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 Faitmaker This whole debate aside, where can I find a nexus/lexus that I can use for free? I've not been able to ...

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 121 to 133 of 133

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

  1. #121
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    This whole debate aside, where can I find a nexus/lexus that I can use for free? I've not been able to find one and have wanted to for a very long time. I'm asked to do a lot of research for my friends and know that this would help A LOT.
    Nexis/Lexis is a subscription service. It is not free. Many years ago it was free but those days are long gone.

    A free service is justia.com, which is awesome for Court transcripts.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #122
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    It took 5 minutes of research but the general consensus is that *some* agreements between states do not reach a level of compact and thus do not need congressional approval.

    Although the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10, Clause 3)
    appears to require congressional consent in every case (“No State shall, without the consent of
    Congress…enter into agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power…”) the
    Supreme Court has determined that the clause is activated only by those agreements that would
    alter the balance of political power between the states and the federal government or intrude on a
    power reserved to Congress (Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)). Therefore, where an
    interstate agreement accomplishes nothing more than what the states are otherwise empowered to
    do unilaterally, the compact does not intrude on federal interests requiring congressional consent.
    Once congressional consent is granted and appropriate, the nature of the compact changes. It no
    longer stands as an agreement between the states but is transformed into the “law of the United
    States” under the law of the union doctrine (Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 440 (1981).
    I also noted in several places that verbal approval from Congress is legal and that because the Constitution does not require a time limit on WHEN Congress approval is needed, it could come long after an agreement is made. I hope this puts the matter to rest.

    If you care to do the same reading I did (amongst several websites) this is my google string
    constitution clause 3 reciprocity agreements does not need congress approval
    "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

  4. #123
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    This back and forth is getting real tiring. I think everyone gets your point and understands your meaning SD.
    Yup. I thought the thread was dead. Some people just like to argue.

    Since this started with Reprocity, do the actual mechanics (forget the definition of the word) suggest that an AG did make a deal with another AG OR just that they said We are going to recognize KY and oh.. Ky decided they were going to recoginize ours? Because that some states are one-sided in their recognition suggests that it really isn't a deal but an acknowledgement that would not need any Congressional approval as defined in the Constitution.
    One sided legislation is not an agreement between states. I know that some of the reciprocity agreements are codified in legislation passed by state legislatures.

    Do we actually *know* these agreements aren't getting Congressional approval? If they are being rubber stamped, that would take away the teeth of SD's complaint.
    First, I have no complaint with reciprocity agreements. I do have a problem with Federal government involvement in state issues beyond their Constitutional responsibilities and mandates.

    I also posed your question many posts ago. It doesn't require anything more than am unrecorded voice vote of Congress and that may actually have been done in every agreement. Most politicians take an oath on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. (Not so important to gun forum members.)

    The argument that state agreements do not require Congressional consent, which is contrary to the Constitution, has never had any supporting evidence presented.

  5. #124
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,600

    Faitmaker, Thank you

    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    It took 5 minutes of research but the general consensus is that *some* agreements between states do not reach a level of compact and thus do not need congressional approval.
    Thank you. The quoted material says far more elegantly what I was attempting to convey.

  6. #125
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The argument that state agreements do not require Congressional consent, which is contrary to the Constitution, has never had any supporting evidence presented.
    Well, you stopped to soon. Read on.
    "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

  7. #126
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    It took 5 minutes of research but the general consensus is that *some* agreements between states do not reach a level of compact and thus do not need congressional approval.
    No state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state.

    What part of that is unclear? Does it say only compacts require Congressional consent or does it specifically say agreements?

    Should we ignore some of the words of the Constitution or do you think they were carefully chosen and that we should consider the meaning and intent of ALL the words?

  8. #127
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,600

    It turns on definition of the words agreement and compact

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state.

    What part of that is unclear? Does it say only compacts require Congressional consent or does it specifically say agreements?
    Nothing is unclear about the statement, except that the words may not mean what you think they mean.

    I know you don't like Wiki as a source, but here's how it is explained there:

    As to what represents a compact requiring approval from Congress, it is those types of agreements that would, in some fashion, increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not have to have approval of Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state that its exhibit or its people had to pass through along the way.
    Where a compact or agreement between two states does require congressional approval, such approval may be implied, such as if a state sends information to Congress about an agreement, and congress accepts and records the details. Approval may be requested in advance, or, for a type of compact where the details could not be known before the compact was ratified, after the compact is created.
    The court decided that because the states informed Congress of the original survey that both states hired people to carefully establish, and subsequently enacted as legislation by the two states, the agreement was implicitly approved by Congress, and the border between the two states was that which was set forth in the survey.

