New York is against National Conceal Carry.

[TurtleDude]

maybe so, but it's fun to watch people who support that logic suddenly become 10th amendment crusaders on this single issue.

before the federal government started raping the 10A and the 2A, and before the 2A was imposed on the states through 14A incorporation, I would have said each state can make its own rules about CCW. But now with McDonald, I believe may issue states are violating the 2A and the Supreme Court should force Shall issue and national reciprocity on them

 

[Declan]

commerce clause, as the Fickburn case held, even if you do something for only you it may effect in minor ways the markets across the country, therefore everything can be regulated under it.

But how would you argue the commerce clause applies to permit reciprocity since you are not buying anything?

 

[Cryptic]

are you arguing from a position of state sovereignty or because you oppose people being able to carry firearms concealed?

As my earlier posts in this thread clearly state, my position is from that of state sovereignty.

I live in a "shall issue if applied for state" and am not opposed to people carrying concealed weapons. Likewise, some states (Wyoming, New Hampshire?) do not even require permits. I do not have a difficulty with that as the issue was decided upon by the people of those states, it was not legislated for them by other states.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

But how would you argue the commerce clause applies to permit reciprocity since you are not buying anything?

It prevents me from visiting NYC, so I am effecting the retail market for gasoline in Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and NY. the poor gas station owners are not getting the benefit of my road tripping.

 

[cpgrad08]

But how would you argue the commerce clause applies to permit reciprocity since you are not buying anything?

It would fall under the full faith and credit clause.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It would fall under the full faith and credit clause.

full faith and credit only applies to Judicial orders AFAIK

 

[TurtleDude]

As my earlier posts in this thread clearly state, my position is from that of state sovereignty.

I live in a "shall issue if applied for state" and am not opposed to people carrying concealed weapons. Likewise, some states (Wyoming, New Hampshire?) do not even require permits. I do not have a difficulty with that as the issue was decided upon by the people of those states, it was not legislated for them by other states.

do you think the 2A-as applied to the states through the 14A and the McDonald decision, make May issue unconstitutional? I do

 

[Declan]

It prevents me from visiting NYC, so I am effecting the retail market for gasoline in Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, and NY. the poor gas station owners are not getting the benefit of my road tripping.

Good luck with that argument. The federal government doesn't even grant reciprocity to restoration of gun rights themselves.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Good luck with that argument. The federal government doesn't even grant reciprocity to restoration of gun rights themselves.

They probably will by the end of the session, or the next couple of sessions....

 

[Thrilla]

Does NewYork recognize Alabama licenses as a voluntary courtes?, or because they must? There is a huge difference.

As neither New york, nor Alabama are required to recognize each other's medical licenses, BAR memberships for attorneys, or say, electrician licenses, there is a good chance that the recognition of driver licenses is a courtesy only.

no, it's not a courtesy... it's a constitutional mandate....recognizing the license as valid state issued license is mandatory, though the exchange of information pertaining to the license is not, that stuff is regulated by the Drivers License compact.

NY and Alabama must recognize their licenses as valid state documents, but if they are not members of the compact, they don't have to share information such as points, suspensions, etc..... even though all states share this information, only 5 are NOT members of the compact. (NY and Alabama are both members)

 

[Declan]

It would fall under the full faith and credit clause.

Nope. There is a public policy exception set forth in Gasquet v. Fenner that states are not required to give full faith and credit to other state acts that conflict with their own existing laws.

 

[jet57]

So it looks like New York is going to be on the leading edge of putting some common sense into CCW. The population is too big and too congested to have just anyone walking around with guns. I do thinks it's rather funny though that the pro gun crowd suddenly doesn't believe in state's rights when it comes to this issue.

 

[Declan]

They probably will by the end of the session, or the next couple of sessions....

Yeah Good Luck with overriding that veto too.

 

[Cryptic]

do you think the 2A-as applied to the states through the 14A and the McDonald decision, make May issue unconstitutional? I do

I have to admit that I am not familiar enough with either the 14 amendment or the McDonald decision to comment. I will have to do some reading on both of them.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So it looks like New York is going to be on the leading edge of putting some common sense into CCW. The population is too big and too congested to have just anyone walking around with guns. I do thinks it's rather funny though that the pro gun crowd suddenly doesn't believe in state's rights when it comes to this issue.

It's not any worse density wise then Portland or Seattle where gun laws are very lenient. the city is larger, but there are dense cities in the country with shall issue licensed.

