Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 6th, 2014, 11:28 AM #21
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 53
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Fat Guy View Post
Ideally this would already be covered under the Full Faith and Credit. This is a subject where it all comes down to the details. Accepting various states permits at face value would be *Good thing* . Letting the Fed Gov't establish standards would be removing and entire wall of the tent, to let in a truck load of camels (the aminal, not the cigarrettes). To Me , that would push it into *Bad thing* .
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. Yes, Sir. That is exactly where "nation-al" reciprocity is found in the Constitution.

...Article. IV.

Section. 1. 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.
...

Can you imagine the control freaks of places like the PRCa, PRMd and PRNY tying to explain to the people who elected them that citizens of the free States like Vermont or Alaska or I think Wyoming can carry as their inalienable right but the people of the enslaved States cannot in their own lands.
__________________
The law is in black and white so citizens can comply with it if it pertains to them and to ignore if it does not. To argue for a different meaning from the written word and its intent is intellectual dishonesty.
Chauchat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 06:18 AM #22
Brooklyn's Avatar
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
Brooklyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonAssassin View Post
DC is a Federal enclave, therefore it is ruled by the Federal government. Might want to go back to history class, bub.

Our lawyers can't do diddly in DC, unless things pass the city council and are then approved by Congress.

Nice try.
But not federal as required for national carry . Since it has no state sovergein. Its like an army base or a federal installation federal law applies ,but can not superceee state law since none exists.

In a crime occurring on federal teritoiry , as for example my place of work,all crimes are federal . In general the fed will explicitly decline to prosecute in favor of the locals.

Its overlapping juristiction. Dc has no government at all other than Congress. Thus a DC permit is not a federal permit since the states are still Sovergien.

Now congress can regulate cww with in the district as a plenary power..no pres signature and no override. But to regulate within a state they need an actual law signed or veto override.
__________________
If one seeks light, you must avoid heat.

New motto for Baltimore contest winner???

Baltimore : It's not as f..ked as you think....

Liberty is NOT a loophole.

Thanks for a great slogan...now window stickers.
Brooklyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 06:20 AM #23
Brooklyn's Avatar
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
Brooklyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chauchat View Post
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. Yes, Sir. That is exactly where "nation-al" reciprocity is found in the Constitution.

...Article. IV.

Section. 1. 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.
...

Can you imagine the control freaks of places like the PRCa, PRMd and PRNY tying to explain to the people who elected them that citizens of the free States like Vermont or Alaska or I think Wyoming can carry as their inalienable right but the people of the enslaved States cannot in their own lands.

No not even close.. but thats OK.. carry on.
__________________
If one seeks light, you must avoid heat.

New motto for Baltimore contest winner???

Baltimore : It's not as f..ked as you think....

Liberty is NOT a loophole.

Thanks for a great slogan...now window stickers.
Brooklyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 06:26 AM #24
Brooklyn's Avatar
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
Brooklyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chauchat View Post
The District is not federal? Interesting. DaemonAssassin, you have it correct. The District of Columbia was created by the Constitution and is therefore solely a federal entity and completely under the delegated authority given to the Congress.

While the article was written recently it is a repost of an article from March by the NRA-ILA. But back to civics 101.

The people and the Congress of the thirteen original States of the American Confederation constituted a new government in 1787 and Congress can only enact statutes where Congress has been delegated that authority according to that Constitution. That requirement has not changed in 227 years.

So let's look at a "national reciprocity bill" and see what it has to say.

https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/h...13hr2959ih.pdf

Section 2 states what the bill is supposed to do. It amends and only amends the GCA of 1968 by adding material and not changing extisting wording. This is where most people eyes roll into the top of their skulls and their brains go to sleep.

You will notice the word "state" used through out bill. This is a legal term and must be defined for clarity and it is.

Let us venture to the Act the bill would purport to change.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...rtI-chap44.htm

The legal term is defined. It is in the definitions in 921a2.

921. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—

...
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

The key is "as used in this chapter" Every place State is mentioned it only means what 921a2 says.

So is the GCA of 1968 congruent with the Constitution? Yep. The district is not one of the fifty States of the Union. Puerto Rico is not a State of the Union. It is a possession. (I wished they would have voted for full independence a couple of years ago but that is another story) So are the Mariana Islands and other places under the control of Congress.

So would there be reciprocity under the bill if enacted? Yes, but only between the District and the possessions and territories. There would be no legal federal/national reciprocity between the People's Socialist Republic Maryland or the Free State of Wyoming as one example.

The law is in black and white for those who want to read it
Answered above.. frankly I dont care.. there is a reason its called the District.. its not a state . Its a direct federal enclave but its governed by congress not the federal government as you say.

