Fed up with reciprocity patchwork? Support this bill! - Page 4

Fed up with reciprocity patchwork? Support this bill!

This is a discussion on Fed up with reciprocity patchwork? Support this bill! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Janq SD, The facts you cited above, as to Hopyard, are not fully correct. I'm not sure what you mean by that. ...

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 133

Thread: Fed up with reciprocity patchwork? Support this bill!

  1. #46
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    SD,

    The facts you cited above, as to Hopyard, are not fully correct.
    I'm not sure what you mean by that. Congress consented to the interstate drivers license compact in 1961, following Article I Section 10.

    I will certainly review Beamer but I offer this from the well researched writings of Joseph Zimmerman:

    Congressional Consent

    Congressional consent is not required for all compacts. In 1845, the New Hampshire Supreme Court (17 N.H. 200) rejected the argument that an 1819 New Hampshire statute and an 1821 Maine statute authorizing construction of a bridge over navigable waters (the Piscataqua River) without congressional consent violated the compact clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court opined that no constitutional provision precluded each of the two states from authorizing the erection of a bridge to the middle of the river.

    In 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Virginia v. Tennessee (148 U.S. 503 at 520), specifically held such consent is required only for a compact tending to increase "the political power or influence" of the party states and to encroach "upon the full and free exercise of federal authority." An interstate compact regulating accounting clearly would not be a political compact requiring the consent of Congress for execution.

    The United States Steel Corporation challenged the constitutionality of the Multistate Tax Compact on the ground that it lacked congressional consent. In 1978, the Supreme Court (434 U.S. 452 at 473) upheld the compact's constitutionality by declaring it did not "authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

    Consent types.

    Most compacts are submitted to Congress for its grant of consent, but a small number of compacts have been executed without such submittal and grant of consent. Congress can grant its consent prior to (permissive) and subsequent to (ratifying) enactment of a compact by the concerned state legislatures. In addition, Congress is free to grant consent-in-advance for each compact entered into by states or blanket approval in advance for all compacts relating to a specific subject.

    The Supreme Court, in 1823's Green v. Biddle (21 U.S. 1), noted the U.S. Constitution places no limitations on the duration of consent, and consent statutes typically do not contain a sunset clause. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes opined in 1937 (302 U.S. 134 at 148) that Congress may impose conditions in granting its consent. In granting consent, Congress typically reserves the right to "alter, amend, or repeal" its consent to a compact and always reserves its authority over navigable waters.
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939 vetoed a bill granting consent-in-advance to states to enter into compacts relating to Atlantic Ocean fishing on the ground that their provisions were too general. Two years later, he disallowed the Republican River Compact, but in 1943 he signed a bill granting the consent of Congress to a modified compact (57 Stat. 86).

    Congressional consent effects. Does congressional consent convert an interstate compact into federal law? The Supreme Court has changed its answer to this question. The Court opined in 1938 (304 U.S. 92) that such consent does not make a compact the equivalent of a U.S. treaty or statute. In 1940, however, the Court (310 U.S. 92) held that an interstate compact approved by Congress involving a federal question is subject to the Court's review.

    In 1981, the Court (449 U.S. 433) issued a momentous decision opining that congressional consent makes a compact federal law in addition to state law. U.S. courts since 1874 (87 U.S. 590) had been required to apply the interpretation of a concerned state law by the highest court in the state. The reversal of this precedent allowed the court to interpret the concerned Pennsylvania statute and disregard its interpretation by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1997 opined: "While the Compact [Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Compact] may be treated as a federal law, it does not follow that the Commission is a federal agency government by the Administrative Procedure Act." (129 F.3d 201 at 204)

    Is a public authority created by an interstate compact with congressional consent cloaked with immunity from suit in federal court by the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? The Supreme Court (513 U.S. 30) in 1994 answered this question in the negative, explaining that the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation is a self-financing entity and that subjecting it to suit in the U.S. District Court does not place a burden upon either the New Jersey or the New York treasury.

    The proposed Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Compact would establish a commission funded entirely by fees paid by insurance companies when filing products and apparently would not be cloaked with Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Nevertheless, it is improbable the commission would be sued, because its functions would be limited to the establishment of regulatory standards and
    the acceptance of filings by insurance companies.

