20 July 2009
Confuzzled ...
30+ states have made 'Sovereignty Resolutions' and a handful of states have even taken them a step further with 'Firearm Freedom Acts'. Tennessee and Montana have already been told, by the BATFE, to more or less, go pound sand ...

Now we have a bill, [S845] the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009" working it's way through the senate, as an amendment to [S1390] the "National Defense Authorization Act".

As much as this would be a good thing, for those of us whom regularly provide for their own (and families) personal safety, isn't this being a bit hypocritical?

I just can't seem to 'get my head around' the fact that we (the states) are bitching about state sovereignty, and then letting the feds tell us that we have to let everyone be the same.

Any thoughts?

Labels: , ,

posted by Johnnyreb™ at 10:01 AM | Permalink |


At July 20, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous

Two different animals.

The sovereignty resolutions are geared toward curbing the fedgov's misuse of the commerce clause.

Montana's sovereignty law exempts from federal regulations ONLY firearms that were manufactured, sold and held within the state...therefore, they were never a part of interstate commerce and should not be regulated by the fedgov.

Unfortunately, the Supreme court has given cover to congress by holding in the past that even if a specific product was never transferred in interstate commerce, if similar items are traded across state lines, then the fedgov can regulate it because the unregulated sale within a state can impact "importation" of goods from other states, which can harm those other states financially...or some such twisted logic like that.

Anyway...the permit reciprocity concept relies on a completely different part of the Constitution. Article 4, 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."

That is the article which grants fedgov the power to mandate that every state accept every other state's driver's licenses, birth certificates, marriage licenses, etc etc etc. It specifically grants congress the power to determine "the effect" of "public acts, records and judicial proceedings".

The issuance of a CHP is a "judicial proceeding" directed by a "public act" and resulting in a "record". It is perfectly acceptable and well within the powers granted to congress (for once) for them to mandate by law that any state that issues CHP's must recognize those from other states.

Yes, it is an assertion of federal power over states...but this time it's a Constitutional one.


At July 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Blogger Johnnyreb™

Sailorcurt, thank you for taking the time to explain this in such detail. Especially the analogy "that every state accept every other state's driver's licenses", and how it is used in respect to Art.4, Sec.1

I really suspected that they were "different animals" but was drawing a blank as to how these powers were applied, and where exactly, that they came from.


At July 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous

My pleasure.

It was an excellent question and deserved a detailed answer.


At July 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Blogger Johnnyreb™

A call to Ohio Sen. Voinovich's (R-rhino) office didn't reveal how he was planning on voting, unfortunately he isn't very reliable.

The same call to Sen. Brown's (D-douche) office revealed that he believes this to be a 'states rights issue'.

This comes as no surprise, as he is always returning my phone calls/e-mails with the same canned/party line crap that no one, that i know of, believes.


Post a Comment

~ back home
 Subscribe in a reader

Reloading supplies

Thanks for stopping by ... John Cresanto Jr
Powered by FeedBurner MySpace Tracker