Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #41
Was said law posted somewhere? Because if it wasn't, it's an awfully obscure (and pointless) law for you to be required to know.
Where are ANY laws ever "posted"?
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was said law posted somewhere? Because if it wasn't, it's an awfully obscure (and pointless) law for you to be required to know.
Is marriage in the Constitution?
So states that do not allow concealed carry should be exempt from the 2nd amendment? Not so if you read Amendment 14, section 1.
I see nothing in the Bill of Rights or Constitution about the right to keep and bear license plate frames.
Is marriage in the Constitution? No, I didnt think so either.
Your "marriage license" is a sham, the product of politicians bending over to the gay lobby. Fortunately my home state bars such perversion.
Where is "Driver's License" menitoned in the Constitution?
It isn't.
Your point?
The same people who think that marriage licenses for same sex couples should be recognized from state to state because each state must give full faith and credit to the laws of other states, want to prohiit gun licenses from being recognized from state to state.
Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be given precedence over the state's desire to deny those rights to citizens.
The 10th amendment statsHouse votes to expand concealed gun law CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Now that I have your attention, I'm not 100% sure it would be unconstitutional, but my first impression is that this would violate the state's rights to regulate licensing on its own. At the very least, it certainly is ideologically opposed to respecting state rights. I'm very perplexed by this. I support individual rights to carry a gun. But I think that it's over stepping for the federal government onto the states.
Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be given precedence over the state's desire to deny those rights to citizens.
I agree you on substance, except for the fact that the feds have been trying to step all over the 2nd amendment for many years now. The feds themselves have placed limits on our constitutional rights to bear arms.
Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be given precedence over the state's desire to deny those rights to citizens.
I agree you on substance, except for the fact that the feds have been trying to step all over the 2nd amendment for many years now. The feds themselves have placed limits on our constitutional rights to bear arms.
I hope we have placed people in congress that can fix that mess.
One more reason the Boehner House will go down as the most do-nothing and divisive Congress in the history of the United States. As pointed out above, where IS the jobs bill?
One more reason the Boehner House will go down as the most do-nothing and divisive Congress in the history of the United States. As pointed out above, where IS the jobs bill?
One more reason the Boehner House will go down as the most do-nothing and divisive Congress in the history of the United States. As pointed out above, where IS the jobs bill?
Never mind the jobs bill, where are the jobs Mr. President promised ??
So states that do not allow concealed carry should be exempt from the 2nd amendment? Not so if you read Amendment 14, section 1.
The second amendment does not protect concealed carry. The courts have already been over this. You should go educate yourself on the case law instead of saying such silly things.
Now that I have your attention, I'm not 100% sure it would be unconstitutional, but my first impression is that this would violate the state's rights to regulate licensing on its own. At the very least, it certainly is ideologically opposed to respecting state rights. I'm very perplexed by this. I support individual rights to carry a gun. But I think that it's over stepping for the federal government onto the states.
But the fact of the matter is that each state is entitled to have its own laws.
Actually the Constitution very plainly states that the citizens of every State should have the same rights as each other.
And if a state has access to abortion without having to watch an ultrasound or seeing a photo of a fetus, then the Federal Government has every authority to create a FEDERAL law that requires those States to honor each others same laws.
Noting that their states generally have tighter restrictions on firearms, Lautenberg and McCarthy also argued that "it is particularly surprising for congressional Republicans to be pushing a measure that directly goes against their deep-rooted support for states' rights."
Is marriage in the Constitution?
The second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
But we are also of opinion that even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the Thirteenth Amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people
Page 165 U. S. 282
to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.