RICH WILLBANKS spoke thusly to: DICK ROEBELT
RW>RW>DR>    Congress does NOT have that power.  That is reserved to
RW>RW>DR> the states.  And it is NOT written in the Constitution that
RW>RW>DR> I can see.  Care to show me?
RW>RW>Reread the article.  If the Congress has proven that
RW>RW>CCW's are acts that should be given FF&C then they
RW>RW>would have to be.  You state's right issue doesn't hold
RW>RW>up.  It is written that FF&C SHALL be given in each
RW>RW>state not might be given if the state agrees with the
RW>RW>act.
RW>DR>    I am going to try to keep this simple so maybe you can
RW>DR> grasp it. 
RW>No need for insults.  We're having a disagreement and
RW>if you can't debate it civilly then please just stop
RW>replying.
   If you think that is an insult then maybe this echo is to far 
advanced for you.
RW>DR>    The USSC (and the lower courts) has made numerous rulings
RW>DR> on  licensing issues.  They also have spoken to the firearms
RW>DR> issue being a state issue.  Through those many rulings it
RW>DR> is plain and evident that  Congress has no jurisdiction
RW>DR> (under the current Constitution).  Congress can only
RW>DR> "encourage" the states to adopt a Compact (a way around the
RW>DR> treaty clause) which would have the same effect as the 
RW>DR> current Driver's License Compact, only for concealed carry.
RW>If that is the fact then the FF&C clause is a waste of
RW>space in the Constitution.  If the states are allowed
RW>to decide what things are going to be given FF&C then
RW>why did the founding fathers put the article in?
   Not a "waste of space" at all - except in you mind.  The original 
premise was to INSURE that the basics of property law (all law is 
actually property law) is held intact.  That is (was) for the 
protection for those who stand to inherit the estate (so to speak). 
   Also, we had slavery back then.  In order to prove ownership of all 
property, both real and chattel, the FF&C was a must.  Fleeing slaves 
who made it to a "free state" was always a bone of contention.  Ditto 
for those criminals who would escape local jurisdiction. At least in 
the case of fleeing felons, their was and still is an extradition 
hearing as part of the process.
   
RW>RW>Nothing here.  Art. IV  Sec 1. clearly states that the
RW>RW>power of proving what acts and the effects of those
RW>RW>acts being given FF&C.  If Congress proves that CCW's
RW>RW>are covered by FF&C and the effect of that coverage is
RW>RW>that each state must honor the others then I can't see
RW>RW>a problem.  That power is clearly given to the
RW>RW>Congress.
RW>DR>    Congress cannot "prove" these acts.  The court have
RW>DR> specifically stated the licensing rights and laws about
RW>DR> firearms in general are STATE MATTERS.  It is the PEOPLE,
RW>DR> through their elected state representatives who determine
RW>DR> those laws.
RW>Maybe that is the way they have ruled in the past but I
RW>still say that it's clearly written out that the
RW>Congress has the power to decide what state actions are
RW>to be covered by the FF&C clause. 
   While the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, the edicts 
of Congress are not. Congress must act within the parameters of the 
Constitution.  All the power they possess in this area has been 
previously decided and that power has been wielded time and time again 
and honed to a point.  The "bright line" has been drawn.  Your 
thoughts on this matter have been previously concluded. 
RW>DR>    Why don't you tell us how Congress could "prove" their
RW>DR> authority?  
RW>How about Art. IV Sec 1?  IMNSHO, this gives the
RW>Congress the powers to decide what state acts, records,
RW>and judaical proceedings are covered by FF&C.  You have
RW>state ACT of qualifying a person AND a state record,
RW>the license, that the Congress could "by general laws
RW>prescribe" that this ACT and RECORD is now covered.
   I am still trying to find out (from you) by what stretch of logic 
or reasoning Congress could act.  The courts have said time and time 
again that a STATE licensing issue is without oversight of the 
Congress.
   I will go so far as to say that if Congress hired a construction 
company to build a nuclear plant within one of the several states and 
that state's licensing law had to be obeyed prior to construction and 
said (assigned) company FAILED to qualify, no construction would 
commence till such time as a qualified company acquired a STATE 
contractor's license.
   Even if that contractor was licensed to build such a plant in 2 
other states and had previously done so, the first spade of earth 
would not be turned till the state issued a construction/contractor's 
license, as is their ABSOLUTE right.
RW>The EFFECT of that coverage is that any state that
RW>license it citizens to exercise their right to bare
RW>concealed arms MUST honor the fact that another state
RW>has qualified (the act) and license (the record) one of
RW>it's citizens and thereby allow that citizen to carry
RW>concealed in their state.
   Utter nonsense!!!  
   A state like VT which has ZERO licensing is going head to head with 
a state like NY, which will only give a license to the rich/famous.
   Under your proposal, where every state has to be the same, we can 
all be a NYC where only the criminals have guns or Tombstone where 
anyone from anywhere can openly carry.  
   When (and if) the states band together and pass a uniform law along 
with their sister states, as they have done for driver's licenses, 
will their ever be uniformity.  BUT, if the USSC ever incorporates the 
2nd amendment into the Bill of Rights, my statement will be for all 
intents and purposes a nullity.  I won't be holding my breath waiting 
for that to happen.
RW>To me it's simple.  If a state trust it's citizens to
RW>carry and passes laws to that effect and keeps records
RW>then Art IV; Sec 1 gives the Congress the power to
RW>place it under the FF&C and there should be nothing
RW>wrong with them using it.
   I believe you may have something slightly backwards.  That would 
depend on which state you are from.
   It has nothing to do with the "state trust(ing) it's citizens" but 
rather did the citizens sign away their rights to the legislature?
   To be armed for self-defense is a god-given right.  And for a 
legislative body to interfere with such a paramount right, the state 
constitution has to be clear and unambiguous on the power of the 
legislature to "regulate" said right.  And then they may only exercise 
such power as spelled out in whatever document giving them 
jurisdiction.
   Dick
The IRS is the perfect example of non accountability.
þ CMPQwk 1.42 84 þ
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0GG
---------------