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 previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 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