Posted: 4/20/2014 7:15:13 AM EDT
| I'm from ny. I have a ny carry and utah non resident. I took the Florida Class but don't think I'll get my permit befire I go to florida. I don't think either of my permits allow me to carry in florida. What's the penalty for unlicensed ccw and because I have the other permits do they matter at all or would I just be considered illegally carrying? I know how nys sees things I didnt know if florida was different because my app is being processed |
|
Your permits are not valid here.
You would be carrying illegally. (2) A person who carries a concealed firearm on or about his or her person commits a felony of the third degree. Reference |
|
Quoted:
I'm all ears, why is it a good thing? Federal oversight? Why it should not happen? Unconstitutional infringement of State's right. Why it won't happen? Guns are scary, yo. Unless of course they add a bunch of riders, qualifications, addenda, provisions, regulations, registration, certification, training, etc. |
It's unconstitutional to uphold my constitutional rights?
Quoted:
Why it should not happen? Unconstitutional infringement of State's right. Why it won't happen? Guns are scary, yo. Unless of course they add a bunch of riders, qualifications, addenda, provisions, regulations, registration, certification, training, etc. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm all ears, why is it a good thing? Federal oversight? Why it should not happen? Unconstitutional infringement of State's right. Why it won't happen? Guns are scary, yo. Unless of course they add a bunch of riders, qualifications, addenda, provisions, regulations, registration, certification, training, etc. |
|
Quoted:
It's unconstitutional to uphold my constitutional rights?
Quoted:
It's unconstitutional to uphold my constitutional rights?
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm all ears, why is it a good thing? Federal oversight? Why it should not happen? Unconstitutional infringement of State's right. Why it won't happen? Guns are scary, yo. Unless of course they add a bunch of riders, qualifications, addenda, provisions, regulations, registration, certification, training, etc. Take guns out of the convo for a second. Do you want the federal government telling you have to abide by a set of standards for XYZ that in previous times were determined by the states? |
|
Quoted:
Take guns out of the convo for a second. Do you want the federal government telling you have to abide by a set of standards for XYZ that in previous times were determined by the states? You can't take guns out of the convo on this one. States don't have the right to deny constitutional rights. Quoted:
Quoted:
It's unconstitutional to uphold my constitutional rights?
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm all ears, why is it a good thing? Federal oversight? Why it should not happen? Unconstitutional infringement of State's right. Why it won't happen? Guns are scary, yo. Unless of course they add a bunch of riders, qualifications, addenda, provisions, regulations, registration, certification, training, etc. Take guns out of the convo for a second. Do you want the federal government telling you have to abide by a set of standards for XYZ that in previous times were determined by the states? You can't take guns out of the convo on this one. States don't have the right to deny constitutional rights. IMHO if the feds were doing their jobs. They would be arresting CT law makers that are currently violating the people of CT's 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd guarantees(at least its supposed to) your right to keep and bear arms and that it won't be infringed. I don't think states have the right to restrict the 2nd. The only thing the feds should be doing in regards to the 2nd is stopping states like CT, NY and California from infringing on those rights. The fact is unless we amend the 2nd to state otherwise not even we the people have the right to vote and pass laws contrary to the 2nd. We are a constitutional republic for a reason, even though we don't behave like it. Shall not be infringed isn't just for the feds. Its for the state governments and ourselves. |
|
Quoted: Why it should not happen? Unconstitutional infringement of State's right. Why it won't happen? Guns are scary, yo. Unless of course they add a bunch of riders, qualifications, addenda, provisions, regulations, registration, certification, training, etc. Quoted: Quoted: I'm all ears, why is it a good thing? Federal oversight? Why it should not happen? Unconstitutional infringement of State's right. Why it won't happen? Guns are scary, yo. Unless of course they add a bunch of riders, qualifications, addenda, provisions, regulations, registration, certification, training, etc. The Constitution contains the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in Article IV, Section 1: 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. That clause is typically used when it comes to marriage licenses and driver's licenses. That way if you are married in one state, all the other states recognize your marriage or if you are licensed to drive in your home state, your driver's license is valid in all the states. I don't see why a concealed weapon license issued by one state shouldn't be recognized as being valid in another state under the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Just as your driver's license allows you to drive in other states, you still have to follow that state's traffic laws, having national recognization of CWL wouldn't trample on state's rights as you would still have to follow the laws of the state you are in (such as when you can carry, what you can carry, etc). |
|
Quoted:
Take guns out of the convo for a second. Do you want the federal government telling you have to abide by a set of standards for XYZ that in previous times were determined by the states? Quoted:
