... heads for the Senate.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-cong...se-bill/38

Doubt it passes the Senate because they are a bunch of gutless cucks. Hopefully the NRA & NAGR makes a list of the no votes and ensures they A. get no more funding from either and B. finds someone who truly supports the Second Amendment to run against them.

I still think this is potentially opening Pandora's Box by ceeding the high ground on state's rights by allowing the federal government a means of controlling the issue.

When liberals control congress, they will seek to utilize in the other direction.

Perhaps the 4D chess move buried in here is that passing this, liberal states like New York and California will seek redress in federal court where they will have to make the exact same state rights arguments they have railed against for years. That will be fun to watch.

(12-27-2017 02:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  When liberals control congress, they will seek to utilize in the other direction.

They already have, via the courts. The ship has sailed on this one

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/...tates.html

(12-27-2017 02:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Doubt it passes the Senate because they are a bunch of gutless cucks. Hopefully the NRA & NAGR makes a list of the no votes and ensures they A. get no more funding from either and B. finds someone who truly supports the Second Amendment to run against them.

The NRA is spineless on holding the line too. You want a gun lobby? There's only one in Washington: GOA.

(12-27-2017 02:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Perhaps the 4D chess move buried in here is that passing this, liberal states like New York and California will seek redress in federal court where they will have to make the exact same state rights arguments they have railed against for years. That will be fun to watch.

The chess move is that Utah and several other states offer out of state CCW for a simple fee, application, and background check. You don't need prints. You don't need a practical. You don't need to be in that state ever. That means the end of gun control in NY, IL, CA, and everywhere else.

(12-27-2017 02:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 02:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Perhaps the 4D chess move buried in here is that passing this, liberal states like New York and California will seek redress in federal court where they will have to make the exact same state rights arguments they have railed against for years. That will be fun to watch.

The chess move is that Utah and several other states offer out of state CCW for a simple fee, application, and background check. You don't need prints. You don't need a practical. You don't need to be in that state ever. That means the end of gun control in NY, IL, CA, and everywhere else.

That's a good point, I had not even considered that.

The bill would be unconstitutional. Dollars to donuts.

I support it, but it is *so* counter to the notion of the 10th Amendment it is mind boggling.

Just off the top of my head I can think of two SCOTUS cases that really make this problematic.

I hate it.

This is something that falls completely, in my opinion, within the state's police powers.

(12-27-2017 05:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The bill would be unconstitutional. Dollars to donuts.

I support it, but it is *so* counter to the notion of the 10th Amendment it is mind boggling.

Just off the top of my head I can think of two SCOTUS cases that really make this problematic.

How is reciprocity unconstitutional?

The "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the US constitution documents that all of the states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

I mean *maybe* this slides outside of if but if it does so do drivers licenses.

Being licensed to carry in Texas does not give you the right to carry in Oklahoma.

Much like being licensed to practice law in Texas (i.e. being a counselor on Texas law) does not give you a license to practice Oklahoma law.

Or having a license to practice orthodontics in Missouri does not automatically grant you that in Texas.

Or a hunting license does not give one the right to hunt in Arkansas.

A state *may* choose to honor each of the above from other states; they are not obligated to do so.

The Full Faith and Credit clause mainly pertains to the effect of legal proceedings. If a court in another jurisdiction finds against you, you cannot relitigate the matter in the state where the judgement is sought to be enforced. That is what 98 per cent of the SCOTUS cases carve out.

In some instances, matters of marriage, adoption, and other aspects of family law have been addressed by SCOTUS under the FFAC clause. But these are known as 'public policy exceptions' to the main body of case law. Further, there are *no* clear lines where the FFAC clause carves these out. Sometimes marriage, adoption, divorce, and protection acts of a state are given 'protection' in a hostile jurisdiction; sometimes they are not.

The application of the FFAC clause simply isnt within the ambit of the SCOTUS body of caselaw for this.

(12-27-2017 05:12 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I mean *maybe* this slides outside of if but if it does so do drivers licenses.

