RW>DR>    Congress does NOT have that power.  That is reserved to
RW>DR> the states.  And it is NOT written in the Constitution that
RW>DR> I can see.  Care to show me?
RW>Reread the article.  If the Congress has proven that
RW>CCW's are acts that should be given FF&C then they
RW>would have to be.  You state's right issue doesn't hold
RW>up.  It is written that FF&C SHALL be given in each
RW>state not might be given if the state agrees with the
RW>act.
DR>    I am going to try to keep this simple so maybe you can
DR> grasp it. 
No need for insults.  We're having a disagreement and
if you can't debate it civilly then please just stop
replying.
DR>    The USSC (and the lower courts) has made numerous rulings
DR> on  licensing issues.  They also have spoken to the firearms
DR> issue being a  state issue.  Through those many rulings it
DR> is plain and evident that  Congress has no jurisdiction
DR> (under the current Constitution).    Congress can only
DR> "encourage" the states to adopt a Compact (a way  around the
DR> treaty clause) which would have the same effect as the 
DR> current Driver's License Compact, only for concealed carry.
If that is the fact then the FF&C clause is a waste of
space in the Constitution.  If the states are allowed
to decide what things are going to be given FF&C then
why did the founding fathers put the article in?
RW>Nothing here.  Art. IV  Sec 1. clearly states that the
RW>power of proving what acts and the effects of those
RW>acts being given FF&C.  If Congress proves that CCW's
RW>are covered by FF&C and the effect of that coverage is
RW>that each state must honor the others then I can't see
RW>a problem.  That power is clearly given to the
RW>Congress.
DR>    Congress cannot "prove" these acts.  The court have
DR> specifically  stated the licensing rights and laws about
DR> firearms in general are  STATE MATTERS.  It is the PEOPLE,
DR> through their elected state  representatives who determine
DR> those laws.
Maybe that is the way they have ruled in the past but I
still say that it's clearly written out that the
Congress has the power to decide what state actions are
to be covered by the FF&C clause. 
DR>    Why don't you tell us how Congress could "prove" their
DR> authority?  
How about Art. IV Sec 1?  IMNSHO, this gives the
Congress the powers to decide what state acts, records,
and judaical proceedings are covered by FF&C.  You have
state ACT of qualifying a person AND a state record,
the license, that the Congress could "by general laws
prescribe" that this ACT and RECORD is now covered.
The EFFECT of that coverage is that any state that
license it citizens to exercise their right to bare
concealed arms MUST honor the fact that another state
has qualified (the act) and license (the record) one of
it's citizens and thereby allow that citizen to carry
concealed in their state.
To me it's simple.  If a state trust it's citizens to
carry and passes laws to that effect and keeps records
then Art IV; Sec 1 gives the Congress the power to
place it under the FF&C and there should be nothing
wrong with them using it.
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------