By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Normally, when it comes to our guns, I would say it is none of the federal government's business. The final words of the 2nd Amendment are "shall not be infringed." No existing gun law by the federal government is constitutional. That doesn't mean there should be no gun laws, period. The States have the authority to pass legislation regarding our gun rights, if the community believes those laws are needed. For example, if a State wants to have background checks, or pass laws disallowing children or felons from owning firearms, that is up to that State - and those laws ought to exist for a number of reasons. The federal government, however, has no authority regarding such things.
However, in Article IV. of the U.S. Constitution we have the "Full Faith and Credit Clause." That clause puts forth the constitutional requirement that each State must recognize the laws, licenses, certificates and judicial decisions of the other States. That's why married couples who move to a new State don't have to get married again. A person's college degree is recognized in all of the States. Your driver's license is also valid in all of the States. Granted, if you change residence, you need to obtain the license from the State you will be living, but if you are traveling, no matter what State you are in, your driver's license still provides for you the privilege of driving in that State.
If the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV. of the Constitution requires the States to recognize the laws, licenses, certificates and judicial decisions of the other States, why does a concealed carry permit not fall under those same provisions?
From a constitutional point of view, the concealed-carry reciprocity measure that has passed the House of Representatives, and is awaiting final vote in the Senate, is a worthy cause.
"It throws millions of dollars at a faulty program and it will result in more law-abiding citizens being deprived of their right to keep and bear arms," Massie wrote in a Facebook post ahead of the vote.
A federal background check is unconstitutional, anyhow. Once again, if background checks are to be in place, they must be legislated by the States, not the federal government.
The gun policy measures were originally two separate bills. But House GOP leaders opted to combine them so that lawmakers only had to cast one vote.
When this bill goes through the U.S. Senate, it may not survive. The Democrats will surely be against the concealed-carry measure, and the more conservative segment of the Republicans will stand against enhancing background checks.
Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the author of the concealed-carry bill, compared the concealed-carry reciprocity measure to how driver’s licenses and marriage licenses are recognized across States.
"If I get married in North Carolina but I move to Arizona, I’m not a single man again. They recognize that marriage," Hudson said during House floor debate. "The concealed-carry permit should be recognized the same way."
Gun control fanatics have been uniformly against the concealed-carry measure. As far as they are concerned, law-abiding Americans can't be trusted with guns, and all of them are potential mass shooters. Mark Kelly, the co-founder of a group named after his wife, ex-Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said that the policy doesn’t work if people aren’t properly trained.
“Unfortunately, the dangers posed by the concealed carry reciprocity portion of the bill greatly outweigh the benefits of the NICS improvements,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), the acting ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
In short, from the Democrat Party's point of view, their hate of the concept of the right to keep and bear arms supersede the law of the land, be it the 2nd Amendment, or the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV. in the U.S. Constitution.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment