Thursday, November 17, 2011
So much for Republicans' fidelity to states' rights:House passes bill allowing those with concealed weapons permits to cross state linesWASHINGTON — A state permit to carry a concealed firearm would be valid in almost every other state in the country under legislation the House passed Wednesday.
The first pro-gun bill the House has taken up this year and the first since Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was severely injured in a gun attack in January, it had the National Rifle Association’s backing and passed by a comfortable margin. The vote was 272-154, with only seven Republicans voting against it and 43 Democrats supporting it. ...
Under the House legislation, people with a concealed carry permit in one state could carry a concealed weapon in every other state that gives people the right to carry concealed weapons. While states have various standards for issuing such permits, currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons. In related Christian news: Liberty University OKs concealed guns on campus
Liberty University enacted a policy allowing visitors, students and staff who have concealed weapons permits to carry guns on campus.
The policy, approved Friday by the Board of Trustees and announced to students Wednesday, replaces a complete ban of firearms on university grounds. ...
Liberty now has the most lenient firearms policy among local colleges and universities. Lynchburg College, Randolph College and Central Virginia Community College do not permit anyone except law enforcement to carry firearms.
posted by Quiddity at 11/17/2011 07:58:00 AM
5 comments
Seems to me to be covered under Article IV sections 1 and 2:
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.
The logic would go that if one State issues a concealed carry permit to a person, then other States that also issue those records can be required by Congress to recognize that permit.
Also,
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Wikipedia
notes:
Wikipedia explains:
James Madison discussed that provision of the Articles of Confederation in Federalist No. 42. Madison wrote: "those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State...."
The argument would go that a State in which citizens are privileged carry a concealed weapon may not deny that privilege to citizens of other States.
States rights are not infinite. The Federal Government does have the authority to exercise its enumerated powers.
"The logic would go that if one State issues a concealed carry permit to a person, then other States that also issue those records can be required by Congress to recognize that permit."
By that logic, every state in the union should also be required to recognize gay marriages that took place in other states.
But I'm sure jms will come back to set me straight on that.
DPT, exactly, and I have no problem with that. Surprised?
no, the interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause given by jms is not correct.
The correct logic:
Citizens of State A have certain rights in State A. Citizens of State B come to State A for a visit. While in State A, citizens of B must be afforded the same rights enjoyed by citizens of A.
The result: when one is in State A, one is entitled under, and bound by, the laws of state A irrespective of whether one is a citizen of A.
If jms' interpretation of the clause were correct, then Congress would not have to pass a bill requiring states to internally honor the firearm laws of other states. Why? B/c under the clause this would be automatically required "... shall be given... "
Citizens of State A have certain rights in State A. Citizens of State B come to State A for a visit. While in State A, citizens of B must be afforded the same rights enjoyed by citizens of A.
So a citizen of State B (who holds a concealed carry permit issued by State B) comes to State A for a visit. While in State A, that citizen of State B must be afforded the same rights enjoyed by citizens of State A (who hold concealed carry permits from State A.)
Seems to me we're saying the same thing in different ways.
If jms' interpretation of the clause were correct, then Congress would not have to pass a bill requiring states to internally honor the firearm laws of other states. Why? B/c under the clause this would be automatically required "... shall be given [entitled?] ... "
If the States came to the conclusion on their own that concealed carry permits are covered by the Full Faith and Credit clause, then there would be no need for Congress to pass a law. Obviously the states have taken a different interpretation, and the proper response is for Congress to pass a general Law to prescribe the Manner in which concealed carry permits shall take Effect.
This happens all the time. Technically, there was no need for Congress to pass voting rights and civil rights legislation, because everyone's voting and civil rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. Using your logic, one could argue that voting rights and anti-discrimination rights are not protected by the Constitution because if they were, there would be no need for Congress to pass laws to force the states to recognize them. Congress passes "And We Mean It" laws all the time to force States to follow the Constitution, and States are free to challenge the laws if they think that they are unconstitutional.
|