  9. #128
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Nothing is unclear about the statement, except that the words may not mean what you think they mean.

    I know you don't like Wiki as a source, but here's how it is explained there:
    I have few quibbles with the quoted passage. I pretty much agree.

    As to what represents a compact requiring approval from Congress, it is those types of agreements that would, in some fashion, increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not have to have approval of Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state that its exhibit or its people had to pass through along the way.
    This is not an agreement issue but rather one of privileges and immunities.

    Where a compact or agreement between two states does require congressional approval, such approval may be implied, such as if a state sends information to Congress about an agreement, and congress accepts and records the details. Approval may be requested in advance, or, for a type of compact where the details could not be known before the compact was ratified, after the compact is created.
    That is exactly what I have been arguing. I never implied that Congress has to have a roll call vote for every agreement but even this passage acknowledges the need for Congressional acceptance (consent.)


  10. #129
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,600

    backpedlin weasel wrascle

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    backpedlin weasel wrascle

    You lose.

  11. #130
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    backpedlin weasel wrascle
    I simply haven't seen anything that can move this forward. Chief Justice Taney made it very clear the meaning of Article I Section 10. You simply refuse to address the issue:

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

    You are arguing what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

    You lose.
    I'm certain that if we took a vote of forum members then you would be correct. However, I will side with Madison, Hamilton and Jay and let the chips fall where they may.

    For a sample that thinks they believe in the Constitution, the failure to grasp this simple issue is disappointing. More and more the evidence is that [especially] with gun owners, the Constitution is simply lip service to further their personal agendas.

  12. #131
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Oh come on now. Now you are getting into YOUR personal agendas. NOBODY here has said that only you. I posted CASE Law where it showed that the Supreme Court, which inteprets what exactly the Constitution means says that SOME agreements do not need Congressional Approval because it did not increase any political power or blah blah blah. You simply want to read what YOU want to read and accuse us of being selective. The people you mentioned? THEY are dead. I will side with the Supreme Court who is going to DECIDE what is constitutional and what isn't. You are a armchair scholar in my book. They carry a bit more weight with me.

    Now if you want to tell me that I'm unpatriotic or I don't believe in the Constitutional, I'm willing to put that to the test with EVERY fiber of my being. I will NOT put up with personal attacks from you, Sir. Now you can back peddle and say you weren't attacking anyone. You have shown your colors to me, Sir. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    Mods, can we close this thread before he starts accusing us of being Anti's.
    "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

  13. #132
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    Oh come on now. Now you are getting into YOUR personal agendas. NOBODY here has said that only you.
    What do you think my personal agenda is?

    I posted CASE Law where it showed that the Supreme Court, which inteprets what exactly the Constitution means says that SOME agreements do not need Congressional Approval because it did not increase any political power or blah blah blah.
    You then must then agree that black people are property because the Supreme Court interprets exactly what the Constitution means. So say the robed oligarchs.

    It is fascinating that some Americans are unable to simply read a simple sentence and come to their own conclusions without needing someone else to help them 'interpret' the words.

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

    You also failed to read Chief Justisce Taney's opinion, which I quoted early on in the thread.

    You simply want to read what YOU want to read and accuse us of being selective. The people you mentioned? THEY are dead.
    You are [at least] the second person that thinks the Constitition should be disregarded because the authors are dead.

    I don't accuse you of being selective at all. I simply want an explanation as to how the words

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

    can mean anything other than

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

    I will side with the Supreme Court who is going to DECIDE what is constitutional and what isn't. You are a armchair scholar in my book. They carry a bit more weight with me.
    I'll let my friend John know that in your opinion he is property because the Supreme Court decides. Or perhaps you think the government can take private property and use it to increase the tax base because the Court has so declared. Or maybe, as Ginsburg has ruled, the United States should bow to foreign governments and their opinions. She is a justice, after all. She MUST be correct!

    Now if you want to tell me that I'm unpatriotic or I don't believe in the Constitutional, I'm willing to put that to the test with EVERY fiber of my being.
    Have I said you are unpatriotic?

    I will NOT put up with personal attacks from you, Sir. Now you can back peddle and say you weren't attacking anyone. You have shown your colors to me, Sir.
    Can you provide evidence of any personal attack?

    I'm sorry if the Constitution and the Founders' visions for America are inconsistent with your views. I'll still side with the 'dead guys.'

  14. #133
    Member Array TomChemEngin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts
    22
    OK, so where are we on the National Reciprocity thing? I think I lost the thread. I emailed my congressman, who seems to support it, but now I haven't heard any progress reports for a while. Did it die in committee or something?

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

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.