• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CCW Permits good for all 50 States.

Freeflight

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
306
Location
Yorktown VA, ,
imported post

Here it is in Black and White...out of the Constitution

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

We have a Judicial Proceeding (The issuance of our CHP is done by the judicial branch of our State) that says we have been given permission to carry a concealed handgun.I believe based on this clause thatIt is good for all the states in the union.

This is the reason that our Drivers Licenses work in all the states and even our marriages (those who are married) are recognized by all the other states.

If I ever get "Caught" in say in New (USSR) Jersey or Kalifornia or People's republik of Hawaii This will be my defense, not the 2nd.

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

This is just another example of the Government twisting and even ignoring the Constitution when convenient



Live free ir Die.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Interesting, but perhaps not thought through.

So far, only Vermont complies with this rule (for firearms). (If you can get your gun to VT, carry away, regardless of your home state's permit rules.)

Not all states recognize all marriages. (N.B. the controversy over gay marriages). AFAIK, some common law marriages may be null and void across (certain) state lines.

Some D/Ls may also not be honored due to age restrictions (old enough in the issuing state, but not in the visited state, or perhaps restricted in the visited state by time of day, etc.).

These, and other long standing exceptions, may put a serious dent in using this as a defense against charges of illegally carrying a firearm.

It isn't necessarily "The Government" that's trampling on rights here, but rather the "sovereignty" of the several states.

It would be good to have a universal carry doctrine that applied to all states. Maybe the 2A will become incorporated someday...
 

MuellerBadener

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
98
Location
West Jordan, UT, ,
imported post

2a4all wrote:
Interesting, but perhaps not thought through.

So far, only Vermont complies with this rule (for firearms). (If you can get your gun to VT, carry away, regardless of your home state's permit rules.)

Not all states recognize all marriages. (N.B. the controversy over gay marriages). AFAIK, some common law marriages may be null and void across (certain) state lines.
That is why special legislative acts were needed to make sure that other states didn't have to recognize gay marraiges and "common-law" marraiges don't transfer because they aren't "Judicial acts"
Some D/Ls may also not be honored due to age restrictions (old enough in the issuing state, but not in the visited state, or perhaps restricted in the visited state by time of day, etc.).
Restricted liceinces aren't recognised because they are restricte, but an unrestricted DL from one state is valid in any other.
These, and other long standing exceptions, may put a serious dent in using this as a defense against charges of illegally carrying a firearm.
Just because they've been doing it doesn't make it right. That's why it should be challeged.
It isn't necessarily "The Government" that's trampling on rights here, but rather the "sovereignty" of the several states.
It isn't about State's Sovereignty as long as they are part of the union; it is an expessly enumerated part of the Constitution and as a member of the union the states agreed to waive that portion of their sovereignty. (I am very pro states rights, but the Constitution supercedes)
It would be good to have a universal carry doctrine that applied to all states. Maybe the 2A will become incorporated someday...
Amen to that! Just imagine....Our God-given rights actually recognized by the United States of America.... who'd a thunk it?
 

Freeflight

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
306
Location
Yorktown VA, ,
imported post

2a4all wrote:
Interesting, but perhaps not thought through.

So far, only Vermont complies with this rule (for firearms). (If you can get your gun to VT, carry away, regardless of your home state's permit rules.)

Not all states recognize all marriages. (N.B. the controversy over gay marriages). AFAIK, some common law marriages may be null and void across (certain) state lines.

Some D/Ls may also not be honored due to age restrictions (old enough in the issuing state, but not in the visited state, or perhaps restricted in the visited state by time of day, etc.).

These, and other long standing exceptions, may put a serious dent in using this as a defense against charges of illegally carrying a firearm.

It isn't necessarily "The Government" that's trampling on rights here, but rather the "sovereignty" of the several states.

It would be good to have a universal carry doctrine that applied to all states. Maybe the 2A will become incorporated someday...



No, I have thought this through. (And will continue as perhaps we will discuss it here)

Alaska also applies the correct constitutional meaning to the 2nd (but thats another debate)

Ahhh good point. the congress must pass a law that permits this, which they did for marriage. They have not for firearms.


I've never heard of this!!! Cite?

I respectfully disagree... there is no such thing as illegally carrying a firearm if you are a citizen of the US. because of the 2nd and the full faith and credit clauses of the constitution.

