Posted on 06/22/2006 4:18:01 PM PDT by foxy_maiden
Thanks! :) I'm still new in this site and trying to orient myself with how the system works. So far, I enjoy it. This is really a good site just like what my friend told me. Thanks again! :D
Why would it increase the crime rate?
It is not the same as so called gay marriage. There happens to be a right to keep and bear arms in the BOR. There is no right to marriage in the Constitution..... No Federal Issue with that.
Sorry but the individual rights in the BOR trumps the 10th.
"...shall not be infringed"?
There certainly is: the 'full faith and credit' clause.
I don't know if we should carry in SF. No telling what we would do.
While I would ordinarily agree, here I don't. You have the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution being ignored, thereby resulting in the basic rights of citizens across the country being violated by numerous states - THAT'S where the Feds SHOULD step in. Of course, the law should ONLY read that states must recognize the other states' CCWs, not set up Federal standards for one. This should be like marriages and DLs - simple recognition, without federal involvement (yeah, I know, the Feds have been very involved with the DLs - but that has more to do with the states being greedy for highway funds than the Feds requiring anything as a matter of law).
Go Senator Allen.
Alaska has "Vermont carry", but still issues permit cards on request precisely to solve the reciprocity issue.
California doesn't. How I would love to "legally" carry in California.
If this law passes, California citizens (primarily LA County residents) would continue to be denied their right to carry, while I as an AZ resident and CCW holder would not.
AZ has open carry. I'd prefer open carry enforced in California.
I'd love to watch Schumer/Feinstein/Boxer/et al's heads explode from sheer apoplexy...
Are you familiar with crime rates in locales that have concealed carry vs. those that do not?
I hope this passes
A case could be made for:
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. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Would argue that all CHL systems are Unconstitutional. Violations of the second amendment, as applied to the States by the 14th amendment, either the Privileges and Immunities clause or the Due Process Clause, or both. (ie. requiring a license to exercise a Constitutional right is a violation of due process). (although many Judges thought the 2nd applied to the states, even before the 14th amendment.)
The 10th amendment deals with powers, not rights. Rights, especially enumerated ones, trump powers. In fact as applied to the Federal government at least, that was the entire point of the Bill of Rights, to keep the government from exercising the powers it was delegated in the main body of the Constitution, in such a way as to violate the rights of the people. The 10th amendment is different in that it reiterates that the federal government only has those powers delegated to it. (One of which is to see that states give full faith and credit to each other's acts. (Art IV section 1)
And history ought to regard those first few casualties as CCW martyrs.
This sort of thing is exactly why I like Allen for President in 08.
"Shall not be infringed" means by ANYONE in a position of government authority. Technically, private parties could still do so, but would you want to open yourself up to liability for disarming your workers/patrons?
Which kinda makes you wonder where they got the authority for the NFA of '34, GCA of '68, FOPA of '86, and the "F" part of the BATFE.
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.