What you describe is not reciprocity at all since there is only one sovergien involved. And to the extent that Congress has plenary power its not even a federal law as understood by the congresses legislative authority.

Since we are discussing permits being recognized by the states ,district ccw ,absent actual legislation has no bearing.

The disrict is more aptly described as a congressional enclave. Hence it unique status.

The congress could by actual legislation make Dc ccw a national permit...but we will not like what we get.

And interestingly, if they did so,it could be argued that the terms of the permit must be set by actual law,not congressional plenary oversight,since that oversight does not extend past the so called federal enclave.



I can not think of a more problematic method of achieving National carry recipocity.
__________________
If one seeks light, you must avoid heat.

New motto for Baltimore contest winner???

Baltimore : It's not as f..ked as you think....

Liberty is NOT a loophole.

Thanks for a great slogan...now window stickers.
Brooklyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 06:52 AM #25
Brooklyn's Avatar
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
I stand with John Locke.
Brooklyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
Posts: 12,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by HauptsAriba View Post
Nonsense? Which part. It's difficult to decipher what your saying.

Which lawyers, in which case, and how am I interfering with them? I pay my lifetime dues to SAF just like the next guy.

I have seen enough of your posts to respect your opinion, just not clear on what it is in this instance.
The kind of national recpocity I am trying to make happen

Will not force states to issue permits.
It will not force states to require permits
It will not even force states to issue permits or allow carry .
It will prevent criminal procesution of holders of a permit issued under the national recpocity scheme. Like the commercial drivers Lic.

Phase 2 would allow states that do issue permits more say in the standards under which they would be issue d ( training , renewal, fees etc) ,but the federal government would be an issuer of last resort if a citizens home state refuse to participate or set the standards and fees higher than the federal government.

Bottom line it would set an upper bound on the hoops needed to get a permit. And allso a lower bound on were that permit is good.

So example a permit might be good in all 50 states as a bar against criminal prosecution,but not an adminstatuive fine( if issued on demand by a no permit required state) all the way to carry anyplace they don't provide free gun lockers for a state with a range requirement that meets federal standard.

Now I know this sounds complicated, and I agreed it shoukd not be necessary but it is.

I think the court will give us shall issue. And I think eventually bar criminal charges for all permit holders under the 2a. But it will take awhile. I am much less ootimistic that we will get functional hasle free recipocity from the court alone.

I also know that universal background check are going to be near impossible to prevent.

I want to use the national ccw permit to serve as that check and head off any possibility of a gun registry..


This is doable but it will not be easy,and we need to be united...if they play us off against each other we will get UBC and get nothing in return.

And we can still challenge ubc in the courts under Strict Scrutiny or better...but we may not get strict scrutiny..
__________________
If one seeks light, you must avoid heat.

New motto for Baltimore contest winner???

Baltimore : It's not as f..ked as you think....

Liberty is NOT a loophole.

Thanks for a great slogan...now window stickers.
Brooklyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 07:33 AM #26
DaemonAssassin's Avatar
DaemonAssassin DaemonAssassin is offline
Why should we Free BSD?
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Political refugee in WV
Posts: 20,708
Images: 4
DaemonAssassin DaemonAssassin is offline
Why should we Free BSD?
DaemonAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Political refugee in WV
Posts: 20,708
Images: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn View Post
But not federal as required for national carry . Since it has no state sovergein. Its like an army base or a federal installation federal law applies ,but can not superceee state law since none exists.

In a crime occurring on federal teritoiry , as for example my place of work,all crimes are federal . In general the fed will explicitly decline to prosecute in favor of the locals.

Its overlapping juristiction. Dc has no government at all other than Congress. Thus a DC permit is not a federal permit since the states are still Sovergien.

Now congress can regulate cww with in the district as a plenary power..no pres signature and no override. But to regulate within a state they need an actual law signed or veto override.
DC is technically home rule since the City Council approves things and Congress rubber stamps it. I'm not talking about a permit, I'm calling you out because you can't keep your history lessons straight. DC is a federal enclave, therefore it is technically ruled by the federal government. A federal installation is a whole different can of worms. You might want to check the definitions of such things, before you spout off about things you really know nothing about, my friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn View Post
Answered above.. frankly I dont care.. there is a reason its called the District.. its not a state . Its a direct federal enclave but its governed by congress not the federal government as you say.

What you describe is not reciprocity at all since there is only one sovergien involved. And to the extent that Congress has plenary power its not even a federal law as understood by the congresses legislative authority.

Since we are discussing permits being recognized by the states ,district ccw ,absent actual legislation has no bearing.

The disrict is more aptly described as a congressional enclave. Hence it unique status.

