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; After reading these extracts, we can be at no loss to comprehend the intention of the framers of the Constitution in using all these words, ...

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 133

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

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,952
    After reading these extracts, we can be at no loss to comprehend the intention of the framers of the Constitution in using all these words, "treaty," "compact," "agreement." The word "agreement," does not necessarily import any direct and express stipulation; nor is it necessary that it should be in writing. If there is a verbal understanding to which both parties have assented and upon which both are acting, it is an "agreement." And the use of all of these terms, "treaty," "agreement," "compact," show that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to use the broadest and most comprehensive terms, and that they anxiously desired to cut off all connection or communication between a state and a foreign power, and we shall fail to execute that evident intention unless we give to the word "agreement" its most extended signification, and so apply it as to prohibit every agreement, written or verbal, formal or informal, positive or implied, by the mutual understanding of the parties.
    So, according to this SCOTUS opinion, since Texas recognizes other states carry permits by unilateral declarations by the Governor, there is no "agreement" or "compact" or "treaty" so again, to folks that want to carry here in Texas, article I section 10 and congress are irrelevant.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So, according to this SCOTUS opinion, since Texas recognizes other states carry permits by unilateral declarations by the Governor, there is no "agreement" or "compact" or "treaty" so again, to folks that want to carry here in Texas, article I section 10 and congress are irrelevant.
    You keep referring to Texas as if that is the topic of this thread. It is not. Are you saying that NO states enter into reciprocity agreements? Is that your argument?

    The point that some have erroneously made is that Congressional consent is unnecessary for agreements between states. That is clearly wrong.

    Though the Court has opined that in a few
    limited cases Congressional consent is not mandated, that, too, is incorrect. Like the wording of the Second Amendment, The words 'any agreement' are very easy to understand. I am surprised there is any controversy at all on that point.

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,952
    No what I am saying is that your constitutional limitation is not universal. Any state that so desires can simply declare unilateraly, as Texas does, that they will honor the permits from what ever state they so desire. As it is a unilateral action, it is not an agreement, compact or treaty and therefore not subject to article I section 10 or congressional consent.

    But for states that actually do negotiate agreements....
    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.
    So how is one state allowing permit holders from another increasing "the political power or influence" of the party states?
    As Farronwolf mentioned 2A prohibits federal infringement on keeping and bearing arms, so how is local policy on who may legally bear arms in public interfering with federal authority?
    If it does not, no consent required for the agreement if one is negotiated.
    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 think there is a lot of doubt and you have done nothing to disprove it.
    Even the writings of your Joseph Zimmerman tend to show that Article I section 10 and congress are irrelevent to this issue.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #64
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    As Farronwolf mentioned 2A prohibits federal infringement on keeping and bearing arms, so how is local policy on who may legally bear arms in public interfering with federal authority?
    I previously acknowledged that I agree with this argument. In fact, I made it stronger by writing that since the right to keep and bear arms is specifically acknowledged as a prohibition of the Federal government that it would be contrary to the Constitution for Federal interference in that issue.

    I think there is a lot of doubt and you have done nothing to disprove it.
    Even the writings of your Joseph Zimmerman tend to show that Article I section 10 and congress are irrelevent to this issue.
    I haven't tried to disprove anything. It is true that most state compacts are executed with Congressional consent, most notable those on the web site I references as well as the driver's license compact.

    However, the language is so clear, 'any agreement' that it is easily argued that ANY agreement requires Congressional consent, Court opinions on certain cases notwithstanding.

    The argument there are exceptions to 'ANY' is similar to those who think the Second Amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms only to the militia.

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,952
    Well SelfDefense, I think I am learning how you get the plain meaning of this sort of thing. So by Article I section 10, use of National Guard troops overseas is unconstitutional, right?
    No state shall...........engage in war, unless actually invaded,
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #66
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Well SelfDefense, I think I am learning how you get the plain meaning of this sort of thing. So by Article I section 10, use of National Guard troops overseas is unconstitutional, right?
    We're still not on the same page. The states cannot order the National Guard to a foreign county. Nothing in the Consitution prevents the Federal government from deploying troops overseas. In fact, without standing armies, which some of the Founders loathed, the Federal government was empowered to raise state militias, i.e. the National Guard to defend the nation.

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,952
    But it says no state shall engage in war unless actually invaded. National guard units are state militias. So unless a state is invaded the only troops that could be deployed under Article I section 10 would be the federals standing army.
    It says that just as plain as no states can enter into any agreement or compact.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    However, the language is so clear, 'any agreement' that it is easily argued that ANY agreement requires Congressional consent, Court opinions on certain cases notwithstanding.
    My state accepts CWL's from states that do not accept ours. How could that be considered an agreement or a compact between states? Its a totally one sided decision.

    Michael

  10. #69
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,952
    But gee, looking at it again...... Since they don't define "invaded" it would seem obvious that any state with issues with illegal immigrants is able to enter into agreements or compacts with any states or foreign powers they feel is in their best interest. It also authorizes such states to engage in war!
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #70
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    If this were to pass, the 40+ states with reasonable/shall-issue would probably not be affected much.
    The NYs, NJs, MDs,CAs,exc, would probably be forced to go shall-issue, as any visitor would be able to carry there, but not the residents themselves initially.
    Then you may have those same states screw around with their CC laws to create "traps" so going within a mile of a school is a felony or some other bogus regulations that are an attempt just to discourage CCing.
    Then what about WI and IL(who have no CC law), and VT, which has no permit?
    Intriguing, for sure.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  12. #71
    VIP Member
    Array ccman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    2,028
    VT would have to jump on and come up with a res permit like Alaska for when They cross State lines.

  13. #72
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    If this were to pass, the 40+ states with reasonable/shall-issue would probably not be affected much.
    The NYs, NJs, MDs,CAs,exc, would probably be forced to go shall-issue, as any visitor would be able to carry there, but not the residents themselves initially.
    Then you may have those same states screw around with their CC laws to create "traps" so going within a mile of a school is a felony or some other bogus regulations that are an attempt just to discourage CCing.
    Then what about WI and IL(who have no CC law), and VT, which has no permit?
    Intriguing, for sure.
    I'm hoping this would force my state of NJ to become a shall issue state.

  14. #73
    VIP Member
    Array ccman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    2,028
    rmilchman.
    I'm hoping this would force my state of NJ to become a shall issue state.

    That would be great for You in NJ. and the rest of Us who pass thru.

  15. #74
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    I'm sorry. As much as people want it, I can't support something like that. It sets precedence in giving Federal law more weight than State law and I wholeheartedly believe in the original Framer's concept that States have the right to set their own laws. I would have to fight anything that would take away that ability.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  16. #75
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    I'm sorry. As much as people want it, I can't support something like that. It sets precedence in giving Federal law more weight than State law and I wholeheartedly believe in the original Framer's concept that States have the right to set their own laws. I would have to fight anything that would take away that ability.
    I assume you also believe you drivers license should not be accepted in any other state except for your home state.

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.