    Are federal statutes containing inconsistent provisions invalidated by the grant of congressional consent to an interstate compact? Courts would probably hold that such consent repeals conflicting federal statutes. What effect would a new congressional statute with conflicting provisions have on an interstate compact previously granted consent by Congress? The conflicting provisions in the consent would be repealed, with the exception of any vested rights protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    The grant of consent suggests that Congress may enforce compact provisions, but enforcement in practice usually is left to courts. The validity of a compact may be challenged in state or U.S. court. Similarly, an individual or a state may bring suit to enforce the provisions of a compact. The Eleventh Amendment forbids a U.S. court to consider a suit in law or equity against a state brought by a citizen of a sister state or a foreign nation. A citizen, however, can challenge a compact or its execution in a state or U.S. court against an individual or in a proceeding to prevent a public officer from enforcing a compact. A suit brought in a state court could be removed to the U.S. District Court under provisions of the Removal of Causes Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 554) on the ground that the state court "might conceivably be interested in the outcome of the case."

    States party to an interstate compact have occasionally filed an original suit in the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of one or more compact provisions. For example, Kansas filed a suit against Colorado in an attempt to resolve disputes pertaining to the Arkansas River Compact. In 1955, the Court (514 U.S. 669) ruled unanimously in favor of Colorado. Kansas continued its disagreement with Colorado by filing another original suit against Colorado. The Supreme Court (533 U.S. 1) in 2001 rejected Colorado's contention that a special master's recommendation of a damages award for Colorado's violation of the compact was barred by the Eleventh Amendment on the grounds that the damages were losses suffered by individual Kansas farmers.
    I don't think there is any doubt at all that reciprocity agreements fall under the Congressional consent requirements of Article I Section 10.

    I also do not think Congress would fail to consent. It is always a good idea to do things the right way, especially under a mandate of the Constitution.


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    SD,

    I have no idea who 'Joseph Zimmerman' might be.
    But I do recognize and respect the historical representation of facts per the U.S. Dept. of transportation 'Federal Highway Administration', who differs in relation of facts toward the story you're telling.

    Maybe forward to Zimmerman the FHWA link I provided, or vice versa, and then he/they can debate it and get back to us on whats what vis a vis a response to you.

    Back to this item per the thread subject, this is no different than same for motor vehicle operator license/permit interstate recognition.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,818
    Ok, SD

    I am going to use your arguments. You acknowledge that the 2A only applies to the Federal Government. That it only prevents the Federal gov. from infringing upon our rights, and that it has nothing to do with individual states and their laws governing the possesion or use of firearms.

    If we follow that logic, and this court case which you posted.

    In 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Virginia v. Tennessee (148 U.S. 503 at 520), specifically held such consent is required only for a compact tending to increase "the political power or influence" of the party states and to encroach "upon the full and free exercise of federal authority." An interstate compact regulating accounting clearly would not be a political compact requiring the consent of Congress for execution.
    The states are not encroaching on any federal authority, because the fed gov doesn't have the authority to infringe upon that right in the first place based on the 2A. So if one state agrees to allow someone who meets the qualifications of his home state to carry a concealed weapon into the first state, it does not have any ramifications on the federal level. The states are not increasing their poltical power or influence, nor crossing into areas that the federal government has any authority to regulate regarding concealed carry.

    Thanks for posting that court case. We can end this discussion with regards to what Article 1 Section 10 actually covers, because it isn't the 2A.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  4. #49
    Member Array Fenris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    124
    We have a national standard.

    It's called the Second Amendment.

    Hopefully, it will soon be applied broadly.

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Agreed Farron.

    It was late last night so I didn't post further but upon read of the section SD provided, with no source citation so that a reader can go there and read the entirety for sake of full context review, it appeared to my eye last night that it actually goes against as in does not well support the theory SD is proposing as related to interstate compacts/agreements (!).

    But my last name isn't Obama and I'm not a constitutional law scholar so is quite probable I could be off in my thinking, and reading.
    Although Obama who is just such an educated person and was a constitutional law professor and so called expert is on record in stating that he read the 2A and understood it's origination to be per his own allegedly well researched writings to be a right not assigned to the individual but to that of organized militias, and by that the prior non-existant National Guard, under governance by states and Federal controls. That was his position all the way up to last spring as he responded to the Heller case.

    There are many so called well researched writers of what ever on any given subject. Not every one of those persons though is correct or for that matter even understands what they speak of, Obama and a minority of SCoTUS justices being a notable example of as much.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  6. #51
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    It was late last night so I didn't post further but upon read of the section SD provided, with no source citation so that a reader can go there and read the entirety for sake of full context review
    The reference was not relevant. There is no context other than the Court cases povided by the author. It was late and I was looking for confirmation of Congressional consent of state compacts. I thought that essay was on point.

    it appeared to my eye last night that it actually goes against as in does not well support the theory SD is proposing as related to interstate compacts/agreements (!).
    That is what I thought when I read it. The Court has dismissed many cases regarding Article I Section 10 for numerous reasons. I would agree that the Federal government has no business in the states' agreements concerning an area in which the Federal government is specifically excluded.

