Saturday, November 26, 2016
Are Guns Legal in Your Town, but Not Next Door? by Rob Morse
New York won’t recognize the licenses from Connecticut or Massachusetts. New Jersey won’t recognize New York or Pennsylvania. California cops won’t recognize your license from Arizona, Nevada or Oregon.
I’m talking about the license to carry a concealed weapon in public, and with over 15 million licensed concealed carriers in the U.S., recognition between states is a study in contrasts. Some 15 states say a law-abiding adult can legally carry a loaded firearm in public without any permit at all. In contrast, a visitor carrying without a recognized license in California is usually charged with a felony and faces years in jail. Welcome to the bizarre nightmare endured by honest gun owners every day.
Recognizing the permits and licenses issued by other states is broadly called reciprocity. Politicians say a number of factors are involved. The decision to recognize your carry permit from another state isn’t a matter of public safety. Concealed carry holders are the most law abiding segment of society. Concealed carry holders are more law abiding and less likely to commit a legal violation with a firearm than are the police.
Permit reciprocity isn’t a an issue of protecting the public from risks. For comparison, we recognize drivers licenses between states and territories. The licenses vary widely in the training, the age, and the levels of insurance required before you may legally operate a motor vehicle on public roads. The public risks are real since automobile accidents injure far more people than firearms accidents.
Recognizing out-of-state legal documents is nothing new. We recognize the legal certificates and decrees issued by other states every day. For example, we recognize death certificates, divorce decrees, and adoption certificates even though those laws vary widely from state to state. Federal judges mandated the recognition of marriage between states even though the states have significantly different marriage laws.
More Here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
All of these arguments could be resolved by enforcing the constitution as written. the tenth amendment clearly separates the authority between the federal government and the states. "Powers retained by the states and the people" "Powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, Nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people".
People continually misread this Amendment and really have no idea of what it says or means.
First the Federal constitution is the supreme law of this land it has power over all state constitutions.
The bill of rights is in the federal constitution. it guarantees our inalienable rights that no state can touch. the second amendment is in the bill of rights.
Congress can not pass laws that infringe on our rights, therefore no state can pass laws that infringe on our rights.
Rights not listed or specifically protected in the bill of rights are protected by the tenth amendment. It says to the states or to the people.
anything in the federal constitution is required to be enforced by the states because the federal constitution is supreme to the states constitutions. shall not be infringed in the second amendment is the prohibition that prevents the federal government and state governments from infringing on our second amendment rights. Shall not be infringed must be upheld by the states. therefore no state gun rights infringing laws are valid. Gibbons v. Ogden 1824 USSC.
The state of California constitution for example does not mention the second amendment. If it did the only authority the California constitution could do legally is copy the 26 words in the second amendment. States have no authority to pass laws that change the federal constitution.
The only way to change the federal constitution is by ratified amendment. Because the California state constitution does not mention the second amendment, in reality the state legislature has no delegated authority to pass laws concerning second amendment issues. Marbury v. Madison 1803 USSC, A law repugnant to the constitution (federal) is void. void laws are not enforceable. shall not infringe makes all state laws concerning the second amendment repugnant to the federal constitution, because their is no authority for them to exist.
Most high schools stopped teaching the federal and state constitutions in the mid 1960s. Most people are to lazy to read it for themselves.
We will soon be able to see what kind of a constitutionalist President Trump is. this is the argument he should make if he is going to protect our second amendment rights.
Our government has continually violated the constitution backed up by poor efforts by the supreme court to protect us. the supreme court has made many errors over the years. Only if you read and understand what the constitution actually says will you understand the errors. the common laws explained in American jurisprudence limit the judges of the supreme court in their authority. Over the years those judges have exceeded their authority many times. It had no authority to hear the case on a California constitutional amendment called prop 8. Prop 8 was an amendment to the California constitution for an issue not addressed in the federal constitution. the framers never addressed marriage in the federal constitution. This is why the U. S. congress can not pass a defense of marriage act. No delegated authority to address the issue. It has to be written for the court to have jurisdiction. this is why the 1934 NFA, 1968 and 1986 GCAs are unconstitutional. shall not infringe has never been amended. there is no delegated authority but there is a limit in Shall not be infringed. Laws and acts are not amendments. those laws and acts are in fact repugnant to the constitution and are in fact void until the second amendment is amended.
Post a Comment