• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The First Amendment, like many of our other rights, is unconstitutionally restricted

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
7,966
Reaction score
1,655
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I know of this case of this boy whose mom had some kind of mental condition where she often had to be hospitalized. Anyway, this bully at school would often pick on the boy about his mom, saying that his mom was a psychopath and stuff like that. One day the boy had enough and when being picked on he said to the bully, "Knock it off, Im gonna kill you!" I don't know the whole story but from what I do know the boy got in trouble with the law for saying he was going to kill the bully. I don't think its a good idea to go around saying you're going to kill people but to get in trouble for that with the law, as this boy did, would be unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
12,678
Reaction score
7,201
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I know of this case of this boy whose mom had some kind of mental condition where she often had to be hospitalized. Anyway, this bully at school would often pick on the boy about his mom, saying that his mom was a psychopath and stuff like that. One day the boy had enough and when being picked on he said to the bully, "Knock it off, Im gonna kill you!" I don't know the whole story but from what I do know the boy got in trouble with the law for saying he was going to kill the bully. I don't think its a good idea to go around saying you're going to kill people but to get in trouble for that with the law, as this boy did, would be unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment.
Threat of imminent lawless action is the only thing not protected by the 1st amendment. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
 

AGENT J

I'm kind of a big deal
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
58,696
Reaction score
16,597
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why are rights and laws so hard to understand for some people?
The first (nor any other right) is not a freedom ticket to break laws and or infringe on the rights of others. :shrug:
This is a very basic concept.
 

celticwar17

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
2,524
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why are rights and laws so hard to understand for some people?
The first (nor any other right) is not a freedom ticket to break laws and or infringe on the rights of others. :shrug:
This is a very basic concept.
Well, I agree with you mostly accept the second sentence... Rights are a means to break a law if the law infringes on your rights...unless that law has a solid base of preventing you from infringing the rights of others.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
62,167
Reaction score
35,786
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I know of this case of this boy whose mom had some kind of mental condition where she often had to be hospitalized. Anyway, this bully at school would often pick on the boy about his mom, saying that his mom was a psychopath and stuff like that. One day the boy had enough and when being picked on he said to the bully, "Knock it off, Im gonna kill you!" I don't know the whole story but from what I do know the boy got in trouble with the law for saying he was going to kill the bully. I don't think its a good idea to go around saying you're going to kill people but to get in trouble for that with the law, as this boy did, would be unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment.
Are you kidding me? Making a credible threat of serious injury or death to another person is not protected by the 1A. You did not define what action was involved in "picking on" the person. If that "picking on" action did not rise to the level of being likely to cause serious injury or death then using or threatening the use of deadly force would not be considered self defense.
 

AGENT J

I'm kind of a big deal
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
58,696
Reaction score
16,597
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, I agree with you mostly accept the second sentence... Rights are a means to break a law if the law infringes on your rights...unless that law has a solid base of preventing you from infringing the rights of others.
Thats not true either though. I understand what you are saying by "means" but its just not reality. Rights give you an avenue to pressure/clarifying and challenge the law to see if it infringes on your right. It doesn't just allow you to break the law, you'd have to prove your case. If you win the law is invalid and you simply wont be "breaking" it.

A perfect example is gun rights. one of the reasons its hard to fight against bad laws in this area is nobody wants to risk being a felon. It sucks and im progun but thats the reality. If I go to a state that doesn't reciprocate my carry permit or has no open carry I cant simply say im allowed to break your loaws because otherwise you are violating my rights.

Now I maybe 100% right but unless a court case (probably many of them and many years of a battle) eventually agrees with me, me saying so wont be an excuse to break the law and then if im found right the law is invalid and no longer being broken.
 

celticwar17

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
2,524
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thats not true either though. I understand what you are saying by "means" but its just not reality. Rights give you an avenue to pressure/clarifying and challenge the law to see if it infringes on your right. It doesn't just allow you to break the law, you'd have to prove your case. If you win the law is invalid and you simply wont be "breaking" it.

A perfect example is gun rights. one of the reasons its hard to fight against bad laws in this area is nobody wants to risk being a felon. It sucks and im progun but thats the reality. If I go to a state that doesn't reciprocate my carry permit or has no open carry I cant simply say im allowed to break your loaws because otherwise you are violating my rights.

