Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Allen Introduces Weapons Bill
Voter's Domain ^

Posted on 06/22/2006 4:18:01 PM PDT by foxy_maiden

U.S. Sen. George Allen (R-VA) introduced a concealed-weapons bill on May 26 that would "simply require" US states to recognize each other's concealed-carry licenses and permits. But Virginians Against Handgun Violence Executive Director Jim Sollo criticized the bill.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 109th; bang; banglist; ccw; congress; domain; georgeallen; gunvote; news; politics; ussenate; virginia; voters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
what could we expect if this concealed-weapons bill, introduced by Sen. Allen, is approved by the Senate?
1 posted on 06/22/2006 4:18:02 PM PDT by foxy_maiden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden
what could we expect if this concealed-weapons bill, introduced by Sen. Allen, is approved by the Senate?

If (big if) the senate approved this, the house certainly would. I suspect and hope the president would sign it. All but a few states allow some form of concealed carry and issue permits. All states however, do not have reciprocity with each other. This bill would solve that. CA for example issues CCW's on a "may issue" basis and does not recognize any other state's permits. If this passed, I could go to any state in the nation that issues ccw's and be legal to carry.

2 posted on 06/22/2006 4:25:03 PM PDT by umgud (FR, NASCAR & 24, way too much butt time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

Is this the Senate version of HR 1243 the S.A.F.E (Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement) act introduced last by Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana? I've been hoping for something like this for a long time.


3 posted on 06/22/2006 4:25:20 PM PDT by Jaxter ("Vivit Post Funera Virtus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

We could expect the liberal media to have a predictable hissy fit.

Phrases such as, "blood in the streets", "Dodge City", road rage incidents "escalating into violence" (as if they don't already), and so on, would be trotted out.

We could also expect the crime rate to go down if it is signed into law.


4 posted on 06/22/2006 4:25:29 PM PDT by Disambiguator (I'm not paranoid, just pragmatic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden; Cobra64; Southack; Congressman Billybob; Buckhead

A lot of states already are recognizing reciprocal carry laws.

The Second and Tenth Amendments really preclude the need for additional gun laws, methinks.

Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein and McCain and a bunch of others seem to disagree.


5 posted on 06/22/2006 4:26:14 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

They should just be like drivers licenses. if you have one in one state it is good in another.IMHO


6 posted on 06/22/2006 4:31:54 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

I would expect it to be repealed by the next left wing Senate. A privilege granted by one tyrant lasts only until the next tyrant. We have only the Rights that we defend. The uninfringed Second Amendment is a fine litmus test for me. And the several sovereign states' rights are a fine teergruben for national tyranny from DC.


7 posted on 06/22/2006 4:37:08 PM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

Beautiful. I put its chance of passage around 1%, but it's still excellent.


8 posted on 06/22/2006 4:37:54 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

hmmmmmm wonder where he finds the constitutional authority to support such a bill?


9 posted on 06/22/2006 4:38:11 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
They should just be like drivers licenses. if you have one in one state it is good in another.IMHO

The problem with federal involvement is that it will introduce federal standards. Say goodbye to "Vermont-style carry"

10 posted on 06/22/2006 4:41:04 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

Yeah.. I also think that this bill will have a lesser chance of being approved. Though some believed that this is good, I fear that it might also increase the crime rate.


11 posted on 06/22/2006 4:46:10 PM PDT by foxy_maiden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

Hmm... how about a bill combining interstate recognition of gay marriages and CCW? Basically the same issue and my word, there'd be heads exploding all over! ;^)


12 posted on 06/22/2006 4:55:26 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden
But Virginians Against Handgun Violence Executive Director Jim Sollo criticized the bill.

I don't know why it even needs to be mentioned that the spineless twits don't like the idea of citizens carrying weapons. They seem to relish in the idea that the government should have a monopoly on guns.

13 posted on 06/22/2006 4:57:21 PM PDT by meyer (A vote for amnesty is a vote against America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

This is a very interesting issue between protecting people's 2nd Amendment rights on the one hand and protecting the 10th Amendment on the other.

Sometimes, I wonder if members of Congress have a copy of the 10th Amendment.


14 posted on 06/22/2006 5:04:19 PM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden
Though some believed that this is good, I fear that it might also increase the crime rate

That's a joke, right?

15 posted on 06/22/2006 5:28:05 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

Pick a blue or green state and tell us which state the crime rate has gone up as a result of a CCW law.

Reality wise if this law is passed, anyone walking around Washington D.C., Chicago, New York or Boston with a concealed weapon will find the cops aren't interested in an out of state license. The cops in those states will take their sweet time in verifying the license is a good one. If you're still alive.

16 posted on 06/22/2006 5:32:05 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

hmmmmmm wonder where he finds the constitutional authority to support such a bill?



This is one of the few things that the Commerce Clause actually justifies.

It is a barrier to interstate commerce to deny an armed citizen entry at your state border.


17 posted on 06/22/2006 5:38:27 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden
Though some believed that this is good, I fear that it might also increase the crime rate.

More guns = less crime.

18 posted on 06/22/2006 5:39:37 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (The Latest on the Ohio gov race http://blackwellvstrickland.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden
This would be hilarious in the Philly area, where any (non-criminal) Pennsylvanian easily obtains a CC permit but the Peoples Republic of New Jersey will throw you in jail for so much as even thinking the word "handgun".
19 posted on 06/22/2006 5:46:35 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

Welcome to Free Republic.


20 posted on 06/22/2006 5:48:20 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Thanks! :) I'm still new in this site and trying to orient myself with how the system works. So far, I enjoy it. This is really a good site just like what my friend told me. Thanks again! :D


21 posted on 06/22/2006 6:00:02 PM PDT by foxy_maiden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

Why would it increase the crime rate?


22 posted on 06/22/2006 8:44:57 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Grut

It is not the same as so called gay marriage. There happens to be a right to keep and bear arms in the BOR. There is no right to marriage in the Constitution..... No Federal Issue with that.


23 posted on 06/22/2006 8:46:44 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

Sorry but the individual rights in the BOR trumps the 10th.


24 posted on 06/22/2006 8:48:45 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
hmmmmmm wonder where he finds the constitutional authority to support such a bill?

"...shall not be infringed"?

25 posted on 06/22/2006 9:55:07 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah" = Satan in disguise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: therut
No Federal Issue with that.

There certainly is: the 'full faith and credit' clause.

26 posted on 06/23/2006 4:52:49 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

I don't know if we should carry in SF. No telling what we would do.


27 posted on 06/23/2006 4:55:11 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Only stupid people would vote for McCain, Warner, Hagle, Snowe, Graham, or any RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance
The Second and Tenth Amendments really preclude the need for additional gun laws, methinks.

While I would ordinarily agree, here I don't. You have the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution being ignored, thereby resulting in the basic rights of citizens across the country being violated by numerous states - THAT'S where the Feds SHOULD step in. Of course, the law should ONLY read that states must recognize the other states' CCWs, not set up Federal standards for one. This should be like marriages and DLs - simple recognition, without federal involvement (yeah, I know, the Feds have been very involved with the DLs - but that has more to do with the states being greedy for highway funds than the Feds requiring anything as a matter of law).

28 posted on 06/23/2006 9:07:21 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

Go Senator Allen.


29 posted on 06/23/2006 9:09:09 AM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded Crunchy Con American Male (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

Alaska has "Vermont carry", but still issues permit cards on request precisely to solve the reciprocity issue.


30 posted on 06/23/2006 9:18:34 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance
A lot of states already are recognizing reciprocal carry laws.

California doesn't. How I would love to "legally" carry in California.

If this law passes, California citizens (primarily LA County residents) would continue to be denied their right to carry, while I as an AZ resident and CCW holder would not.

AZ has open carry. I'd prefer open carry enforced in California.

31 posted on 06/23/2006 2:29:23 PM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Alaska style carry laws. Make it a 50 State thing.

I'd love to watch Schumer/Feinstein/Boxer/et al's heads explode from sheer apoplexy...

32 posted on 06/23/2006 2:38:12 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden
Though some believed that this is good, I fear that it might also increase the crime rate.

Are you familiar with crime rates in locales that have concealed carry vs. those that do not?