    Still, the Constitution reads 'any agreement', which cannot be interpreted in any way other than 'any agreement.' That Congress shirks their responsibilty or that the Court deems it unnecessary is irreleavnt to the Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land.

    But my last name isn't Obama and I'm not a constitutional law scholar so is quite probable I could be off in my thinking, and reading.
    Although Obama who is just such an educated person and was a constitutional law professor and so called expert is on record in stating that he read the 2A and understood it's origination to be per his own allegedly well researched writings to be a right not assigned to the individual but to that of organized militias, and by that the prior non-existant National Guard, under governance by states and Federal controls. That was his position all the way up to last spring as he responded to the Heller case.
    I don't think that discussion is appropriate in this thread, although the qualifications of Soetoro in every respect are simply not corroborated by the record.

    To further the discussion (if anyone is still interested) I have found a few interesting links:

    http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/publicati...tecompacts.pdf

    http://online.nwf.org/site/DocServer....pdf?docID=703

    http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/i...tecompacts.htm

    Interestingly, the last actually uses the same edited version of Section 10 that caused Janq some consternation.

    It is incorrect to think Congress is not involved with state compacts and agreements. CCW reciprocity should be considered a Federal issue.

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The fact of the matter is all the CCW reciprocity between states is unconstitutional.

    Artcle 1 Section 10:

    No state shall, without the consent of Congress,... enter into any agreement or compact with another state

    Of course, many of the people here are unconcerned with the Constitution if it is contrary to their perceived notions. Kind of like liberals/libertarians.
    Actually it would only be unconstitutional if there were agreements or compacts in place. A unilateral declaration by a state is not an agreement or a compact. I am not aware of any states that enter into negotiations over reciprocity. If the state of Texas decides it will honor the concealed carry license issued by the state of Florida, there is nothing Florida can do about it if they don't like it.

    So you see, no "agreement" or "compact" is necessary. Therefore, Article I section 10, and congress for that matter, are irrelevant.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #53
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    But of course that section can be rendered irrelevant to reciprocity issues by simply making unilateral declarations (which many states do) of which other states permits are honored. There is no "agreement" or "compact" involved, so the constitutional question and congressional oversite are a non issue.
    I'm puzzled. What does 'reciprocity' mean? Wait...a mutual exchange of privileges, i.e. an agreement.

    It is a non issue to some because they are unconcerned with the Constitution, especially if it does not fit their political agenda.

    By the way, Congressional consent does not imply oversight, a term recently concocted to expand the limited powers of Congress. Congress has no power of oversight.

  9. #54
    Member Array nitrohead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    93
    I like the idea, but I do have a slight concern. Although there are states that like to infringe on the the 2A (i.e. CA, IL, etc.) I think, IMHO, that states still should have the right to regulate (but within reason, and using some common sense) their RTC laws. With the latest trend of states fighting for states' rights (10th amendment), putting forth a national ccw law, I think, contradicts those efforts. We can't have it both ways (like Democraps, I mean crats). I wish that we, as law abiding gun owners, didn't have to take these things into consideration. I beleive that we should be able to carry whatever, where ever, and when ever we choose. We have that right as Americans.

  10. #55
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    2,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Divebum47 View Post
    From what I understand, since issuing Concealed Carry Permits is a State's Rights issue, there's not much hope for a blanket law unless it's ratified by 2/3rds of the states. I might be wrong on this, but there has been legislation on this issue a number of times in the past and I don't think it's ever gotten out of Committee.
    The state enacts the legislation only to adopt a concealed carry provision. It is up to a city, county, or village to enact an ordinance to require concealed carry. Many states are actually open carry except for this one exception in the law that most states have adopted.

    It is not a federal law by any means.
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

  11. #56
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Perhaps people are misusing the word "reciprocity". Carry permits for other states are recognized in the state of Texas based on unilateral declarations by the Governor. Per a declaration by Governor Perry, Texas honors concealed handgun licenses from the state of Maryland. Maryland however, does not recognize Texas licenses. So I guess by your standard there is no reciprocity. And again, permits being honored by declarations by the Governor, no congressional consent is required, and article I section 10 has no bearing on it.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #57
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720

    very skeptical of your viewpoint

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    That is the point, isn't it? You can't pick and choose what you think the Constitution means. Article 1, Section 10 is extraordinarily clear.

    I am always highly skeptical when an individual makes a sweeping claim that the whole of our country is somehow acting against the letter of the law. Usually, what that means is that someone doesn't understand what the law is, and everyone else is right to begin with.

