Posted on 10/24/2011 6:55:50 AM PDT by marktwain
“I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -Babbage (1864)”
You may enter any state and submit an absentee ballot for your voting district from wherever you are. You do not lose your right to vote outright just because you are not in your jurisdiction; you retain that right as regulated and standardized by federal law. There is no need for you to re-file voter paperwork subject to the non-resident location you’re in. (I imagine someday, when legislation catches up with technology, you’ll be able to walk into any polling station (or, heck, use your smartphone or some such) and cast a valid ballot which will be filed with your home jurisdiction. The exact local protocol may differ from one location to another, but the final outcome will be as though you voted at your current assigned location.)
Likewise, you shouldn’t lose your RKBA just because you haven’t filed paperwork in the jurisdiction you happen to be in outside of your normal residency. For most jurisdictions now, the only barrier to legal CCW is lack of “full faith and credit”, to wit you’ve gone thru the same process at home (background check, fee paid, ID card issued).
Better analogy is losing your right to drive just because you went to another state and don’t have a driver’s license issued there.
This is not true. Requirements for PTC are different in each state. Why should someone from one state who requires no training to get a PTC be allowed to carry in a state that has stringent training requirements? Either the states have authority to place reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, like SCOTUS has said, or they don't. If the federal government can dictate to the states what those restrictions can be, the 10th Amendment and the SCOTUS decisions are meaningless.
As one who thinks such training and other requirements are unconstitutional, I’m not moved by the depiction of them as “reasonable restrictions” with which noncompliance evokes a suspension of enumerated inalienable rights. They’re not reasonable restrictions.
Driving requirements differ by state too, but a GA license is valid in NY nonetheless.
And, to run with your example anyway, what of those states whose requirements are less than those of other states? Having received legislated training, extensive background checks, serial-number-level registration, and compliance with any other restriction equivalent or more extensive than any other state, why should a citizen be denied RKBA on the sole grounds that the state visited has not issued identical or inferior paperwork?
I always object to the statement that 49 states allow concealed carry. Only about 40 have actual shall-issue concealed carry. The others have laws allowing for the possibility, but don’t actually issue the permits except to the rich and famous, or those who live in rural areas, or in some cases to no one at all.
How would this law affect those states? It would be odd that I could carry in, say, New Jersey with my permit, while a resident of New Jersey could not because New Jersey won’t issue any permits even though they have a concealed carry law. But the law doesn’t make a huge difference if it only applies to the “shall-issue” states, because with some time and paperwork anyone who’s eligible can get a collection of nonresident permits that will cover them in pretty much all such states.
Spot on correct. This has NO chance of becoming law until conservatives take control of the Senate, extend control in the House and take the Oval. I say conservatives because if Romney is the next POTUS, it still won't happen.
>> “There is no court to hear our grivences, no lawyer will take our cause up, just a bunch of cowardly disgraseful people in power!” <<
.
Where are the NRA, and GOA on this?
Working on helping the carry concealed laws more on par nation wide. From what I am getting, this issue is not real high on their list of priorites.
If they keep going the way they are, signing up for military service won’t be on anybody’s list of priorities.
Yes... federal law is supreme over state law and CA would have to recognize carry rights for visitors from states that allow them. It currently does not. No one’s constitutional rights end at the state line and moreover the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to ensure fundamental rights are enforced throughout the country.
It will create a campaign issue. And Democratic Senators from Red States don’t want to run against Right To Carry. Its a big issue back home. Let Obama veto it. That shows how liberal and out of touch he is with the American mainstream.
Bring it on!
The Constitution requires every state to afford good faith and credit to acts of other states. To some extent, uniformity is necessary even in a federation. People should know exactly what to expect when they move to or visit another state.
This is what this act would require. Let’s not be detained by the hypocrisy of liberals opposing federal legislation on gun rights when these are the same people who favor federalizing everything else, whether its warranted or not.
Its that simple!
The federal government simply requires each state extend reciprocal courtesy to valid laws, acts, records and judicial proceedings in other states.
This is what would be done with RTC laws reciprocity. And its entirely within Congress’ constitutional power to compel states to extend such reciprocal courtesy to such state laws in effect in most of the country.
Moreover, it already exists for federal and state law enforcement officers. Every one else would also be covered by the proposed new legislation.
Read the Constitution. Federal law is supreme and prevails over any state law to the contrary. There is a necessity for uniform federal legislation to make certain that when it comes to the RTC, the least restrictive state standard is applied throughout the nation. This is the way it should be.
This is not as applicable as it might seem. The devil is in the details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause
“...The duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
“According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.”
In practice, states are free to reject all sorts of laws and judicial decisions of other states. In past and currently this included slave and anti-slave laws; miscegenation (mixed race marriage); extradition of those convicted of felonies in other states (though this may now be a federal action, crossing state lines to avoid prosecution or giving testimony in court; recognition of homosexual marriage, etc.
Another point is that right now, one of the things advocated by the 10th Amendment Movement is that the intrastate (within a single state) production and use of firearms and ammunition is not within federal jurisdiction.
But if congress is successful with this law, it essentially federalizes intrastate (several states) authority over gun licensing or lack thereof.
As such, more liberty can be lost in this effort than is gained, and once more power is stripped from the states and given to the federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.