33 posted on 06/23/2006 7:51:43 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

I hope this passes


34 posted on 06/23/2006 10:04:34 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
hmmmmmm wonder where he finds the constitutional authority to support such a bill?

A case could be made for:

Article. IV.
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.

35 posted on 06/25/2006 9:19:50 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
"...shall not be infringed"?

Would argue that all CHL systems are Unconstitutional. Violations of the second amendment, as applied to the States by the 14th amendment, either the Privileges and Immunities clause or the Due Process Clause, or both. (ie. requiring a license to exercise a Constitutional right is a violation of due process). (although many Judges thought the 2nd applied to the states, even before the 14th amendment.)

36 posted on 06/25/2006 9:25:27 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney
This is a very interesting issue between protecting people's 2nd Amendment rights on the one hand and protecting the 10th Amendment on the other.

The 10th amendment deals with powers, not rights. Rights, especially enumerated ones, trump powers. In fact as applied to the Federal government at least, that was the entire point of the Bill of Rights, to keep the government from exercising the powers it was delegated in the main body of the Constitution, in such a way as to violate the rights of the people. The 10th amendment is different in that it reiterates that the federal government only has those powers delegated to it. (One of which is to see that states give full faith and credit to each other's acts. (Art IV section 1)

37 posted on 06/25/2006 9:30:39 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Reality wise if this law is passed, anyone walking around Washington D.C., Chicago, New York or Boston with a concealed weapon will find the cops aren't interested in an out of state license. The cops in those states will take their sweet time in verifying the license is a good one. If you're still alive.

And history ought to regard those first few casualties as CCW martyrs.

This sort of thing is exactly why I like Allen for President in 08.

38 posted on 06/25/2006 9:37:38 PM PDT by Kryptonite (Keep Democrats Out of Power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Exactly. One caveat though. As applied to the States via Art 6 para 2, the preamble to the BoR, the 10th Amd., AND the 14th Amd.

"Shall not be infringed" means by ANYONE in a position of government authority. Technically, private parties could still do so, but would you want to open yourself up to liability for disarming your workers/patrons?

39 posted on 06/26/2006 6:32:30 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
In fact as applied to the Federal government at least, that was the entire point of the Bill of Rights, to keep the government from exercising the powers it was delegated in the main body of the Constitution, in such a way as to violate the rights of the people.

Which kinda makes you wonder where they got the authority for the NFA of '34, GCA of '68, FOPA of '86, and the "F" part of the BATFE.

40 posted on 06/26/2006 6:34:08 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Full faith clause has nothing to do with this since it applies to civil claims and court rulings by another state....Allen is proposing congressional legislation.


41 posted on 06/26/2006 7:57:23 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

"...shall not be infringed"?

The second has nothing to do with this, it is much like the establishment clause in that it is a direct prohibitation against Congress only.


42 posted on 06/26/2006 8:01:52 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Full faith clause has nothing to do with this since it applies to civil claims and court rulings by another state....Allen is proposing congressional legislation.

That's mostly how it's been applied, but there is a power of Congress in there, and it covers more than just civil claims and court rulings.

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.

Now it seems to me that a CHL law, the granting of licenses/permits, are public acts, with the records of who has a CHL being a public record (even if not available to the general public), although I'm sure that they were thinking of land deeds for the most part.

Now I agree that Congress could not mandate a CHL program be adopted by every state, but it seems there might be room for them to require each state to recognize the CHLs of other states, which is what I thought was was in Allen's bill.

43 posted on 06/26/2006 8:10:01 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney
This is a very interesting issue between protecting people's 2nd Amendment rights on the one hand and protecting the 10th Amendment on the other.

Article IV. Sec. 1; Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial processes 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.

Sec. 2 (1); The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

It seems to me that the highlighted sentence gives Congress power to do just what Allen's bill would would do.

44 posted on 06/26/2006 8:12:48 PM PDT by epow (Don't squat with your spurs on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
You'll have to convince a lot of people Joseph Story wasn't very bright when he commented on the clause:
§ 1302. The clause of the constitution propounds three distinct objects; first, to declare, that full faith and credit shall be given to the records, &c. of every other state; secondly, to prescribe the manner of authenticating them; and thirdly, to prescribe their effect, when so authenticated. The first is declared, and established by the constitution itself, and is to receive no aid, nor is it susceptible of any qualification by congress. The other two are expressly subjected to the legislative power.