Take guns out of the convo for a second. Do you want the federal government telling you have to abide by a set of standards for XYZ that in previous times were determined by the states? If XYZ is the freedom of speach or religion do you want the federal gov't to enforce the constitution? Article 4, section 2 of the US Constitution: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I share your same concerns about the federal gov't having any power over the states that created it, however as you can see in article 4, and reinforced in the 14th amendment, the federal gov't is responsible for enforcing the bill of rights. Even if you argue that concealed carry is not a right, the Constitution even includes "privileges" so concealed carry would be covered either way. Therefore federal concealed carry would be constitutional. |
|
Quoted:
The Constitution contains the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in Article IV, Section 1: 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. That clause is typically used when it comes to marriage licenses and driver's licenses. That way if you are married in one state, all the other states recognize your marriage or if you are licensed to drive in your home state, your driver's license is valid in all the states. I don't see why a concealed weapon license issued by one state shouldn't be recognized as being valid in another state under the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Just as your driver's license allows you to drive in other states, you still have to follow that state's traffic laws, having national recognization of CWL wouldn't trample on state's rights as you would still have to follow the laws of the state you are in (such as when you can carry, what you can carry, etc). Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm all ears, why is it a good thing? Federal oversight? Why it should not happen? Unconstitutional infringement of State's right. Why it won't happen? Guns are scary, yo. Unless of course they add a bunch of riders, qualifications, addenda, provisions, regulations, registration, certification, training, etc. The Constitution contains the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in Article IV, Section 1: 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. That clause is typically used when it comes to marriage licenses and driver's licenses. That way if you are married in one state, all the other states recognize your marriage or if you are licensed to drive in your home state, your driver's license is valid in all the states. I don't see why a concealed weapon license issued by one state shouldn't be recognized as being valid in another state under the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution. Just as your driver's license allows you to drive in other states, you still have to follow that state's traffic laws, having national recognization of CWL wouldn't trample on state's rights as you would still have to follow the laws of the state you are in (such as when you can carry, what you can carry, etc). Except that only applies to judicial and administrative acts, not legislative. |
|
Quoted:
If XYZ is the freedom of speach or religion do you want the federal gov't to enforce the constitution? Article 4, section 2 of the US Constitution: 14th amendment: I share your same concerns about the federal gov't having any power over the states that created it, however as you can see in article 4, and reinforced in the 14th amendment, the federal gov't is responsible for enforcing the bill of rights. Even if you argue that concealed carry is not a right, the Constitution even includes "privileges" so concealed carry would be covered either way. Therefore federal concealed carry would be constitutional. Quoted:
Quoted:
Take guns out of the convo for a second. Do you want the federal government telling you have to abide by a set of standards for XYZ that in previous times were determined by the states? If XYZ is the freedom of speach or religion do you want the federal gov't to enforce the constitution? Article 4, section 2 of the US Constitution: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I share your same concerns about the federal gov't having any power over the states that created it, however as you can see in article 4, and reinforced in the 14th amendment, the federal gov't is responsible for enforcing the bill of rights. Even if you argue that concealed carry is not a right, the Constitution even includes "privileges" so concealed carry would be covered either way. Therefore federal concealed carry would be constitutional. Enforcing, as in ruling state laws that limit the right, unconstitutional. However a federal law requiring one state to recognize a license from another state is just as unconstitutional as a state law infringing on the 2nd amendment. 
|
|
Quoted:
Enforcing, as in ruling state laws that limit the right, unconstitutional. However a federal law requiring one state to recognize a license from another state is just as unconstitutional as a state law infringing on the 2nd amendment. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Take guns out of the convo for a second. Do you want the federal government telling you have to abide by a set of standards for XYZ that in previous times were determined by the states? If XYZ is the freedom of speach or religion do you want the federal gov't to enforce the constitution? Article 4, section 2 of the US Constitution: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I share your same concerns about the federal gov't having any power over the states that created it, however as you can see in article 4, and reinforced in the 14th amendment, the federal gov't is responsible for enforcing the bill of rights. Even if you argue that concealed carry is not a right, the Constitution even includes "privileges" so concealed carry would be covered either way. Therefore federal concealed carry would be constitutional. Enforcing, as in ruling state laws that limit the right, unconstitutional. However a federal law requiring one state to recognize a license from another state is just as unconstitutional as a state law infringing on the 2nd amendment. Would it be unconstitutional for the federal gov't to pass a law stating that people in all 50 states have the same freedom of speech, regardless of what state they're in? |