Now I maybe 100% right but unless a court case (probably many of them and many years of a battle) eventually agrees with me, me saying so wont be an excuse to break the law and then if im found right the law is invalid and no longer being broken.
I understand that is how it works in practice. But I do still disagree with you xD

It's a matter of what came first.... the law or the right? The right most certainly came first, you are ALWAYS obligated to practice your rights... and the law can certainly try to inflict Tyranny on you, doesn't make the law correct. Rights, according to the logical argument in the constitution are to be treated as god given, supreme law(because they are god given, and this is the case whether you believe in a god or not... the logic is is that they are inalienable by a supreme being conceptually), and are inalienable... If a law comes by and invalidates their inalienability or supreme-ness(lol can't think of a word)... then it is THAT laws fault not the individual citizen's for breaking it.

And in my view, and I think I put forth an good argument, the enforcers of the law ought to be punished for the infringement(the state government fined and awarded to the individual).. more than just a, okay sorry my bad we thought the law was legit...and I believe there have been cases where that has happened
 
Last edited:

AGENT J

I'm kind of a big deal
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
58,696
Reaction score
16,597
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I understand that is how it works in practice. But I do still disagree with you xD

1.) It's a matter of what came first.... the law or the right? The right most certainly came first, you are ALWAYS obligated to practice your rights...
2.) and the law can certainly try to inflict Tyranny on you, doesn't make the law correct.
3.) Rights, according to the logical argument in the constitution are to be treated as god given, supreme law(because they are god given, and this is the case whether you believe in a god or not... the logic is is that they are inalienable by a supreme being conceptually), and are inalienable... If a law comes by and invalidates their inalienability or supreme-ness(lol can't think of a word)... then it is THAT laws fault not the individual citizen's for breaking it.
1.) Nobody is obligated to practice rights in reality, in fact many people do not. I know others feel differently but thats the reality.
2.) of course it can and of course that doesnt make it right.
3.) ONLY if that individual is right and then is proven so then the law is removed. You cant start with domino number one and ignore the rest of the critical pieces especially since the other dominoes may never fall.

person A thinks Law 1 is wrong so they break it

its found out the court and people disagree, person A is guilty of breaking the law A and rightfully so no matter his thoughts and feelings. Him claiming he felt the law violates is rights is meaningless and not a defense therefor it does not give him the freedom to do so like i stated. If that freedom existed then this person wouldnt be guilty but it doesn't.

person B thinks Law 2 is wrong so they break it

its found out the court and people agree, person B is innocent because said law b is not a valid/constitutional. Its now found to be invalid hence it can not be broken.

You can still disagree of course :) but my statement stands as written.
 

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
7,966
Reaction score
1,655
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Why are rights and laws so hard to understand for some people?
The first (nor any other right) is not a freedom ticket to break laws and or infringe on the rights of others. :shrug:
This is a very basic concept.
You're putting the cart before the horse. The purpose of the Bill Of Rights, including the 1st A is to prohibit the government from making any laws that would infringe on the rights granted by the Bill Of Rights. So therefore the government is not supposed to disallow stuff that's allowed by the BOR. After all, imagine if the government passed a law saying you can't vote, or that you can't go to any church, or that you have to go to a specific church, or that soldiers can be quartered in your house at any time at their whim?
 

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
7,966
Reaction score
1,655
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Are you kidding me? Making a credible threat of serious injury or death to another person is not protected by the 1A. You did not define what action was involved in "picking on" the person. If that "picking on" action did not rise to the level of being likely to cause serious injury or death then using or threatening the use of deadly force would not be considered self defense.
Threatening to do something and doing it are two different things.
 

AGENT J

I'm kind of a big deal
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
58,696
Reaction score
16,597
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're putting the cart before the horse. The purpose of the Bill Of Rights, including the 1st A is to prohibit the government from making any laws that would infringe on the rights granted by the Bill Of Rights. So therefore the government is not supposed to disallow stuff that's allowed by the BOR. After all, imagine if the government passed a law saying you can't vote, or that you can't go to any church, or that you have to go to a specific church, or that soldiers can be quartered in your house at any time at their whim?
Doesnt change anything i said. I law can be challenged and then removed or deemed unconstitutionally and then it doesnt exist. What I said still stands 100% The first (nor any other right) is not a freedom ticket to break laws and or infringe on the rights of others.
This is a very basic concept.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
62,167
Reaction score
35,786
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Threatening to do something and doing it are two different things.
Hmm... so simply saying that all infidels, blacks, Jews or police should be killed is no big deal we must wait until that actually happens to show cause for concern. Note that I did say making a credible threat - it get's rather dicey when you name a specific individual as your intended murder victim in front of witnesses no less.

