Carolyn McCarthy proposing two amendments in an effort to stop H.R. 822

[Guest pfries]

Unfortunately we seem to have a need to enact laws in order to guarantee that our rights are not taken or infringed upon and so forth.

Plain English laws would be wonderful and if you read the Bill this is the closest to it I have seen in a long time. I wish we did not need laws to uphold the rights we have but in America today it is the case.

The 2^nd and 14^th Amendment do answer these problems however you cannot enforce an Amendment as it is not a law, a law has to be put in place to enforce. This is one of the inherent flaws.

It would be a wonderful thing if the constitution was only up for clarification by the judicial branch heck we would have already won the war if that were the case.

As always 6.8AR I do enjoy a good debate with you.

Pat

[sigmtnman]

On the surface, it seems much the same argument as universal driver's license reciprocity, but it's really not. The former really does logically fall under the Commerce Clause, but no way handgun permits do.

- OS

I'm curious how traveling by mechanized device falls under the jurisdiction of Interstate Commerce? I can see commercial driving as such, but not personal.

[mikegideon]

Great points, Mac. May be a big can of worms.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm curious how traveling by mechanized device falls under the jurisdiction of Interstate Commerce? I can see commercial driving as such, but not personal.

Millions of traveling salespersons and product reps are on line two. Not to mention the other millions of folks whose work for their own company or employer's company entails travel to multiple regional states.

- OS

Edited November 16, 2011 by OhShoot

[sigmtnman]

Millions of traveling salespersons and product reps are on line two. Not to mention the other millions of folks whose work for their own company or employer's company entails travel to multiple regional states.

- OS

I'm missing your point. Since there are many folks driving for commercial reasons, folks traveling for personal reasons should be lumped in?

The Commerce Clause is abused to no end and I agree with your statement that the Fed giveth so that it may taketh away at a later time.

[Guest pfries]

On the surface, it seems much the same argument as universal driver's license reciprocity, but it's really not. The former really does logically fall under the Commerce Clause, but no way handgun permits do.

If passed, guaranteed that several states will run this up the judicial ladder, just as ObamaCare has been. Probably most of the May Issue states would unite in the suit. Little doubt that the Supremes would ultimately nuke it. Hell, it's possible that there would be even LESS reciprocity around the country, as some states may react with more exclusivity, and it would strengthen the resolve of May Issue states to remain that way.

A good sweeping change, if there were to be one, would be to mandate all states to be Shall Issue. Better would be universal constitutional carry. But either of these would suffer same outcome as above through the courts.

But overall, what the Fed may grant is always just a precedent for what the Fed may ban. Who governs best governs least, and nowhere is this more true than with gun laws and the federal government.

- OS

On what grounds would the Bill or Law at that point be nuked?

The previous SCOTUS rulings have already upheld that we have a right to self defense; SCOTUS has upheld we have the right to own arms; SCOTUS has upheld that it is an individual’s right to bear arms with the meaning to “wearâ€.

Article. IV. - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

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.

So under this, The rules we have set forth to grant a HCP should be sufficient.

H.R. 822 is not being upheld solely or primarily on the commerce clause. Which means if it cannot be overturned for unconstitutional reasons then what?

Stay a may issue State, of which there are 9 (5 may issue resident only and 4 may issue resident and nonresident).

If I have the bought the privilege to exercise my rights and the state can still mandate how the arms may be worn there seems to be little to nothing to run up the judicial ladder.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm missing your point. Since there are many folks driving for commercial reasons, folks traveling for personal reasons should be lumped in?...

You would mandate a CDL for anyone who ever crosses a state line to make a buck in any vehicle?

What about folks who look for a job in another state or relocate for job purposes. What about the millions who daily cross a state line to punch a timeclock?

That's all "commerce".

- OS

Edited November 16, 2011 by OhShoot

[Oh Shoot]

On what grounds would the Bill or Law at that point be nuked?...

Fact that Commerce Clause would be the only conceivable defense to violating 10th amendment states' rights as far as carrying a gun. The Supremes have already ruled twice (by not ruling on it) that handgun carry is not an incorporated right, only handgun ownership.

They would have to add universal handgun carry as an incorporated constitutional right. And to do that, they'd have to mandate every state as Shall Issue, or enact constitutional carry, neither of which they will of course do.

OR, worse nightmare, the fed could enact a federal firearms carry permit, good in all states. And THAT, of course, makes it only one simple step to the opposite, BANNING carry in all states.