    The fact of the matter is there are innumerable agreements, compacts, whatever you call them between various states on all manner of subject matter. I infer from this fact that either: a) it is all perfectly O.K.; b) somehow only you have this particular insight and wisdom with respect to a "right" view of what the paragraph actually means. Doesn't it seem a bit unlikely that your view is actually correct?

    I agree that the wording appears to mean such compacts are unconstitutional, but it is very unlikely that such a glaring error has been happening repeatedly over many decades without some appropriate (and constitutionally acceptable) legislative or legal (USSC) interpretation to the contrary.

    I think you would be engaged in a more productive exercise if you attempted to find out how it is that your interpretation is not the prevailing one (in our real world), instead of claiming you know something which appears to be entirely unknown to our office holders.

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720

    SD, why you must necessarily be mistaken

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Quoting it in its entirety in no way changes the context. States cannot enter into any agreements with other states.
    But of course the states do enter into agreements, therefore either you are wrong in your understanding and interpretation or EVERYONE else is wrong.

    Now if these things were indeed unconstitutional it would be known to more than a few "faux scholars."

    Time to do some real research on the issue before you tinker some more with the keyboard and show once again how off base your legal analyses often are.

  14. #59
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    2,407
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Perhaps people are misusing the word "reciprocity". Carry permits for other states are recognized in the state of Texas based on unilateral declarations by the Governor. Per a declaration by Governor Perry, Texas honors concealed handgun licenses from the state of Maryland. Maryland however, does not recognize Texas licenses. So I guess by your standard there is no reciprocity. And again, permits being honored by declarations by the Governor, no congressional consent is required, and article I section 10 has no bearing on it.
    I think Missouri was the 43rd state to adopt Concealed Carry Endorsement Law. (previous know as a permit). That being said we now have one of the most complete laws of any state and reciprocity is granted by 35 states, more than any other state. All states have some provision for some concealed carry except for Illinois and Wisconsin.

    Previous to our Missouri law many NRA certified instructors taught under Utah or Florida law to obtain a permit. Missouri is by far now the best place to obtain an endorsement that will be honored in the most number of states, 35 and soon to be 37.
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

  15. #60
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    But of course the states do enter into agreements, therefore either you are wrong in your understanding and interpretation or EVERYONE else is wrong.
    Not everyone, but you are certainly wrong on this issue. Apparently, you have failed to do your due diligence. You have failed to research the basic issue of state compacts and Congressional consent. The Court cases that have been documented dispell your myth that Congressional consent is not required as explicitly stated in the Constitution.

    Now if these things were indeed unconstitutional it would be known to more than a few "faux scholars."
    Clearly, you do not understand the argument. Did you actually read the Taney opinion? No one has suggested that state compacts are unconstitutional. Any agreement between the states requires Congressional consent. Why is that so hard to understand?

    Time to do some real research on the issue before you tinker some more with the keyboard and show once again how off base your legal analyses often are.
    Yes, I suggest you do some research on the issue before launching an emotional attack with absolutely no evidence. I do understand that your feelings on the issue distort a logical analysis. You think it must be one way so you assume that to be the case.

    I suggest you read the references I provided. Your opinion might then be based on facts.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Reciprocity Bill Weaseling
    By randytulsa2 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 04:19 PM
  2. CCW Reciprocity Amendment - Please support(merged)
    By Chevy-SS in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: May 24th, 2008, 09:50 AM
  3. What ever happened to Nevada Reciprocity Bill
    By Timmy Jimmy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 21st, 2007, 10:49 PM
  4. Mental Health Disclosure Bill & NRA support ?
    By Shizzlemah in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 25th, 2007, 07:34 PM
  5. Support National Reciprocity Bill H.R. 4547
    By ArmyCop in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 4th, 2006, 07:10 AM

Search tags for this page

concealed weapons resoprocity
,
expert authors in our free article directory ca concealed weapon permit
,

expert authors in our free article directory concealed weapon permit laws

,
expert authors in our free article directory georgia drivers license renewals
,
expert authors in our free article directory national rifle association
,
expert authors in our free article directory seat belt law
,

expert authors in our free article directory sig arms firearms

,
expert authors in our free article directory washington conceled weapons permit
,
federal concealed carry reciprocity bill s 845
,

in the section on defensive driving, the author warns: never underestimate the power of people in groups

,
ltc reciprocity law fed
,
national ltc reciprocity legislation
,
reciprocity support bills
,
two separate national reciprocity bills
,

what is the hr bill number that makes ccw same as driver licsence?

Click on a term to search for related topics.