Simply placing a condition on that threat usually makes a big difference, such as "if you attack me violently again then I will kill you" might have gotten a different response. Since we do not know what "it" was in the "knock it off, I will kill you" threat one might assume that "it" could be simply offering a mocking gesture or whistling a show tune - hardly worthy of using lethal force.
 

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
7,966
Reaction score
1,655
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hmm... so simply saying that all infidels, blacks, Jews or police should be killed is no big deal we must wait until that actually happens to show cause for concern. Note that I did say making a credible threat - it get's rather dicey when you name a specific individual as your intended murder victim in front of witnesses no less.

Simply placing a condition on that threat usually makes a big difference, such as "if you attack me violently again then I will kill you" might have gotten a different response. Since we do not know what "it" was in the "knock it off, I will kill you" threat one might assume that "it" could be simply offering a mocking gesture or whistling a show tune - hardly worthy of using lethal force.
It was one elementary school kid telling another elementary school kid, the bully, to stop making fun of his mom or he was going to kill him. As I said in my OP, this boy's mom had a mental sickness and often had to be cared for in a hospital. A bully in school kept picking on the boy and saying stuff about his mom. The boy told the bully to stop or he would kill him. In most cases I doubt a kid in elementary school will have the capability to kill another kid in elementary school and kids, even adults will sometimes out of anger say stuff that they don't really mean, including saying that they are going to kill somebody. The point is, while I don't think its a good idea to say you're going to kill people, to get in trouble with the law for saying that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
 

ChrisABrown

Active member
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
254
Reaction score
19
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I know of this case of this boy whose mom had some kind of mental condition where she often had to be hospitalized. Anyway, this bully at school would often pick on the boy about his mom, saying that his mom was a psychopath and stuff like that. One day the boy had enough and when being picked on he said to the bully, "Knock it off, Im gonna kill you!" I don't know the whole story but from what I do know the boy got in trouble with the law for saying he was going to kill the bully. I don't think its a good idea to go around saying you're going to kill people but to get in trouble for that with the law, as this boy did, would be unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment.
The indictment is of media generally because it does not teach other ways of dealing with conflict other than violence. Such is neglect to vital guidence of a population through mass media while the same media is used to divide people which further lessens the opportunity for young people to get good guidence.
 

Into the Night

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
8,009
Reaction score
1,428
Location
Seattle, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Threatening to do something and doing it are two different things.
Quite true. Threatening someone with bodily harm is still against the law in most cases. Even brandishing a gun or a knife (but not using it) is against the law in most cases (except in self defense).

Causing bodily harm through speech is also not a right (such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded event). You are held liable for the damage you cause. You might even be breaking the law.

What does the 1st amendment do? It prevents the federal government from passing any law restricting speech. It applies only to the federal government. Threats of bodily harm are not considered free speech.
In other words, I can call the President an idiot, say his ideas are stupid, etc. I can do that do any member of Congress as well. If I threaten any of them with bodily harm, however, I am breaking the law. I can still certainly threaten to vote them out of office in the next election.

Most State constitutions have similar wording, restricting to a degree the limits a State or any governmental entity in that State can impose. That varies from State to State.

Nothing prevents a private business from holding an individual liable for what they say or demonstrate. This is why the NFL can impose restrictions on their players. It is also why Disney can impose restrictions on their employees concerning foul language or offensive dress codes. It is why yelling 'fire' in a movie theater makes me liable for the damage I cause.
 

Unolewaya

New member
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
12
Location
South East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It was one elementary school kid telling another elementary school kid, the bully, to stop making fun of his mom or he was going to kill him. As I said in my OP, this boy's mom had a mental sickness and often had to be cared for in a hospital. A bully in school kept picking on the boy and saying stuff about his mom. The boy told the bully to stop or he would kill him. In most cases I doubt a kid in elementary school will have the capability to kill another kid in elementary school and kids, even adults will sometimes out of anger say stuff that they don't really mean, including saying that they are going to kill somebody. The point is, while I don't think its a good idea to say you're going to kill people, to get in trouble with the law for saying that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
In light of the number of school shootings in America, any student who threatens to kill another student would be considered a credible threat.
No one should use the threat of deadly force to try to scare others.
Not only is it a criminal action in most places, but could actually provide a self defense alibi to some else.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk
 

