise.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can assume this given what I've written.


ETA:
Our system of gov't was set up so that the central gov't is relatively weak. States were to have more power than the Fed. The exception, of course, is in the BOR. On that, neither local nor central gov't is supposed to regulate. HR 197 would be in direct opposition to the founding principles, on it's PRINCIPLE. Nevermind that the whole can of worms is unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

This is my reasoning: the feds in this instance are furthering a right guaranteed by the Constitution (2A), albeit in a fairly small way. You stated that "state's rights" should trump this action. Well, since the constitution is a FEDERAL DOCUMENT, as states also have constitutions, you seem to be advocating that it does not matter what the US Constitution says; a state's autonomy dictates that they can do as they please.

If you argue that position, and since the final arbitration of the "constitutionality" will probably take place at the federal level, a notion you also find untenable, you are apparently convinced that the Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper... unenforceable against a state unless a state decides that it should be.

If that is the case, then I would reiterate that you will not be convinced by anything said here. Under your interpretation of of the history and issues regarding power among governmental units, the state is considered the only arbiter of what transpires within its boundaries.

Is there anything here about your beliefs which I've misconstrued?

P.S. Your contention that the Feds were to be "weaker" than the states is not entirely accurate, but I'll leave that to another day...

Click to expand...

Dr Todd. It's apparent that one of two things has to happen here. Either we agree to disagree, or we get together and discuss this over coffee or lunch, because apparently this method of communication is inadequate for this conversation.

Respectfully,
Scott

imported post

Hr 197 is a violation of the states right end of story.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

I didn't write this to anger you or others, I just wanted to understand what your philosophical beliefs were. I really don't have a problem with HR 197 in that if there is a reciprocity agreement, it appears that those licensed to carry would still be allowed to carry under the present restrictions. I also like the fact that those states who presently prohibit most individuals from carrying concealed would be unable to continue to do so, at least for visitors.

I agree with 50% of what you say; the Feds should not be able to 'infringe" the "keeping and bearing of arms", but neither should the states. I would prefer that neither are able to infringe the right. Perhaps the only way to do this would be to actually enforce the provisions of the 2nd Amendment by stating exactly what it says: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" No licensing for any sort of carry, concealed or open, and no restrictions at either the state or Federal level.

If the Supreme Court does eventually rule that 2A does apply to the states, I think that we will be well on our way to the full expression of the right. Until such time, I think that, at least on the surface, HR 197 furthers the cause.

Click to expand...

Ditto! NO infringements NO where in this nation!

imported post

Lets try this... The B.O.R is not a Federal Amend. it is an Amend. giving the people the final say over the Feds. & the State. The People have the right! That being said I am all for furthering "The Cause", but lets face it the Feds. & the State have already infringed.

The only true way to further the cause would be for us to back up, or remove all the laws made pertaining gun possession. There is no need to keep making law to infringe, or to free up or right to Keep & Bear.

Last but not least the Right of the People to Keep and Bear should be left up to the People and or the stateof Texas, Indiana, Michigan... Respectively!

:celebrate

imported post

It seems to me like alot of people are trying to pull bits and pieces of the Constitution to fit what they would like to see happen.

I agree, that the 2nd Amendment protects the RKBA, and that, perhaps with very few exceptions, that all the laws should be repealed.

HOWEVER, given that most states have some sort of licensing for concealed carry, it is one of the few powers granted to the federal government in the constitution, that allows them to force states to honor public acts, records, judgements etc, from other states.

It's similar to if state "x" decided not to honor drivers licenses from state "y". The feds have the constitutional authority to force state "x" to honor state "y"'s drivers licenses.


It doesn't violate states rights, 1st because it is in the constitution (article 4), and 2nd because the 10th starts "Powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution....." The Constitution DOES delegate the United States the authority to force the states to honor public acts, records, etc from other states.

HR197 is NOT a violation of personal rights, nor is it a violation of states rights, it is a Power granted to the federal government via the constitution.
Now, whether or not the state permit systems are constitutional or not, is a seperate issue. Obviously if every state had Vermont carry, then this would all be irrelevant. But since there is a licensing system in most states, the Feds are completely within their bounds by forcing the states to recognize other states permits.

imported post

HOWEVER, given that most states have some sort of licensing for concealed carry, it is one of the few powers granted to the federal government in the constitution, that allows them to force states to honor public acts, records, judgements etc, from other states.

It's similar to if state "x" decided not to honor drivers licenses from state "y". The feds have the constitutional authority to force state "x" to honor state "y"'s drivers licenses.
WRONG! WRONG!



I have to respectively disagree on thisabove statement. The Feds. don't have constitutional powers to force states to follow the certain public acts, etc. You are however correct on the bits & pieces part. therefore you should also read the 9th & 10th Amendments of the B.O.R.

Examples: Speed limits, marriage, hunting right, state taxes, on land, houses, income, & sales. No Where in the Constitution does any of the above appear to be enumerated to the united state in the constitution.

AMENDMENT IX to the Constitution of the United States:

[size=+2] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[/size]
[size=+1]So, even if the 4th Amendment didn't enumerate an individual citizen's right to privacy, or the 2nd Amendment didn't protect the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, THE NINTH AMENDMENT DOES.[/size]

[size=+3]AMENDMENT X to the Constitution of the United States:[/size]
[size=+2] 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.[/size]
[size=+1]NOwhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government.[/size]