Home

Constitutional Law Question

Posted By: zallen

Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 10:46 AM

Some of the other threads on here have had me thinking (or re-thinking) about something but I didn't want to hijack soooo......

Reciprocity. My NH driver's license is valid in all 50 states. My marriage is valid in all 50 states. Gay marriage was required to be recognized by all 50 before it became legal in those same states. In other words if you have a license in one state all states are REQUIRED to recognize it though it might conflict with their laws.

MA made gay marriage legal and, even though you couldn't marry outside of MA, all states recognized it as valid. This is not a gay marriage thread, just illustrating my point.

Why are carry permits/licenses not valid in all 50? What is the legal reason one thing is legal but not another? Isn't reciprocity guaranteed by the Constitution? I'm not trying to grouse about it, I genuinely want to know the reason.

Anyone know?
Posted By: J Staton

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 10:51 AM

I don't know other than the Constitution is just ignored especially when pertaining to the 2nd amendment.
Posted By: danny clifton

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 10:57 AM

Shall not be infringed is not lawyer speak. It means what it says. You dont need permission in any state. Those crooked black dress wearing judges dont really care. More power is their mantra.
Posted By: maintenanceguy

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 11:09 AM

The whole permitting process is unconstitutional. There shouldn't be reciprocity for carry permits. There should be no carry permits. What other constitutionally enumerated right is permitted?

I don't need a permit to vote. If the other side gets their way, I won't even need to identify myself to vote. I don't need a permit to type my opinion here, yet. I don't need a permit to keep the government from searching my house without a warrant.

Maybe all of that is coming too.

But, why are some states (mine) violating the constitution? Because we haven't taken back our rights...which is why the founders added the 2nd amendment to begin with - to make sure there was never a time when the government could violate our God given rights. But we failed to act.
Posted By: Newt

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 12:19 PM

When did NJ start cc permits ?
Posted By: Boco

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 12:24 PM

Do your states laws supercede federal law or does federal law supercede state law?
Posted By: SJA

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 12:43 PM

States generally have to right to be more restrictive and may supersede Fed law.
Posted By: Law Dog

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 01:38 PM

Just another excuse to charge people fees to get a permit other places it’s a way to make it impossible to get a permit unless your rich or a crook.
Posted By: Leftlane

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 03:34 PM

Zallen, ACB said that the 2A has been treated like a 2nd class right. It is but one of the reasons we need to drain the swamp and take OUR country back
Posted By: Scuba1

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by SJA
States generally have to right to be more restrictive and may supersede Fed law.



They don't have the right to suspend the constitution though with is what is happening more and more

edit:

To the original question: The answer to that you will not find in the constitution but in politics.
Posted By: Redknot

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 04:19 PM

Just throwing this out there, but your NH fishing license is going to work well in Maine either...
Posted By: Steven 49er

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Redknot
Just throwing this out there, but your NH fishing license is going to work well in Maine either...



While that could be construed as a fair comparison, the right to fish isn't enamored in the constitution of the US. Fishing is a privilege.
Posted By: SJA

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Scuba1
Originally Posted by SJA
States generally have to right to be more restrictive and may supersede Fed law.



They don't have the right to suspend the constitution though with is what is happening more and more

edit:

To the original question: The answer to that you will not find in the constitution but in politics.


I didn't say the right to "suspend" anything. However, States can and do sometimes modify the Constitution as they "deem necessary" to their individual needs.
Posted By: Gary Benson

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 04:41 PM

Most common sense states do recognize one another's CC permit. It would be best to stay away from the states that don't reciprocate, but I understand some folks are trapped in places they'd rather not be. With that being said, nobody should be required to have a permit to keep and bear arms.
Posted By: Scuba1

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by SJA


I didn't say the right to "suspend" anything. However, States can and do sometimes modify the Constitution as they "deem necessary" to their individual needs.


Seal not be infringed is pretty clear cut to me. So when you infringe it , that effectively suspends that right in my book. The text is pretty clear on that as written back then. It does not leave any wiggle room for modification.
Posted By: Law Dog

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 04:54 PM

Different requirements in different States just another way to make it harder to get and again another way to tax you. Here in SD you walk in and pay $10 to get one it might of gone up, you can get a enhanced one also to appease other States. Now you don’t even need a permit in our state.
Posted By: SJA

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Scuba1
Originally Posted by SJA


I didn't say the right to "suspend" anything. However, States can and do sometimes modify the Constitution as they "deem necessary" to their individual needs.


Seal not be infringed is pretty clear cut to me. So when you infringe it , that effectively suspends that right in my book. The text is pretty clear on that as written back then. It does not leave any wiggle room for modification.


What may be "clear cut" to many may not be to others. It's all subjective interpretation to the reader and their understanding of the subject.
Posted By: Scuba1

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 06:59 PM

SJA You would spend some time face in the dirt butt up in the air waiting for the cops to arrive while contemplating what those "no trespassing " sings mean I have around my property I am sure. If you live that is. Are you related to James by any chance ??
Posted By: SJA

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 07:06 PM

Well Scubi, you're getting a little ridiculous now. Have a nice day :-)
Posted By: Pike River

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by zallen
Some of the other threads on here have had me thinking (or re-thinking) about something but I didn't want to hijack soooo......

Reciprocity. My NH driver's license is valid in all 50 states. My marriage is valid in all 50 states. Gay marriage was required to be recognized by all 50 before it became legal in those same states. In other words if you have a license in one state all states are REQUIRED to recognize it though it might conflict with their laws.

MA made gay marriage legal and, even though you couldn't marry outside of MA, all states recognized it as valid. This is not a gay marriage thread, just illustrating my point.