§ 1303. Let us then examine, what is the true meaning and interpretation of each section of the clause. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The language is positive, and declaratory, leaving nothing to future legislation. "Full faith and credit shall be given;" what, then, is meant by full faith and credit? Does it import no more than, that the same faith and credit are to be given to them, which, by the comity of nations, is ordinarily conceded to all foreign judgments? Or is it intended to give them a more conclusive efficiency, approaching to, if not identical with, that of domestic judgments; so that, if the jurisdiction of the court be established, the judgment shall be conclusive, as to the merits? The latter seems to be the true object of the clause; and, indeed, it seems difficult to assign any other adequate motive for the insertion of the clause, both in the confederation and in the constitution. The framers of both instruments must be presumed to have known, that by the general comity of nations, and the long established rules of the common law, both in England and America, foreign judgments were primâ facie evidence of their own correctness. They might be impugned for their injustice, or irregularity; but they were admitted to be a good ground of action here, and stood firm, until impeached and overthrown by competent evidence, introduced by the adverse party. It is hardly conceivable, that so much solicitude should have been exhibited to introduce, as between confederated states, much less between states united under the same national government, a clause merely affirmative of an established rule of law, and not denied to the humblest, or most distant foreign nation. It was hardly supposable, that the states would deal less favourably with each other on such a subject, where they could not but have a common interest, than with foreigners. A motive of a higher kind must naturally have directed them to the provision. It must have been, "to form a more perfect Union," and to give to each state a higher security and confidence in the others, by attributing a superior sanctity and conclusiveness to the public acts and judicial proceedings of all. There could be no reasonable objection to such a course. On the other hand, there were many reasons in its favour. The states were united in an indissoluble bond with each other. The commercial and other intercourse with each other would be constant, and infinitely diversified. Credit would be every where given and received; and rights and property would belong to citizens of every state in many other states than that, in which they resided. Under such circumstances it could scarcely consist with the peace of society, or with the interest and security of individuals, with the public or with private good, that questions and titles, once deliberately tried and decided in one state, should be open to litigation again and again, as often as either of the parties, or their privies, should choose to remove from one jurisdiction to another. It would occasion infinite injustice, after such trial and decision, again to open and re-examine all the merits of the case. It might be done at a distance from the original place of the transaction; after the removal or death of witnesses, or the loss of other testimony; after a long lapse of time, and under circumstances wholly unfavourable to a just understanding of the case.

§ 1304. If it should be said, that the judgment might be unjust upon the merits, or erroneous in point in law, the proper answer is, that if true, that would furnish no ground for interference; for the evils of a new trial would be greater, than it would cure. Every such judgment ought to be presumed to be correct, and founded in justice. And what security is there, that the new judgment, upon the re-examination, would be more just, or more conformable to law, than the first? What state has a right to proclaim, that the judgments of its own courts are better founded in law or in justice, than those of any other state? The evils of introducing a general system of re-examination of the judicial proceedings of other states, whose connexions are so intimate, and whose rights are so interwoven with our own, would far outweigh any supposable benefits from an imagined superior justice in a few cases. Motives of this sort, founded upon an enlarged confidence, and reciprocal duties, might well be presumed to have entered into the minds of the framers of the confederation, and the constitution. They intended to give, not only faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each of the states, such as belonged to those of all foreign nations and tribunals; but to give to them full faith and credit; that is, to attribute to them positive and absolute verity, so that they cannot be contradicted, or the truth of them be denied, any more than in the state, where they originated.