I'm not a fan of state's rights, as you are demonstrating, states rights is a code word for depriving people of their civil rights.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah Good Luck with overriding that veto too.

anything of the sort will be an amendment to some must pass bill that Obama won't have the guts to veto. besides there is a federal process for restoration of gun rights that must be recognized in all states, the only thing holding it up is Chuck Schumer slipping in a defunding clause for the office that's supposed to review the petitions. guess who's not in charge of budgetary matters anymore, you guessed it, Schmucky Schumer. the republicans can just include an appropriations for that process. Obama won't veto over that.

 

[Declan]

anything of the sort will be an amendment to some must pass bill that Obama won't have the guts to veto. besides there is a federal process for restoration of gun rights that must be recognized in all states, the only thing holding it up is Chuck Schumer slipping in a defunding clause for the office that's supposed to review the petitions. guess who's not in charge of budgetary matters anymore, you guessed it, Schmucky Schumer. the republicans can just include an appropriations for that process. Obama won't veto over that.

Yeah he will. He has no more elections to run and "The republicans want felons to have guns" is a great wedge issue for 2016.

 

[Thrilla]

full faith and credit only applies to Judicial orders AFAIK

umm.. not really... each state is required to respect public acts, records and judicial proceedings of other states.

licencing kinda falls under public acts and records... not so much judicial proceedings, but those can come into play in licencing as well

 

[Cryptic]

no, it's not a courtesy... it's a constitutional mandate....recognizing the license as valid state issued license is mandatory, though the exchange of information pertaining to the license is not, that stuff is regulated by the Drivers License compact.

NY and Alabama must recognize their licenses as valid state documents, but if they are not members of the compact, they don't have to share information such as points, suspensions, etc..... even though all states share this information, only 5 are NOT members of the compact. (NY and Alabama are both members)

Do you have a source for this? Why must they recognize Driver Licenses,but not medical licenses? Both have the same underlying concept.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah he will. He has no more elections to run and "The republicans want felons to have guns" is a great wedge issue for 2016.

no, he won't.

and no one will buy that. the republicans will only have to explain that it helps millions convicted on pot charges and then the furor will die down. I doubt the democrats are willing to justify a government shutdown over the issue. and the most of them will accept a "buyout" in exchange for their vote. 2 million to UW Madison here, 4 billion in aid to Rhode Island Fisherman here, 65 million to organic tree farmers there, you can buy out the votes needed to override on such a small issue like that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah he will. He has no more elections to run and "The republicans want felons to have guns" is a great wedge issue for 2016.

the GOP wants "felons to have guns" is the sort of lie we expect from the victim disarmament crowd

 

[Declan]

no, he won't.

and no one will buy that. the republicans will only have to explain that it helps millions convicted on pot charges and then the furor will die down. I doubt the democrats are willing to justify a government shutdown over the issue. and the most of them will accept a "buyout" in exchange for their vote. 2 million to UW Madison here, 4 billion in aid to Rhode Island Fisherman here, 65 million to organic tree farmers there, you can buy out the votes needed to override on such a small issue like that.

The GOP has lost every fight they have had with Obama and Boehner caved ever single time when Obama still had an election to win. He will do it again no matter how wishful your thinking is if it comes down to it. People do not want blacks having guns and that is what they will hear with your "pot conviction" line anyways.

 

[Declan]

the GOP wants "felons to have guns" is the sort of lie we expect from the victim disarmament crowd

Doesn't matter if you consider it a lie or not. You sell the sizzle not the steak.

 

[Thrilla]

Nope. There is a public policy exception set forth in Gasquet v. Fenner that states are not required to give full faith and credit to other state acts that conflict with their own existing laws.

there is no substantial conflict at play here.

if we were talking about a state with a "shall-issue" law and a state with a " no-issue" law.. there would be a conflict..... but there are no " no-issue" states left.
all 50 states are either shall-issue, may-issue, or unrestricted...
a few states are "may-issue" legally, but in reality are "no-issue"... the simply refuse to issue, but don't outright ban carrying... IOW, it's a defacto ban ( that will be rectified in due course)

 

[TurtleDude]

Doesn't matter if you consider it a lie or not. You sell the sizzle not the steak.

Translation-its ok to lie if the lie advances the gun banner position.

but then again, the anti gun position is nothing but lies