Utterly awesome!!!!

[Silver_Bullet]

I understand the 10th amendment argument. That said one useful purpose of the federal government was to protect the rights of the people when the states fail to do so. You have states denying people the right to carry. This can not be allowed, and this is one of the few useful purposes of the federal government. Perfectly we would have national constitutional carry forced upon the states, no permits. That said this interstate compact to honor those out of state permits is a step in the right direction.

 

[gc70]

There is nothing in the wording of 2A which mentions Congress or the Federal Government.

There was no need to mention the U.S. Congress or federal government in an amendment to the constitution that created both of them and defined their powers and constraints. The Founders were very precise in specifying the parts of the Constitution that extended beyond the federal government and applied to the states.

 

[SafetySquintsEngaged]

If you strike the part of your statement that I bolded, I would agree completely with you. Permits means the gummint gets a say in our business. We're either free or we're not.

You are correct. And I agree with you that that is what it is and was meant to be. The "gummint" should not be able to sell my right to me in the form of a license or permit. My wording is what we may be able to get passed as opposed to a federally recognized CCW. But you are correct in how it should be.

 

[Chdamn]

Perfectly we would have national constitutional carry forced upon the states, no permits. That said this interstate compact to honor those out of state permits is a step in the right direction.

This, in a nutshell, is what I was trying to say upstream. I see this as interstate commerce enforcement and dismantling unconstitutional no carry laws.

As has been said, it has the potential to be done incorrectly and open the door for more federal regulation, which is why we should jump in now to push this legislation as is.

 

[gc70]

I understand the 10th amendment argument. That said one useful purpose of the federal government was to protect the rights of the people when the states fail to do so.

I believe you would be challenged to find a provision in the original Constitution or Bill of Rights that empowers the federal government to override the actions of states to protect individual rights.

Whether the subsequent change in the relationship between the states and federal government resulting from the 14th Amendment is positive or useful is a matter of opinion.

That said this interstate compact to honor those out of state permits is a step in the right direction.

The proposed federal law is not an interstate compact, which is an agreement between states.

 

[Rode Hard and Put Up Wet]

There was no need to mention the U.S. Congress or federal government in an amendment to the constitution that created both of them and defined their powers and constraints. The Founders were very precise in specifying the parts of the Constitution that extended beyond the federal government and applied to the states.

The point is that the BOR enumerated the rights of the individuals/states. It was not even primarily a restrictive covenant forbidding action by the fed, though it did that. It is a statement of the INTRINSIC RIGHTS of the liberties of a free people. In that sense, it is more of a philosophical treatise or moral stance than a legislative document....., kind of like the "self evident" stuff in the DOI. At times, it did so by stating this area was "off limits" to the federal/congress. Sometimes, as in 2A, it simply stated it in bold terms like "shall not be infringed." This, far from allowing the states to "manage" and declaring it off limits to the executive, judicial, or legislative branches of the federal government, is rather a flat statement that this right is not able to be suspended by states or municipalities.

The Founders were very precise in specifying the parts of the Constitution that extended beyond the federal government and applied to the states.

I am confused by this statement. Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying, but taken on its face, it seems to be diametrically opposed to the BOR, which were not for specifying what areas were beyond the power of the federal government, but rather limiting the restrictive and/or intrusive power of the same. That is, "this is what you can do..... everything else is off limits"

If that is so, then one of the logical jobs of the federal government would be to collectively enforce on individual states any attempts to restrict the freedoms assumed to be our natural rights.

This is the logic of the 14th amendment, which, for all its abuse by a court which has lost its vision, seems to make sense to me.

 

[Rode Hard and Put Up Wet]

What it seems to me we have is a situation very much like the issue of slavery, where the rights assumed to be the basis for the union itself were abrogated by members of the union. The question then becomes whether the forces of the collective states have the right and obligation to force compliance with the principles of liberty on a people who no longer want them...., or at least their representatives no longer want them.

I am actually in favor of allowing such a state to secede rather than forcing it to "comply" but that issue was temporarily settled in 1865. With all the attendant loss of freedoms, it still seems reasonable to me to stand and say "these are the principles of freedom in our charter. If you stay, you WILL abide by them."

 

[SafetySquintsEngaged]

What it seems to me we have is a situation very much like the issue of slavery, where the rights assumed to be the basis for the union itself were abrogated by members of the union. The question then becomes whether the forces of the collective states have the right and obligation to force compliance with the principles of liberty on a people who no longer want them...., or at least their representatives no longer want them.

I am actually in favor of allowing such a state to secede rather than forcing it to "comply" but that issue was temporarily settled in 1865. With all the attendant loss of freedoms, it still seems reasonable to me to stand and say "these are the principles of freedom in our charter. If you stay, you WILL abide by them."