I'm all for States Sovereignty but the constitution goes on to say:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Since the CCW is considered a privilege, then its good in all other states... at least thats what entitled means to me. (No the government has twisted all this to its own ends.. They have forgotten that we are the Civil Authority, not them)

Incorporation will occur... so let it be written..


I have to get back to work Lunch is over...

FreeFlight
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
imported post

2a4all wrote:
So far, only Vermont complies with this rule (for firearms).  (If you can get your gun to VT, carry away, regardless of your home state's permit rules.)

Also anyone over 21 can carry concealed in Alaska.
 

Freeflight

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
306
Location
Yorktown VA, ,
imported post

MuellerBadener wrote:
A well thought point! How do we push it forward from here?

I wan't to sue the states I go to Regularily that infinge on my Rights.

Maryland is the closest, would like to start there...and go all the way..for a touchdown.

:what:
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Freeflight wrote:
MuellerBadener wrote:
A well thought point! How do we push it forward from here?

I wan't to sue the states I go to Regularily that infinge on my Rights.

Maryland is the closest, would like to start there...and go all the way..for a touchdown.

:what:
Somehow, I think that this will play out a bit differently than Heller.

First find a very good lawyer.

If s/he thinks you've got a case, then sell your boat (you'll need the money) and pick a locale in MD to visit that has a comfortable jail.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

It would be interesting to see how this would play out in court. Gonna be a fight, but I wish you the best of luck, seems to me that you've got a point.
 

MulusVagus

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
3
Location
Maricopa, Arizona, USA
imported post

This looks as though it might be able to generate some national interest.

Maybe a petition to our state representatives and some help from the local and national rights groups.
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
imported post

So many things in government and law would be so simple if everybody followed the rules, and the courts didn't make you suffer for years before getting relief.

Good luck with your crusade. IMHO you are in the right, and you will be summarily punished for it in the short term. I admire crusaders, although sadly I haven't the backbone for this particular mission. I've got little mouths that demand my continual employment for sustenance. No time for a jail tour. I've got your back. Way back. God speed.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
2a4all wrote:
Interesting, but perhaps not thought through.
Maybe the 2A will become incorporated someday...
It has been, in the 9th circuit court. This will likely become National precedent.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King
I'm still unclear on exactly what this means.

Does it mean that state and local laws can now be challenged on the basis that they violate the second amendment? Of course, whether they actually do or not would have to be ruled on, but does this ruling mean that a judge could no longer rule in favor of the law on the basis that the second amendment doesn't apply to state law? Clearly, this ruling states that it does, but it hasn't been so ruled by the SCOTUS, so could not another court rule against this?

I'm afraid my understanding of the Judiciary branch isn't as strong as I'd like, but I'm hoping to learn.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Be very careful of what you wish for, you may just get it. Our drivers license and marriages are recognozed in other states because of the agreements among the states, not because of any Federal regulation or clause. Ever wonder why people go to Vegas to get divorced? If thisapplies to everything then it is going to be one big mess.

And the deal about the age on drivers license is not due to it being a restricted license but an age requirement. I fell into that category back a long time ago and could not drive in certain states even though I had a full drivers license in my state.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I've looked at this clause in the constitution thinking the same thing many times but thought there must be some trick. I'm glad you brought this up and I will enjoy watching the discussion.

To throw a wrench in it..... wouldn'ta statealso have to give full faith and credit to those states that have Acts and laws AGAINST CC? Woudln't this be aperpetual engine.

Slayer of Paper wrote:
marshaul wrote:
2a4all wrote:
Interesting, but perhaps not thought through.
Maybe the 2A will become incorporated someday...
It has been, in the 9th circuit court. This will likely become National precedent.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King
I'm still unclear on exactly what this means.

Does it mean that state and local laws can now be challenged on the basis that they violate the second amendment? Of course, whether they actually do or not would have to be ruled on, but does this ruling mean that a judge could no longer rule in favor of the law on the basis that the second amendment doesn't apply to state law? Clearly, this ruling states that it does, but it hasn't been so ruled by the SCOTUS, so could not another court rule against this?

I'm afraid my understanding of the Judiciary branch isn't as strong as I'd like, but I'm hoping to learn.
If the lower courts disagree on incorporating the 2A, then it will go to SCOTUS. Watch the NRA's case against Oak Creek. They are looking for incorporation in my district ...7th I think.
 
Top