|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
14th Amendment gives Congress power to pass concealed carry reciprocity
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The House of Representatives recently passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 with bipartisan support. The act would allow people eligible to carry a concealed firearm in their home state to carry in other states, as well.
Opponents contend the act violates federalism. Actually, the act is well within congressional powers under the 14th Amendment. That amendment was enacted specifically to give Congress the power to act against state infringements of national civil rights.
Section one of the 14th Amendment forbids states to violate civil rights. Section five of the amendment grants Congress "the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/18/2018)
|
It's not just the 14th Amendment that gives that Power to Congress. Article IV, Section 1 clearly states:
"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."
The problem is that the Courts haven't held up their part of "Full Faith and Credit". Why? Maybe because Congress hasn't gotten around to "prescribing the manner" yet.
However, if my State says "yes", and issues the permit, the Constitution says the other States must honor. It doesn't say the others get to wait for Congress to act. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