I am actually in favor of allowing such a state to secede rather than forcing it to "comply" but that issue was temporarily settled in 1865. With all the attendant loss of freedoms, it still seems reasonable to me to stand and say "these are the principles of freedom in our charter. If you stay, you WILL abide by them."[/QUOTE]

EEhhh... I see what you are trying to say here. The thing is... Slavery needed to be abolished because it violated the very rights the Constitution enumerated. The desire to violate an individuals rights is not and should not be a reason for secession. That is why the 2nd, I feel falls in the same position. It is an enumerated right. A physical manifestation and exercise of the freedom of an individual. Just as much as the 1st amendment is. The Constitution is a document meant, not to list the freedoms of individuals, but to list what is not allowed to be taken away. A list of what are called negative rights. Not promising anything but the defense of your choice to or not to do something. One of these freedoms being to "Keep and Bear Arms". The federal government should hold no position on how an individual "Keeps" and or "Bears" said arms. As long as that individual does not violate another individuals personal and or property rights. No law should be made to limit and or regulate those rights. A federal list will only be used incorrectly. Even if that list is indicated to be for mere reciprocity between states. The only acceptable law is one that grants an individual the right to carry a firearm as they see fit. As long as it is legal to carry in the area that they are in. A federal concealed carry reciprocity license will one day be twisted into a federal carry license. Then that license will be made prohibitively expensive and or be denied all together. Think about the NFA tax stamps and licensing. If you don't think that will happen keep dreaming. The only acceptable law that should be passed. Is one that states that if it is legal to carry a firearm where you are. That no law maybe made that prohibits you from carrying that firearm anyway you choose. If it is legal to carry, carry how you want. That's it. That's the only one that should be accepted. I know there is a lot of people making a lot of money teaching CCW classes that will say I am wrong. But they are talking from a position of money, not a position of liberty.

 

[trcubed]

...I know there is a lot of people making a lot of money teaching CCW classes that will say I am wrong. But they are talking from a position of money, not a position of liberty.

I am one of those people, but I have never been in it for the money. In fact, I've probably given away more classes than I've charged for. It's always been about getting good people armed and in a position to defend themselves if required.

I'd love to see the permit requirement, and the need for CCW instructors, go away entirely.

 

[gc70]

The point is that the BOR enumerated the rights of the individuals/states. It was not even primarily a restrictive covenant forbidding action by the fed, though it did that.

Yes, the first 10 amendments were primarily restrictive in nature.

From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (emphasis added):

[FONT=Baskerville,Georgia,Oxford,Palatino,Times,Times New Roman]THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution[/FONT]

And from James Madison's introduction of the Bill of Rights to Congress (emphasis added):

But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode.

 

[gc70]

If that is so, then one of the logical jobs of the federal government would be to collectively enforce on individual states any attempts to restrict the freedoms assumed to be our natural rights.

No, the Founders did not think the Bill of Rights was something to be enforced against the states by the federal government.

A unanimous Supreme Court was clear in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments.

The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States.
.....
We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

Chief Justice John Marshall even ridiculed the idea that the states would go through the rigorous process of adopting amendments to the U.S. Constitution to force themselves to do things that they could do by changing their own state laws or constitutions.

The unwieldy and cumbrous machinery of procuring a recommendation from two-thirds of Congress and the assent of three-fourths of their sister States could never have occurred to any human being as a mode of doing that which might be effected by the State itself.

You are, however, correct that Bingham and the other authors of the 14th Amendment absolutely intended for the federal government to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states.

 

[gc70]

Finally found it; the Founders considered applying some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states:

ART. 1, SEC. 10, between the 1st and 2d PAR. insert, “No State shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.”

The Senate rejected that idea, which was not included in the Bill of Rights submitted for ratification by the States.

 

[SafetySquintsEngaged]

I am one of those people, but I have never been in it for the money. In fact, I've probably given away more classes than I've charged for. It's always been about getting good people armed and in a position to defend themselves if required.

I'd love to see the permit requirement, and the need for CCW instructors, go away entirely.

Did we just become best friends?

 

[Starkherz199]

The first time I saw this I wasn't sure how I felt about it from a 10th amendment standpoint.

And then I realized that this truly is what a centralized federal government was designed to do. This really does fall under the authority of the fed and is backed up by the right being spelled out and protected in the bill of rights.

I hope it passes. My only question is how it will be effected by shall not issue states.

Dear god I just took a clear look at your avatar. Lol

 

[Howland]

Finally found it; the Founders considered applying some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states:


The Senate rejected that idea, which was not included in the Bill of Rights submitted for ratification by the States.

Might it have been rejected because they felt that prohibiting the states from violating just four specific rights may have been interpreted as tacit permission for the states to violate every other right? Is there any record of the sentiment behind the rejection?