Bullseye

Every job is essential
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
25,031
Reaction score
8,512
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I know of this case of this boy whose mom had some kind of mental condition where she often had to be hospitalized. Anyway, this bully at school would often pick on the boy about his mom, saying that his mom was a psychopath and stuff like that. One day the boy had enough and when being picked on he said to the bully, "Knock it off, Im gonna kill you!" I don't know the whole story but from what I do know the boy got in trouble with the law for saying he was going to kill the bully. I don't think its a good idea to go around saying you're going to kill people but to get in trouble for that with the law, as this boy did, would be unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment.
Long standing principle that no right is absolute; we are free to exercise them to the extend they don't infringe on other's rights or cause damage to society. The classic example is we have no right to yell fire in a crowded theater. We can't threaten the life of the President or advocate insurrection against the government among other examples.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
20,550
Reaction score
18,222
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I know of this case of this boy whose mom had some kind of mental condition where she often had to be hospitalized. Anyway, this bully at school would often pick on the boy about his mom, saying that his mom was a psychopath and stuff like that. One day the boy had enough and when being picked on he said to the bully, "Knock it off, Im gonna kill you!" I don't know the whole story but from what I do know the boy got in trouble with the law for saying he was going to kill the bully. I don't think its a good idea to go around saying you're going to kill people but to get in trouble for that with the law, as this boy did, would be unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment.
No original framer of the US Constitution or Bill or Rights put for the idea that the First Amendment shields someone from responsibility for their expression or actions, at the same time the same group never put forth the idea that rights could be weaponized against others.

Ultimately that is what we are going to end up talking about. The difference between expression and expression as a weapon, in this case threatening someone. What we have not had is enough Constitutional challenge to criminal threats, terroristic threats, and other legal terminology for threatening someone else's life. For good reason, the end of that argument is marginalization of someone else's rights.

If we go down this road we suggest that the threat of violence is an acceptable form of expression, and there is no cap to how as to how far one or more can go to ensure another one or more lives in fear.

Granted that is not entirely what happened in this case (I think, you provided no link to a story on this) but the reality is weaponizing expression would not be limited to a couple of kids.
 

WeirdoJoker

New member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
48
Reaction score
20
Location
The Twilight Zone
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The utterance of a credible threat, while spoken, actually constitutes an act, and that is regulable under the 1st Amendment.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am amazed at the laughingly absurd attempt to classify something as "censorship".

First, to even discuss this logically we have to look at what the actual Amendment is. That is amazingly simple.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
OK, that helps a lot. In short, the Government can not stop you from saying whatever you want in a public forum. So is the kid forbidden from talking in public? Hmmm, nope. So that really does not apply at all. There is no kind of gag order saying he can not talk. And since he was talking to an individual and not "the public", that also does not really apply. No more than the Government would have a right to come into my house and prevent me from say narrating The Turner Diaries to a group of friends.

However, the "Right to Free Speech" is not universal. In general, it is accepted that any one of your "Constitutional Rights" only extends as far as yourself, so long as it does not infringe on the "Constitutional Rights" of another. I can say all day long that I think Red is a horrible color. But the moment I start saying something along the rights of "Anybody wearing Red should be shot", then I am infringing upon the rights of others to wear whatever color they may choose to wear.

That is why the 1st Amendment does not protect an individual in the case of verbal assault, defamation, libel, or slander. Nor does it apply in the event that somebody says something with the purpose of causing a possibly dangerous or inciteful reaction. The "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" instance for example.

This is why I often think the "Bill of Rights" is more accurately described as the "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities". Yes, it is a clear list of rights everybody has. But said individuals also have the responsibility to use those rights properly, or they can (and should) be forfeit for the protection of others.
 

MeThePeople

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
149
Reaction score
16
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
As far as your right to carry a concealed weapon in another state, 'Art IV sec 2 The Citizens of each State SHALL BE entitles to ALL Privelages and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' SO Constitutionaly speaking, you can carry into another state that prohibits their citizens from doing so. I would liken it to a pass through privelage
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As far as your right to carry a concealed weapon in another state, 'Art IV sec 2 The Citizens of each State SHALL BE entitles to ALL Privelages and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' SO Constitutionaly speaking, you can carry into another state that prohibits their citizens from doing so. I would liken it to a pass through privelage
Not really.

You could live in Texas, and still be arrested in Mississippi in 1965 if you brought in alcohol. Until 1966, Mississippi was still a "Dry State", and prohibited the sale, possession, or consumption of alcohol. And to this day we still have a great many "Dry Counties" and towns, I have lived in several. In fact, it was a common sight in these counties during "Spring Break" to see car after car pulled over by the side of the road, and the Police or County Sheriff making the occupants pour their alcohol on the ground right in front of them.

Such a similar use of laws (bringing 400 cases of "bootleg beer") into Georgia is they very plot behind the famous "Smokey and the Bandit" movie.

Remember, state (and even local) laws override Federal ones, unless the Federal Law specifically overrules that of the state. This is why there have been many attempts to create a Federal law mandating all states recognize concealed carry licenses issued by other states.
 

Terryj

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
534
Reaction score
216
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As far as your right to carry a concealed weapon in another state, 'Art IV sec 2 The Citizens of each State SHALL BE entitles to ALL Privelages and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' SO Constitutionaly speaking, you can carry into another state that prohibits their citizens from doing so. I would liken it to a pass through privelage
Seeings how firearm control is not an enumerated power given to the federal government that means it is reserved for the people and the States. So State can make their own laws about firearms as long as it is in pursuance to the Constitution.
 

MeThePeople

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
149
Reaction score
16
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Not really.

You could live in Texas, and still be arrested in Mississippi in 1965 if you brought in alcohol. Until 1966, Mississippi was still a "Dry State", and prohibited the sale, possession, or consumption of alcohol. And to this day we still have a great many "Dry Counties" and towns, I have lived in several. In fact, it was a common sight in these counties during "Spring Break" to see car after car pulled over by the side of the road, and the Police or County Sheriff making the occupants pour their alcohol on the ground right in front of them.

Such a similar use of laws (bringing 400 cases of "bootleg beer") into Georgia is they very plot behind the famous "Smokey and the Bandit" movie.

Remember, state (and even local) laws override Federal ones, unless the Federal Law specifically overrules that of the state. This is why there have been many attempts to create a Federal law mandating all states recognize concealed carry licenses issued by other states.
This would be a relevant case for SCOTUS. Being a citizen from another state would render you unfamiliar with another states unusual or specific laws. Also I feel that unless you could have been proven to be knowingly aiding a citizen of that prohibitive state to violate its laws, then you would have to be aquitted of any charges. Thus securing your privelages and immunities. It would be the responsibility of that prohibitive states citizen to REFUSE or not to accept or request that you break a law of that state.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This would be a relevant case for SCOTUS. Being a citizen from another state would render you unfamiliar with another states unusual or specific laws. Also I feel that unless you could have been proven to be knowingly aiding a citizen of that prohibitive state to violate its laws, then you would have to be aquitted of any charges. Thus securing your privelages and immunities. It would be the responsibility of that prohibitive states citizen to REFUSE or not to accept or request that you break a law of that state.
For all that have a concealed carry permit, how to handle it outside of your own state is pretty well known.

And that is don't do it, unless you know for a fact the other state has recripical rights. A license is only granted for the state in which it is issued, period. So have a CCW in Texas and go to California, do not take your CCW with you.

And the same goes for driving. It does not matter if you come from a state where a U turn is legal, or turning right on a rad. Go to a state where it is not legal, expect a ticket. Sure, the "my state allows it" is all well and good, in court. A judge may let you off, but you are still getting a ticket.

Oh, and do you think that the right to drive in one state with a license from another is a right from the Federal Government? Wrong.

That is a result of a series of agreements and legislations passed in the individual states. Back in 1933 the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) pushed legislation to have each state recognize the license from another. There is actually no Federal requirement that they do so, and at any time individual states can actually choose to remove or restrict such licensing.

But the part about CCW holders not knowing that they can not have their concealed weapon in another state? That is idiotic, that is one of the first things they cover in any CCW class. And every CCW license I have ever seen clearly states it is only valid in that state.

And yes, I have myself been a CCW holder. I held mine in Texas, and threw it away when I moved back to California. I knew that state did not recognize it, so no more need for it.

Oh, and if anybody wants to know the reciprocity laws, there are easy to use resources to help you know.

CCW Reciprocity Maps For All US States (2019 Update)
 
Top Bottom