The key to drivers licenses are that the individual states all have voluntary agreements with one another. Remember, when you decide to move to state A from state B, the comity between states allows your license to be honored through agreement from the states themselves; and only for limited timeframes.

If you are equating a Texas drivers license as having the full protection of the FFAC clause, you never have to get a California license --- even after the agreed upon term of 30 days.

Your example equating drivers licenses to being subject to the FFAC clause is off base.

(12-27-2017 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Being licensed to carry in Texas does not give you the right to carry in Oklahoma.

Much like being licensed to practice law in Texas (i.e. being a counselor on Texas law) does not give you a license to practice Oklahoma law.

Or having a license to practice orthodontics in Missouri does not automatically grant you that in Texas.

Or a hunting license does not give one the right to hunt in Arkansas.

A state *may* choose to honor each of the above from other states; they are not obligated to do so.

The Full Faith and Credit clause mainly pertains to the effect of legal proceedings. If a court in another jurisdiction finds against you, you cannot relitigate the matter in the state where the judgement is sought to be enforced. That is what 98 per cent of the SCOTUS cases carve out.

In some instances, matters of marriage, adoption, and other aspects of family law have been addressed by SCOTUS under the FFAC clause. But these are known as 'public policy exceptions' to the main body of case law. Further, there are *no* clear lines where the FFAC clause carves these out. Sometimes marriage, adoption, divorce, and protection acts of a state are given 'protection' in a hostile jurisdiction; sometimes they are not.

The application of the FFAC clause simply isnt within the ambit of the SCOTUS body of caselaw for this.

Oklahoma has had reciprocity with Texas since 1998. Other than the liberal bastions who say no soup for you, most of the country has reciprocity with over 40 states. Those liberal states have been deemed to have that right.

And the full faith and credit argument regarding accessory use of rights was already clubbed like a baby seal at the USSC multiple times regarding hunting rights that were deemed constitutional rights for residents but not non-residents. Other examples closer to this issue but since typing on a phone I’ll keep it simple.

(12-27-2017 05:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I hate it.

This is something that falls completely, in my opinion, within the state's police powers.

This. ^

I’d be ok if it passes into law but I admit it means I have to turn in some of my state rights credibility to do so.

(12-27-2017 02:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 02:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Perhaps the 4D chess move buried in here is that passing this, liberal states like New York and California will seek redress in federal court where they will have to make the exact same state rights arguments they have railed against for years. That will be fun to watch.

The chess move is that Utah and several other states offer out of state CCW for a simple fee, application, and background check. You don't need prints. You don't need a practical. You don't need to be in that state ever. That means the end of gun control in NY, IL, CA, and everywhere else.

Unless they redrafted it, the bill I read still required you follow the rules of the state you are in.

For example, in Ohio it’s statutorily mandated that you notify any LEOs at initial contact that you have a weapon on you or in your car. In KY that is not a requirement. If you live in KY and carry in Ohio, you are required to comply with that statute if you run into a cop. This bill will not change state specific rules to my knowledge. It would just be a huge middle finger to “may issue” states or the other 2-3 that I don’t have reciprocity with already for whatever reason those states don’t have agreements.

I carry nearly every single day. I’m for more access to ability to legally carry. I’m not sure this is the right way to go about it since it flies in the face of state’s rights and the legislative history on it will be used as a shield and a sword depending on what party is currently in power

(12-27-2017 02:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 02:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Perhaps the 4D chess move buried in here is that passing this, liberal states like New York and California will seek redress in federal court where they will have to make the exact same state rights arguments they have railed against for years. That will be fun to watch.

The chess move is that Utah and several other states offer out of state CCW for a simple fee, application, and background check. You don't need prints. You don't need a practical. You don't need to be in that state ever. That means the end of gun control in NY, IL, CA, and everywhere else.

Does that mean I will be able to get more than a 9 round clip for Glock?

(12-27-2017 08:03 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Does that mean I will be able to get more than a 9 round clip for Glock?

Doubt it.