§ 1305. The next section of the clause is, "And the congress may by general laws prescribe the manner, in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved,--and the effect thereof." It is obvious, that this clause, so far as it authorizes congress to prescribe the mode of authentication, is wholly beside the purpose of the preceding. Whatever may be the faith and credit due to the public acts, records, and proceedings of other states, whether primâ facie evidence only, or conclusive evidence; still the mode of establishing them in proof is of very great importance, and upon which a diversity of rules exists in different countries. The object of the present provision is to introduce uniformity in the rules of proof, (which could alone be done by congress.) It is certainly a great improvement upon the parallel article of the confederation. That left it wholly to the states themselves to require any proof of public acts, records, and proceedings, which they might from time to time deem advisable; and where no rule was prescribed, the subject was open to the decision of the judicial [Volume 4, Page 486] tribunals, according to their own views of the local usage and jurisprudence. Many embarrassments must necessarily have grown out of such a state of things. The provision, therefore, comes recommended by every consideration of wisdom and convenience, of public peace, and private security.

§ 1306. But the clause does not stop here. The words added are, "and the effect thereof." Upon the proper interpretation of these words some diversity of opinion has been judicially expressed. Some learned judges have thought, that the word "thereof" had reference to the proof, or authentication; so as to read, "and to prescribe the effect of such proof, or authentication." Others have thought, that it referred to the antecedent words, "acts, records, and proceedings;" so as to read, "and to prescribe the effect of such acts, records, and proceedings." Those, who were of opinion, that the preceding section of the clause made judgments in one state conclusive in all others, naturally adopted the former opinion; for otherwise the power to declare the effect would be wholly senseless; or congress could possess the power to repeal, or vary the full faith and credit given by that section. Those, who were of opinion, that such judgments were not conclusive, but only primâ facie evidence, as naturally embraced the other opinion; and supposed, that until congress should, by law, declare what the effect of such judgment should be, they remained only primâ facie evidence.

§ 1307. The former seems now to be considered the sounder interpretation. But it is not, practically speaking, of much importance, which interpretation prevails; since each admits the competency of congress to declare the effect of judgments, when duly authenticated; so always, that full faith and credit are given to them; and congress by their legislation have already carried into operation the objects of the clause. The act of 26th of May, 1790, (ch. 11,) after providing for the mode of authenticating the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the states, has declared, "and the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state, from whence the said records are or shall be taken." It has been settled upon solemn argument, that this enactment does declare the effect of the records, as evidence, when duly authenticated. It gives them the same faith and credit, as they have in the state court, from which they are taken. If in such court they have the faith and credit of the highest nature, that is to say, of record evidence, they must have the same faith and credit in every other court. So, that congress have declared the effect of the records, by declaring, what degree of faith and credit shall be given to them. If a judgment is conclusive in the state, where it is pronounced, it is equally conclusive every where. If re-examinable there, it is open to the same inquiries in every other state. It is, therefore, put upon the same footing, as a domestic judgment. But this does not prevent an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court, in which the original judgment was given, to pronounce it; or the right of the state itself to exercise authority over the persons, or the subject matter. The constitution did not mean to confer a new power or jurisdiction; but simply to regulate the effect of the acknowledged jurisdiction over persons and things within the territory.


45 posted on 06/26/2006 8:23:52 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden

Great move by the Senator.


46 posted on 06/26/2006 8:24:33 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Article Four, Section One. CCW similar to marriage.


47 posted on 06/26/2006 8:28:27 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Striving to obtain liberal victim status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: epow
Sec. 2 (1); The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

It seems to me that the highlighted sentence gives Congress power to do just what Allen's bill would would do.

Only if another States laws do not interfer. For example, a State that says you can drink at age 16 does not give a 16 y/o from that state a right to drink in another state that has a age limit of 21. What it does is give a 16 y/o from another state the privilege of drinking if he enters the state.
48 posted on 06/26/2006 8:29:55 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

2nd Amendment trumps the 10th.


49 posted on 06/26/2006 8:34:08 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Undocumented FReeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: foxy_maiden
Every time a firearms related law heads into the Senate, I have concern that the weak leadership will permit "amendments". The kind of "amendments" that become bans. Larry Craig first offered a bill to protect the firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. A rapid fire series of "amendments" was put forth by anti-gun Senators that would have had the effect of reviving the "assault weapon ban", outlawing any centerfire rifle that could penetrate the soft body armor worn by law enforcement, force "safe storage" requirements on every gun owner and other onerous "amendments". Craig's bill was so smeared with anti-gun amendments that he was compelled to withdraw it.
50 posted on 06/26/2006 8:34:25 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson