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

[Glitch]

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.

Good advice. You can still bring your CCW permit with you, just don't expect that it will be honored in States like California, or most of the New England States.

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.

Every State has different laws concerning driving. In Alaska, for example, it is illegal to drive when there are five or more vehicles behind you. You are required by Alaska law to pull over and allow them to pass.

There are also "grey" areas in some States, where it is not technically legal, but allowed anyway. For example, driving a motorcycle between lanes on the freeway is allowed by the California Highway Patrol. Providing you are not driving more than 5 mph faster than the rest of the traffic and not driving faster than 25 mph. If you are going to drive in these States, it pays to know their laws first.

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.

Actually, under Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution it says:

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.

This is why driving licenses, marriage, divorce, and birth certificates, as well as every other public acts and judicial proceedings are recognized by all 50 States.

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)

Useful link, and sound advice. Congress has yet to fulfill their constitutional responsibility under the Full Faith & Credit Clause. Until they do, I highly recommend everyone follow your suggestion and read very carefully about the firearm laws of the State they intend to visit before bringing a firearm to that State. H.R. 38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2019, introduced this past January has been sitting in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ever since. With a Democrat controlled House, it is far more likely to die in that subcommittee than reach the floor for a vote.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Actually, under Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution it says:

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.

This is why driving licenses, marriage, divorce, and birth certificates, as well as every other public acts and judicial proceedings are recognized by all 50 States.

Uhhh, wrong. Things like Marriage, divorce, birth, and death are permanent records. They do not change, these are more accurately "recordings".

A license is a temporary status, with a revocation date and must be renewed.

And as I said, this is not from the Constitution, but from the Driver License Compact.

Driver License Compact - Ballotpedia

Driver License Compact - Wikipedia

If it was as simple as required by the Constitution, then there would be no need for a Compact.

And if that was true, then it would apply for all licenses. But my wife is a Nurse, and she can not practice her trade outside of California because they do not have such rights with any other states.

What you listed were not licenses, but records. Those are very different things.

Nice try though.

 

[Thingfish]

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.

yeah, he ***** up, should just given the bully a naughty dig to the chin...then whispered it in his ear.

 

[Cero]

The first amendment freedom of speech is often categorized as something we should not use in certain situations. Now when you have opinion of something and don't follow the crowd for instance if you dont believe lgbtq should be able to change the government any further. or infact say that all marriages that were made in same sex couples should be void. often you get asked why? i'll tell you why think of a man living he just turned 18 hes going to marry this woman he met which like 27. when he marrys her he wants to have children and he loves her so much that he stayed with her. what if he stayed with her for over 30 years wondering why she couldnt have kids and never finds out his wife infact was born a man. thats the problem. men or women trying to live that sort of life and losing their chance. that is why it shouldnt be legal or if it is legal when the marraige goes through they should have to state to the other person that they were born a different sex and which sex it was.
Often these sort of opinions are shunned. people like me get called names like homophobe but nah i'm just looking far ahead to help my country and my fellow man and the outcome that could happen to many.

 

[Lisa]

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.

This is not a difficult concept to understand. I thought that it was to be understood in a person's high school civics requirement course. None of our rights are absolute because if they were, they would trample on the equal rights of others.

 

[Oozlefinch]

This is not a difficult concept to understand. I thought that it was to be understood in a person's high school civics requirement course. None of our rights are absolute because if they were, they would trample on the equal rights of others.

To far to many people, they believe that "rights" are what allows them to do whatever they want, but if somebody else is doing something they do not like then they are exceeding their rights.

 

[Court Jester]

Threatening to do something and doing it are two different things.

True, and in the case of your original post the boy who was being bullied was his threat an imminent threat with real and present ability--- or just loose talk coming out of frustration from being harassed? Which is why law enforcement is tasked with investigating and determining if there really is a threat. The words are only a violation of the law if they are a real threat are they not? If we attempted to incarcerate everyone for loose talk we had better start building more prisons.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Threat of imminent lawless action is the only thing not protected by the 1st amendment. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Actually, no. There is something the USSC court calls "fighting words" that is not protected.

An example would be a bar patron loudly declaring that another patron's wife was a "a whore." If the woman's husband were to haul off and belt the guy, the USSC has ruled that the "whore" remark was not protected free speech. And the man who provoked the assault could not argue that he was being denied his rights when his nose was bloodied.

 

[Glitch]

Actually, no. There is something the USSC court calls "fighting words" that is not protected.

An example would be a bar patron loudly declaring that another patron's wife was a "a whore." If the woman's husband were to haul off and belt the guy, the USSC has ruled that the "whore" remark was not protected free speech. And the man who provoked the assault could not argue that he was being denied his rights when his nose was bloodied.

This is complete and utter BS.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

Why don't you walk up to someone and say that in the presence of a police officer.
Then you can try to argue to a judge and jury that YOUR 1A rights were violated by law enforcement.

You can even yell "**** THA POLICE!!!" on the way out of the courtroom.
If you sing it on a record you might make a bundle of money but for some reason, if you say it out loud directly to a person in public, it costs you money, and your freedom.

I know, it's just terrible, isn't it?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

This is complete and utter BS.

You show your complete ignorance of the law.

In a unanimous decision in 1942 (meaning no one on the court desented or objected), the court ruled that "fighting words" are not protected by the 1st amendment. Writing for the court, justice Frank Murphy wrote:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Now, is it your contention that either the court was 100% wrong in its decision, or that by their very nature "fighting words" such as I described above are protected by the 1st amendment, the court's unanimous decision notwithstanding? Which is it?

 

[SILVER SURFER]

You show your complete ignorance of the law.

In a unanimous decision in 1942 (meaning no one on the court desented or objected), the court ruled that "fighting words" are not protected by the 1st amendment. Writing for the court, justice Frank Murphy wrote:



Now, is it your contention that either the court was 100% wrong in its decision, or that by their very nature "fighting words" such as I described above are protected by the 1st amendment, the court's unanimous decision notwithstanding? Which is it?

Yes, SCOTUS established the doctrine of "fighting words" as unprotected speech in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), it further defined fighting words as "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." I'd say your example meets the definition.

 

[Bodi]

The first amendment freedom of speech is often categorized as something we should not use in certain situations. Now when you have opinion of something and don't follow the crowd for instance if you dont believe lgbtq should be able to change the government any further. or infact say that all marriages that were made in same sex couples should be void. often you get asked why? i'll tell you why think of a man living he just turned 18 hes going to marry this woman he met which like 27. when he marrys her he wants to have children and he loves her so much that he stayed with her. what if he stayed with her for over 30 years wondering why she couldnt have kids and never finds out his wife infact was born a man. thats the problem. men or women trying to live that sort of life and losing their chance. that is why it shouldnt be legal or if it is legal when the marraige goes through they should have to state to the other person that they were born a different sex and which sex it was.
Often these sort of opinions are shunned. people like me get called names like homophobe but nah i'm just looking far ahead to help my country and my fellow man and the outcome that could happen to many.

People like you get called names? For what? Your post is an English nightmare that makes little sense.

That is the problem? Men not realizing that they are marrying a woman that was born a man and can't have kids? WTF?