Why are carry permits/licenses not valid in all 50? What is the legal reason one thing is legal but not another? Isn't reciprocity guaranteed by the Constitution? I'm not trying to grouse about it, I genuinely want to know the reason.

Anyone know?

Darn fine analogy and argument
Posted By: Pike River

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Scuba1
SJA You would spend some time face in the dirt butt up in the air waiting for the cops to arrive while contemplating what those "no trespassing " sings mean I have around my property I am sure. If you live that is. Are you related to James by any chance ??

Big talk from some euro with an anchor wife. Are you even allowed to possess firearms here? Try being a little more respectful of those that create and maintain the country you're in.
Posted By: grumley701

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Pike River
Originally Posted by Scuba1
SJA You would spend some time face in the dirt butt up in the air waiting for the cops to arrive while contemplating what those "no trespassing " sings mean I have around my property I am sure. If you live that is. Are you related to James by any chance ??

Big talk from some euro with an anchor wife. Are you even allowed to possess firearms here? Try being a little more respectful of those that create and maintain the country you're in.


Seems to me that the euro with the anchor wife made his point clear, imo this euro with the anchor wife has more of a grasp of the American ideals than a lot of natural born Americans. Our constitution and bill of rights is the law of the land, it supercedes any state or federal laws that subvert it and are not to be recognized.

Ya know, the whole don't tread on me thing.... Scuba gets it..
Posted By: Scuba1

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 09:24 PM

Bless your little heart Pikey

have another look into that bible of yours wink
Posted By: J Staton

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 10:20 PM

Feds or state didn't give those rights so any infringement on them should be ignored. Unfortunately there not.
Posted By: Leftlane

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/22/21 11:16 PM

Who said "free men do not ask permission"? I think that was a smart man
Posted By: Mike in A-town

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/23/21 01:43 AM

So if I get a state permit and pay the taxes can I own slaves again?

See how stupid it sounds when you apply it to another constitutional amendment.

Mike
Posted By: 52Carl

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/23/21 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by SJA
States generally have to right to be more restrictive and may supersede Fed law.

Government school education much?!
States cannot pass laws which are contrary to the Constitution. Sure, there are States which violate the Constitution with their gun laws, but there have been many of them ruled by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and overturned. That does not however, stop States from continuing to pass laws which violate the Constitution. Its a never ending battle to save this Country.
Posted By: Scuba1

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/23/21 02:21 AM

The thing that worries me is that the " euro with the anchor wife " has to point ou the most basic things about the American constitution on a site that should be full of folks standing up for it a lot more than some dumb asss Kraut that just happened to sail across the pond and found the love of his life here.

Edit for pokey.

yes I can legally have a firearm.
Yes I am a land owner in the US
Yes I have a social security number ..... Not going give you the last 4 digits here
Yes I can vote and have A US driving license to prove my identity.
Yes as a farm owner I amin some respect tax exempt.


Now sit down shot up and let adults get with tings you have obviously no clue about and keep drinking the coolaid
Posted By: James

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/23/21 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Pike River
Originally Posted by Scuba1
SJA You would spend some time face in the dirt butt up in the air waiting for the cops to arrive while contemplating what those "no trespassing " sings mean I have around my property I am sure. If you live that is. Are you related to James by any chance ??

Big talk from some euro with an anchor wife. Are you even allowed to possess firearms here? Try being a little more respectful of those that create and maintain the country you're in.


He just can't stop whining about me, can he?

Hey Scuba, why don't you go bawling to the boss and try to get me thrown off the board again? How'd that work out for you last time?

Or you could stop mixing posts and drink.

Jim
Posted By: Pike River

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/23/21 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Scuba1
The thing that worries me is that the " euro with the anchor wife " has to point ou the most basic things about the American constitution on a site that should be full of folks standing up for it a lot more than some dumb asss Kraut that just happened to sail across the pond and found the love of his life here.

Edit for pokey.

yes I can legally have a firearm.
Yes I am a land owner in the US
Yes I have a social security number ..... Not going give you the last 4 digits here
Yes I can vote and have A US driving license to prove my identity.
Yes as a farm owner I amin some respect tax exempt.


Now sit down shot up and let adults get with tings you have obviously no clue about and keep drinking the coolaid

ROFL
Posted By: Pike River

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/23/21 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Mike in A-town
So if I get a state permit and pay the taxes can I own slaves again?

See how stupid it sounds when you apply it to another constitutional amendment.

Mike

Solid point
Posted By: maintenanceguy

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/24/21 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Newt
When did NJ start cc permits ?


1920's. That was one of NJ's arguments in front of the 3rd circuit court a few years ago (where NJ won and their permitting scheme was upheld). NJ said that requiring "justifiable need" to get a carry permit was a "long standing tradition." The judges agreed. Seems crazy to me. Slavery was a long standing tradition too but nobody is saying we should still have slavery because we had them for a long time. Violations of rights are violations of rights no matter how long it's been going on. The courts should fix rights violations.

But, NJ's long standing tradition of not allowing the right to carry continues on. Or...carries on.

SCOTUS is going to hear a carry case for the first time in a long time. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Keith Corlett, challenges NY's requirement of "proper cause" to get permit - which is just like NJ's requirement for "justifiable need". If that is struck down, NJ could become a right to carry state.

You would still have to meet the other requirements which are training and you would need to pass the same course of fire required for police officers - every 6 months.
Posted By: SJA

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/24/21 01:01 PM

Heck, in NJ, hollow point ammo is illegal to carry or use with only certain exceptions. :-(
Posted By: Leftlane

Re: Constitutional Law Question - 07/24/21 01:48 PM

I swear, yall are like tryin to play cards with my sisters kids.
© 2024 Trapperman Forums