But again, that wouldn't fly either, unless the Supremes rule that handgun carry is an incorporated constitutional right.

- OS

[sigmtnman]

You would mandate a CDL for anyone who ever crosses a state line to make a buck in any vehicle?

- OS

Would that not make more sense than granting jurisdiction to the Fed of all travelers no matter the cause? It would seem that the same argument could be applied to the HCP since some people would be carrying while doing business.

[mav]

I don't even know why this is being debated right now. There is no way this is going to make it through the senate much less the white house.

I think this issue is nothing more than pandering by the house republicans to their base to focus their attention away from all the crappy things republicans have done during this term like not defunding Obamacare, caving on the debt ceiling, etc...

The federal government needs to stay out of this.

[Oh Shoot]

Would that not make more sense than granting jurisdiction to the Fed of all travelers no matter the cause?..

Jeez, it ain't "jurisdiction", it's freedom to travel. The jurisdiction is still handled by the state in which you're tooling around.

It would seem that the same argument could be applied to the HCP since some people would be carrying while doing business.

Absurd on the face of it. The travel is necessary to make the buck, carrying the gun ain't, unless you're saying that the constitution should protect armed robbery.

I think that free travel within the country can be argued on other grounds also. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" probably covers it.

If you'd like to argue that packing a heater should also be covered by that, fine, but again the Fed doesn't agree.

- OS

Edited November 16, 2011 by OhShoot

[sigmtnman]

Jeez, it ain't "jurisdiction", it's freedom to travel. The jurisdiction is still handled by the state in which you're tooling around.

Absurd on the face of it. The travel is necessary to make the buck, carrying the gun ain't, unless you're saying that the constitution should protect armed robbery.

I think that free travel within the country can be argued on other grounds also. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" probably covers it.

If you'd like to argue that packing a heater should also be covered by that, fine, but again the Fed doesn't agree.

- OS

The national id cards which are being rolled out as part of state licenses could be construed as a restriction of the freedom to travel. Which is where I was going.

If you are doing business in another state and using the gun for protection, how would that be different from someone using a car to transport them to another state to do business? All of the salespeople you are referring to may not be "working" while in the car.

[Oh Shoot]

The national id cards which are being rolled out as part of state licenses ...

I don't know what you're talking about here. States are issuing national ID cards? How can they?

If you are doing business in another state and using the gun for protection, how would that be different from someone using a car to transport them to another state to do business? All of the salespeople you are referring to may not be "working" while in the car.

You're really reaching, for whatever reason. I don't think you'll see any of that "reasoning" in the court cases that will result if HR822 gets enacted (which I'd bet half the farm against happening).

- OS

[sigmtnman]

I don't know what you're talking about here. States are issuing national ID cards? How can they?

The Real ID act.

You're really reaching, for whatever reason. I don't think you'll see any of that "reasoning" in the court cases that will result if HR822 gets enacted (which I'd bet half the farm against happening).

Perhaps it is reaching, but the car and the gun are both tools used by the individual, though not directly related to the pursuit of the business at hand. Unlike commercial carriers, chauffeurs, etc.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Unfortunately we seem to have a need to enact laws in order to guarantee that our rights are not taken or infringed upon and so forth.

Plain English laws would be wonderful and if you read the Bill this is the closest to it I have seen in a long time. I wish we did not need laws to uphold the rights we have but in America today it is the case.

The 2^nd and 14^th Amendment do answer these problems however you cannot enforce an Amendment as it is not a law, a law has to be put in place to enforce. This is one of the inherent flaws.

It would be a wonderful thing if the constitution was only up for clarification by the judicial branch heck we would have already won the war if that were the case.

As always 6.8AR I do enjoy a good debate with you.

Pat

As I do you and many others around here, but try to

think of the Constitution as the limiter of such laws.

Michelle Bachmann introduced a bill in the House to

make any law passed stand the test of constitutionality

before it is voted on and/or passed. Well, she also

introduced one to make the law about those queer

lightbulbs go away, too. It's the kind of thing that

needs to be considered before letting any government

take more power. What the Hell does the Federal

Government have to do with lightbulbs? That Al

Gore crap has killed a lot of jobs, for no good reason.

When you kill the economy, restrict rights to use

things(yes even lightbulbs, freon and guns) and

make half the population dependent on the gov,

what's left? Not very much.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

Bill passed House today, apparently with none of the amendments mentioned in this thread.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/65122-hr-822-passes.html

- OS