The congress could by actual legislation make Dc ccw a national permit...but we will not like what we get.

And interestingly, if they did so,it could be argued that the terms of the permit must be set by actual law,not congressional plenary oversight,since that oversight does not extend past the so called federal enclave.

I can not think of a more problematic method of achieving National carry recipocity.
Your general attitude towards people in general on here that are proving you wrong, just shows why I think you need to go back and take your history classes all over again. He quoted a document that supported his argument and mine, and yet you still can't pull your head out of the sand to see the truth. FFS...

In addition to taking history all over again, you might want to brush up on the ability to not blow people off. You are not a lawyer, a politician, a admin/mod, you are just an average person, who puts their pants on one leg at a time. You can not dictate to other what they will do and blow them off when they say no. You start a discussion, you might want to finish it, by proving your point with facts. You will gain more friends with lemonade than vinegar. You might do well to remember that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by armed ferret View Post
If ignorance is bliss, some folks are just plain orgasmic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoostation View Post
Like cherry blossoms in spring

Ban hammer falls and makes all better
Member of the 1st Universal Church of St. John Moses Browning, Reformed (M1911A1)

SOTAR FTW!

Admitted H&K fan boy
NRA-Life
MDC

DaemonAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 11:34 AM #27
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 53
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn View Post
Now congress can regulate cww with in the district as a plenary power..no pres signature and no override. But to regulate within a state they need an actual law signed or veto override.

Please share with the class just where it is in the Constitution of 1787 that Congress can arbitarily enact a bill into law without the signature of the president.


I shall pray for you.
__________________
The law is in black and white so citizens can comply with it if it pertains to them and to ignore if it does not. To argue for a different meaning from the written word and its intent is intellectual dishonesty.
Chauchat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 11:41 AM #28
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Gulag Montgomery
Posts: 43,863
swinokur swinokur is online now
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Gulag Montgomery
Posts: 43,863
Article I Section 8 of the COTUS

Quote:
Section 8 - The Text
The Congress shall have Power To :...
Quote:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; —And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Legislative Branch has exclusive purview over DC. The Executive Branch is specifically excluded.
swinokur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 11:54 AM #29
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 53
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn View Post
The kind of national recpocity I am trying to make happen

Will not force states to issue permits.
It will not force states to require permits
It will not even force states to issue permits or allow carry .
It will prevent criminal procesution of holders of a permit issued under the national recpocity scheme. Like the commercial drivers Lic.

Phase 2 would allow states that do issue permits more say in the standards under which they would be issue d ( training , renewal, fees etc) ,but the federal government would be an issuer of last resort if a citizens home state refuse to participate or set the standards and fees higher than the federal government.

Bottom line it would set an upper bound on the hoops needed to get a permit. And allso a lower bound on were that permit is good.

So example a permit might be good in all 50 states as a bar against criminal prosecution,but not an adminstatuive fine( if issued on demand by a no permit required state) all the way to carry anyplace they don't provide free gun lockers for a state with a range requirement that meets federal standard.

Now I know this sounds complicated, and I agreed it shoukd not be necessary but it is.

I think the court will give us shall issue. And I think eventually bar criminal charges for all permit holders under the 2a. But it will take awhile. I am much less ootimistic that we will get functional hasle free recipocity from the court alone.

I also know that universal background check are going to be near impossible to prevent.

I want to use the national ccw permit to serve as that check and head off any possibility of a gun registry..


This is doable but it will not be easy,and we need to be united...if they play us off against each other we will get UBC and get nothing in return.

And we can still challenge ubc in the courts under Strict Scrutiny or better...but we may not get strict scrutiny..
Alrighty since you are a constitutional attorney, please provide a working draft of the bill you would submit to your Representive for the ideas you have espoused in the above quote.

Of course it should be written the same as any real bill in the House of Representatives. It must also be congruent with the Constitution. That means agreeing with.

So let's see it.
__________________
The law is in black and white so citizens can comply with it if it pertains to them and to ignore if it does not. To argue for a different meaning from the written word and its intent is intellectual dishonesty.
Chauchat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2014, 12:03 PM #30
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 53
Chauchat Chauchat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Afghan Plain
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
Article I Section 8 of the COTUS



The Legislative Branch has exclusive purview over DC. The Executive Branch is specifically excluded.
Sir. Is this a response to my challenge to Monsieur Brookyn?

Best regards
__________________
The law is in black and white so citizens can comply with it if it pertains to them and to ignore if it does not. To argue for a different meaning from the written word and its intent is intellectual dishonesty.
Chauchat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Tags
concealed carry, congress, reciprocity, second amendment


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service