How is S.845, the "Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009" l

imported post

I'm personally curious since this would be on the federal level. What gives the right to the U.S. government to force states to accept CCW licenses from other states?

I only ask, since I remember when LEOSA passed people were complaining about the bill being unlawful while making other negative statements.

imported post

Same way they have taxes and the like. Interstate commerce.

imported post

The US Constitution gives the feds the power to "force" other states to accept another's CPL.

It's called the "full faith and credit clause."

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

imported post

It would jeopardize Chicago's successful campaign against violent crime. Can't you get it through your thick skull that not allowing LAC to carry for self defense is the only way to go?

<sarcasm over>

GAG, COUGH, SPIT

:banghead:

imported post

Come on now, Task Force. You know the Feds can't tell the states to do anything, because that would be a Bad Thing, even when it restores lost rights. Because that would mean the evil Federal government had some semblance of power. But at the same time it is acceptable to bitch about how screwed up things are and that the Feds are doing nothing but taking our rights. If they started restoring them, what is there to complain about?

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Come on now, Task Force. You know the Feds can't tell the states to do anything, because that would be a Bad Thing, even when it restores lost rights. Because that would mean the evil Federal government had some semblance of power. But at the same time it is acceptable to bitch about how screwed up things are and that the Feds are doing nothing but taking our rights. If they started restoring them, what is there to complain about?

Click to expand...

They can't? They'll do what they did to up the legal age to drink to 21...

Threaten to withhold ALL federal funds unless they comply...

Look how fast the age limit shot up to 21.

imported post

You missed the dripping sarcasm there Johnny.

And if the states had any backbone they would stand up for themselves more often in stuff like drinking age. But slowly things are coming around.

Meanwhile tell me why there is anything bad about a bill to have CPL's recognized in all states like driver's licenses or marriages, or any of the other countless things that are handled that way, thanks to the full faith and credit clause?

And for the record this straight person thinks gay marriages should be treated like any other one. To do otherwise is a miscarriage of justice and a denial of rights.

So yeah, I expect the feds to step in and compel the states to give full faith and credit to CPL's.

Next step is to do away with CPL's all together.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

You missed the dripping sarcasm there Johnny.

And if the states had any backbone they would stand up for themselves more often in stuff like drinking age. But slowly things are coming around.

Click to expand...

Wisconsin set it's legal Drinking age always at 18, butback in the 1950's, for a while you were limited to beer & wine under 21, then they made everything 18 minimum. When the fed started pushing the "21", (1984-85'ish?)Wisconsin fought hard to not raise the drinking age. And guess what happened?
Federal funds were threatened and WI was forced to raise the drinking age.

20 years later, we are seeing a huge increase in DWI deaths among 8-20 yr-olds! Instead of having them consumingin a licensed bar being served by a licensed bartender in a semi-controlled situation. They are now meeting in the woods and cornfields with a few bottles of "Jack" and trying to drive home and dying.

Wasn;t the fed also abe to force a "nationwide 55MPH" in the same manner?