Bear in mind that the Federalist objection to the Bill of Rights was exactly that.

The Bill of Rights sets out rights that are inviolate. If it is only a prohibition against the federal government, then every one of those rights could be criminalized and vigorously enforced by every state. Then where would those rights be? Only in our minds!

 

[gc70]

If it is only a prohibition against the federal government, then every one of those rights could be criminalized and vigorously enforced by every state.

In fact, many states had laws that contravened the provisions of the Bill of Rights. It would have made no sense for state legislatures to vote for federal prohibitions applicable to their states when they did not bother to repeal their own state laws that were in contravention of those prohibitions.

If the Bill of Rights had always applied to the states, there would have been no reason to adopt the 14th Amendment to try to extend the Bill of Rights to the states.

 

[The Green Heron]

The first time I saw this I wasn't sure how I felt about it from a 10th amendment standpoint.

And then I realized that this truly is what a centralized federal government was designed to do. This really does fall under the authority of the fed and is backed up by the right being spelled out and protected in the bill of rights.

I hope it passes. My only question is how it will be effected by shall not issue states.

That is the dreaded Jolly Rogering flag of the infamous pirate Chad Gagem. He sailed the flagship PoopSloop.

 

[Rode Hard and Put Up Wet]

By this reasoning, the whole concept of judicial review of state laws is unconstitutional. While that may theoretically be so, and is an argument for another time, This is what you are arguing.

Also in that vein, while I agree Marbury v Madison was a colossal power grab and I had rather see true checks and balances in the system (like the current move to abrogate a USSC rule with a vote of a percentage of states), I am just not convinced that the founders had nearly the clear eyed vision on this thing you seem to imply.

I do again affirm that the "BILL OF RIGHTS" is in fact a statement of fundamental rights, with the expectation that ALL law (not just federal) should grow from the principle of respecting them. These men were not stupid, and could easily foresee "renditioning" violation of each of these rights to a rogue state within the Union should such an unfettered tyranny arise within the union. I just can't bring myself to buy the idea that the big overwhelming fear of the amendments was only the idea of FEDERAL government growing and violating, but rather they envisioned a nation whose guiding principles were these MORAL formulations.... , and yes, they were all aware that slavery violated these precepts, and yes, slavery was legal within the federal sphere of authority (military officers were allowed to have slaves on army bases and ships and later, DC was allowed to have slavery within its limits). My take on it, anyway

 

[gc70]

I am just not convinced that the founders had nearly the clear eyed vision on this thing you seem to imply.

I think the Founders had an extremely clear view of how they wanted government to operate. The Founders were the political leaders of their day, even before the Constitution was drafted. They trusted themselves to run their respective sovereign states. They were not so trusting about giving power to a new and higher level of government and to relatively unknown people from distant states.

I do again affirm that the "BILL OF RIGHTS" is in fact a statement of fundamental rights, with the expectation that ALL law (not just federal) should grow from the principle of respecting them.

The Bill of Rights encompasses two concepts that are in no way mutually exclusive. First, its simple language of negatives ("Congress shall make no law", "shall not be abridged", etc.) reveals the Bill of Rights as a list of restraints on the power of the federal government. At the same time, the topics of those restraints comprise a list of the most fundamental rights.

However, the absolute nature of the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights presents an issue. While it is certainly possible to absolutely prohibit involvement by one level of government in an area subject to the power of another level of government, it is an entirely different proposition to deny power to any level of government.

Consider "shall not be infringed" in the 2A. For a century and a half, it was easy for the courts to declare that the federal government had no power related to arms because the states held that power. Now that the 2A has been "incorporated" against the states, there are presumably no laws related to arms that are constitutional. But don't hold you breath waiting for all arms-related laws to be struck down; things like the disarming of prisoners will still be legal. What has occurred is not an elimination of government power, but a transfer of decision-making power from the legislature to the judiciary.

 

[Rode Hard and Put Up Wet]

What has occurred is not an elimination of government power, but a transfer of decision-making power from the legislature to the judiciary.

Whatever else either of us may say on the issue. that is a money quote right there! I think you would like reading John Whitehead's "SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION"

https://www.amazon.com/Second-American-Revolution-John-Whitehead/dp/097723312X

I have it if you would like to borrow it.

 

[MacEntyre]

What has occurred is not an elimination of government power, but a transfer of decision-making power from the legislature to the judiciary.

I agree, that's the money quote. What is amazing is the simultaneous voluntary transfer of power from the legislative branch to the administrative branch.

The President is King, the Congress is his Rubber Stamp, and the Judiciary enforces the Powers of the Federal Government Monarchy.

All the supposed debate is political theater.

Just sayin'...