LiberalElite (5685 posts)December 6, 2017 at 4:49 pm
House Republicans force passage of law allowing gun owners to carry concealed we
In the first significant congressional action on guns since the Las Vegas shooting massacre that killed 58, Republicans on Wednesday rammed through a bill that makes it easier for gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines.
The House’s yes vote on the bill largely fell along party lines: 231-198. But six Democrats broke ranks to vote for the measure, while 14 Republicans voted against it.
GOD-FUCKING-DAMMIT!tokenlib, Abelenkpe, daleanime and 2 othersfrylock, glinda like thisI feel much better since I've given up hope.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
daleanime (2552 posts) (Reply to original post) December 6, 2017 at 6:02 pm
they truly do seem bound and determined to kill us all.When the going gets tough, the tough take care of each other
travelamerica (814 posts) (Reply to daleanime - post #1) December 7, 2017 at 9:18 am
Abelenkpe (498 posts) (Reply to original post) December 6, 2017 at 7:45 pm
happyslug (337 posts) (Reply to original post) December 7, 2017 at 3:23 pm
4. I like his comment about 3:00 in the Morning.
“How are police officers supposed to figure out at 3 o’clock in the morning who is lawfully in possession of gun in New York City and who is not?” Vance said.
The problem is this is already a problem that has been solved. Knowing if someone has a license to carry, is the same as knowing if that same person has a license to drive. This is true if the driver is a New York Resident or reside out of state. Every state in the Union has since the 1920s recognized and accepted as valid driving licenses within their state, licenses issued by other states. This is not only true as to a license to drive but as ID.
Today, you can know within seconds if someone’s license to drive is valid in his or her home state and the same can be done with licenses to carry. We do not check everyone who passes us by, even if on foot, if they have a valid driver’s license unless that person is driving and a ticket is being issued. The same with a license to carry, if someone is carrying a police officer has to right to ask if he has a license to carry. No one is preventing police from doing that, just like the Supreme Court has said Police has the right to ask you for ID, even if they have no probable cause of any Criminal Action by you.
Today, there is NO FEDERAL LAW requiring states to accept driving licenses issued by other states, but all states do so. This is mostly the result of accepting that if one state refuses to accept a license issued by another state, that second state can do the same so you have drivers unable to go to either states.
Now, States have adopted laws as to reporting traffic violations to other states, when a violation is done by an out of state driver, but that is the limit:
Now, the above are “Uniform Laws” that each state has the right to pass or refuse to pass. Some people on the net think such laws are unconstitutional UNLESS Congress grants permission, which Congress has done in the area of Driving. The majority of Scholars who have looked at the situation said this “Compact” is just a set of “uniform laws” that have been recommended to the states to pass not a Treaty between two states that Congress MUST agree to (in the early days of the Republic this was a problem, mostly to do with bridges across the Ohio river, a river that is also the border between several states. The Supreme Court ruled that a agreement between the State of Virginia and the State of Ohio to build a bridge across the Ohio was unconstitutional for it was a treaty between two states and needed Congressional approval. When Congress did give its approval, the Supreme Court said that makes building the bridge constitutional, and the bridge was built, Congress has long since given blanket permission to build such bridges thus no longer a problem).
In simple terms, a proposed uniform law, adopted by the states is NOT a treaty and thus does NOT need congressional approval, but any agreement between two states as to movement from one state to the next must be approved by Congress. Please note the actual movement between the states is NOT subject to approval by Congress. What is restricted are agreements that affect such movement. The above uniform laws just covers how a state is to handle a traffic violation by a person who is using a driving license issued by that state, but the violation occurs out of state. Furthermore the fine for the violation is NOT covered by the above laws, just how that violation affects how a state determines if someone keeps or losses her is her driver;s license.
Anyway, such reciprocal laws have been passed by the States since the 1920s. If Congressional approval was needed, it was granted in 1958. Present laws as to driving licenses start being passed by states in 1960.
List of States when issued first driver’s license, South Dakota was the last, in 1954.:
Reminds me of the story of the 1920s, people have several driving licenses issued by various states for some states refused to accept licenses issued from out of state.
Now, while the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the US Constitutional has been cited as grounds for the above uniform agreement to accept driver’s licenses from out of state, the courts have always differentiated between records and actions that occur in another state, as opposed to what happens in state. Thus under the “Full Faith and Credit” Clause, a state, pre 1865, had to accept that a person was a slave for that is what he was in his home state, even through slavery had been abolished in that state (and Missouri, which had outlawed any African American from being free, had to wait three months before they could grab such a freed man and sell him, which under pre Civil War Missouri law the state was obligated to do to any African American resident who was NOT a slave).
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.
Notice the wording, “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state”, i.e. marriage records, ownership records are covered, but NOT issue of who can go where,. Thus abolishing slavery, freed the slaves of that state, but if that ex slave went to a slave state, he could be sold if that state required such sale of any African American who was not owned by someone else. Missouri had to accept the fact another state freed a slave, but that did not mean that ex slave could move to Missouri and live as a free man (again pre 1865, Slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment nation wide in 1865).
The same rationale can be applied to driver’s licenses, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to licenses in general, Thus a license to practice Medicine or Law is only good in the state that issued it. If the Doctor or Lawyer wants to move to another state, they must get a new license. All States have adopted reciprocal laws as to such licenses, provided you request admission before you start to practice (i.e. you move and ask the state you move to, to give you a license to practice, for you have a license from another state and is in good standing in that state).
The States have accepted the right to drive in their state provided you have a valid license from some other state, and the states have the right to do so. The States also have the right to REFUSE to recognize such out of state licenses (as they do for Medicine and Law and other licensed professions).
The real constitutional question can the Federal Government FORCE each state to accept such licenses? Remember we are a FEDERATION with a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED JURISDICTION. The problem has been, since the 1930s, what is within the limited power of the Federal Government has been ruled by the Courts to be a right set by CONGRESS. Thus if Congress says something is Federal, it is Federal, if Congress says nothing and the Constitution does NOT make something Federal, it is a power reserved to the States.
Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has only ruled one thing passed by Congress NOT to be Federal, the No Gun within 200 feet of a School law.
And after that law was stricken Congress passed it again, but this time added a rationale for such a law being Federal and that law has been upheld by every Federal Court of Appeals that has ruled on it. i.e .Congress found such a law affected Interstate Commerce and thus Congress can regulate it.
As I wrote above, Driver’s Licenses have NEVER been subject to any Federal Requirements (except as to what they are to be made under the REAL ID Act).
Thus this law is something different, it is the first time the Federal Government is FORCING States to accept a license issued by another state. Can the Federal Government do that? Now, the Feds can do it, in exchange for Federal Funds (The Feds did this in the 1980s, told Pennsylvania and Vermont that they could no longer issue paper driving licenses and if they did they would lose all access to Federal Highway Funds, i.e if both states wanted to continue to get funds from the Federal Tax on Gasoline and Diesel, both states had to issue Driving License with a photo on them). The courts have upheld such a demand in exchange for funds, but it appears that is NOT the case today as to this law as to licenses to carry a Firearm. Congress is just passing a law saying all states much accept other states license to carry but is NOT saying if a state does not it loses Federal Funds. Congress is making it a LAW that the States must comply with, and NOT tying in with it any Federal Funding.