U.S. Senate Nationwide CCW Bill

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=383

 

Cite Authority

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it authorize Congress to pass a federal law that takes away the police power of the several states to regulate dangerous weapons for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens? This bill alludes to the Commerce Clause power, indicating that if a gun was made or shipped "in interstate commerce," the federal government has the EXCLUSIVE power to regulate who may possess that gun, and how and where it may be carried, for as long as that gun exists anywhere in the USA. I completely reject that line of thinking. All conservatives and libertarians should.

The only possible source of legitimate authority for bills such as these is the Second Amendment itself, but of course no court has ever interpreted the 2A to create an individual right to carry weapons on a daily basis in public places, and even if it did, the 2A has not been found to be a restriction on state and local laws-- it is only a limit on Federal powers.

The best we can do, legally, is to encourage Congress to use the INTERSTATE COMMERCE power to temporarily suspend enforcement of state and local laws on a person who is actually traveling in and actively engaging in interstate commerce, so long as that person has a permit from his home state (or some new federal permit) and doesn't carry in one of the places listed in the new federal law (which ought to be narrowed down to just "sterile" areas of airports and courthouses, where metal detectors and swarms of guards ensure that disarmament is not merely a request, but a commandment that is being enforced on the good guys and bad guys equally effectively).

 

My License to drive a car is recognized in all 50 states, not because New York has an agreement (which would violate the constutution) with Georgia, but because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

A license issued by one state should be recognized by all other states. Period. Doesn't matter if it's cars, guns, or marriages.

Section 1. 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.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

 

Gunsmoker, I think the 2nd & 14th amendments are better support for the bill than the commerce clause is. There is a split of opinions whether the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, but there is nothing binding on congress to prevent it from determining that it guarantees an individual right. There is no finding by SCOTUS that the 14th amendment applies the 2nd amendment to the states, but there also is no finding by SCOTUS that it doesn't. Again, congress is free at this point to assert that it does. The 14th amendment gives congress the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation. So, there is a defensible line of logic that congress has the power to pass laws that prevent states from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Note that this logic only works in one direction -- it does not support congressional actions that infringe, or permit the states to infringe, on the right.

Montieth, I don't believe the full faith and credit clause requires recognition of driver's licenses among the states, in the sense that you use the word "recognition." It does require states to accept the fact that another state has issued a driver's license. So, GA cannot attack the validity of a TN license. It has to concede (if appropriate proof is offered), that a TN license is a TN license.

What allows someone to drive all over the country on a single state's license is a principle called comity. Comity is a discretionary process by which one government allows someone with some credential from another government to be treated as though the credential were issued locally. Each state has decided to permit non-residents to drive in the state with a driver's license from another state. Notice that I said "non-resident." If the full faith and credit clause really required recognition of licenses, GA could not require me to get a GA license when I move here from TN. GA would have to accept by TN license forever.

This issue is bound to be debated hotly within a few years, the subject being gay marriage. Say that a gay couple marries in Massachussetts and then moves to GA. The couple files a GA state income tax return as a married couple. GA figures out that they are same sex, decides not to allow them to file jointly, and assesses a deficiency on them. They sue, saying that the full faith and credit clause requires GA to recognize their MA marriage. The state says, "OK, we recognize that you are validly married in MA. But, you aren't in GA." Who wins? I don't know, but I don't think it's a slam dunk for the gay couple.

 

Two Responses

Regarding "full faith and credit" -- like JRM said, I think that states have agreed to extend driving privileges to people with out of state licenses, based on the assumption that the licensing requirements in all states, while not being identical, are close enough. But imagine a state that gives drivers' licenses to 11 year olds, with no road test and only a 5-question multiple choice book test, and assesses no points against that license for speeding less than 40 mph over the posted limit, and no licenses from that state are ever suspended or revoked for any crime other than vehicular homicide. Do you think the state of Georgia has the power to deny the use of our roads to a person licensed in such a state? I think we do, or we ought to, so long as we did not unreasonably restrict nonresidents' "right to travel" or "right to relocate."

Socialists would like to see our drivers' licenses become just like pilot certificates-- issued by the federal government and fully preempting state and local laws. The only rules that matter are the FAA's, and if you're okay with them, you're okay.

MALUM: Yes, I am inclined to agree that the 2A does confer or recognize an individual right to bear arms for personal defense, and that it is a fundamental individual right that states had been denying to their citizens during the Reconstruction period and that the 14th Amendment did "incorporate" the 2nd into it and thus forced state and local governments to respect the 2nd.... but this argument has not had any success in the courts of this land. Not yet, anyway.

 

Re: Two Responses

In effect we have that now with the requirements for operating large RVs. Georgia licenses them as a Class C license. Other states require tests that are applicable to the size of B or A vehicle combinations and include air brake endorsements which Georgia does not. Regardless, other states must recognize a Driver from Georgia with a 30,000 lb Motor Coach towing a 12,000 lb trailer on a Class C license as valid because that's the license that Georgia issues them with. (I'm very much up on all this because I authored the initial forms of SB 27 and SB 28 that my state Senator sponsored on my behalf).

It behooves the states to have consistent regulations regarding licenses, but unless it's specifically covered by something relating to Commerce, the Feds seem to stay out of it. In my research relating to the FMCSA, I was rather surprised to find that they appear to be the only agency that actually groks what Commerce really is. They even state that if you win prize money as part of the operation of a Class A sized Non-Commercial vehicle (say at a car show), it's only commerce if you're reporting it as business income or if you have some sort of sponsorship involved. Color me surprised when I read that and had it confirmed by one of their inspectors who answered my faxes.

 

Tanks are too big for me. Too much weight and too much fuel to transport them. I just own a couple of 'light' (3-7 tons) armored cars. Two of them are in the Atlanta Area. The third is in the UK and will live in Pennsylvania.