What are the rules for bringing a pistol across state lines? Say if I want
to travel by car from Virginia to Louisiana with a gun. How is that done
legally?

Thanks,
Brett

"Brett" <bbsouth@Bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:WuWRa.1036$ci.385@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com... What are the rules for bringing a pistol across state lines? Say if I
want to travel by car from Virginia to Louisiana with a gun. How is that done legally? Thanks, Brett

Melt it down into an ingot?

"Brett" <bbsouth@Bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:WuWRa.1036$ci.385@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com... What are the rules for bringing a pistol across state lines? Say if I
want to travel by car from Virginia to Louisiana with a gun. How is that done legally? Thanks, Brett

First, buy a trigger lock and install it.
Insert the weapon into a bag, and place bag into the trunk.
Do not keep any ammunition in the same bag.
Even if you are stopped, searched, and the cops find it, they can not claim
"concealed weapon".
To be a concealed weapon it must be readily available to the driver within
arm's reach.

There once was a minor incident involving the President of the USA and a
certain motorist.
A secret service agent noticed the young man had a pistol on the dashboard.
No arrest was made because the pistol was visible.
Which is the same reasoning why persons in pickup trucks use gun racks to
display the guns with.
If it's visibile, it's not a concealed weapon.

"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in news:bfa5pc01ujt@enews4.newsguy.com:
If it's visibile, it's not a concealed weapon.

Some states also criminalize unlicensed possession of handguns in motor
vehicles, concealed or not.

"Najena" <najena@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93BD84B29799najenahotmail@66.250.146.20... "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in news:bfa5pc01ujt@enews4.newsguy.com: If it's visibile, it's not a concealed weapon. Some states also criminalize unlicensed possession of handguns in motor vehicles, concealed or not.

If that's the case, then how do people transport weapons to and from firing
ranges, hunting areas, or sporting events?
Cities may require licenses for posession, but I do not believe that a state
may deny transportation of a firearm.
If you can confirm that with a link to an actual law, I'd like to read it.

"Citizens shall have the right to keep and bear arms".
This includes inside a vehicle.

"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in news:bfanbm031kp@enews3.newsguy.com:
"Najena" <najena@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns93BD84B29799najenahotmail@66.250.146.20... "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in news:bfa5pc01ujt@enews4.newsguy.com: If it's visibile, it's not a concealed weapon. Some states also criminalize unlicensed possession of handguns in motor vehicles, concealed or not. If that's the case, then how do people transport weapons to and from firing ranges, hunting areas, or sporting events?

In the case of handguns, they get the required permits. If they are
ineligible for the permit, they're ***-out.
Cities may require licenses for posession, but I do not believe that a state may deny transportation of a firearm.

Why can't it?
If you can confirm that with a link to an actual law, I'd like to read it.

18 Pa.C.S.A. 6106
"Citizens shall have the right to keep and bear arms". This includes inside a vehicle.

Show me a federal case where the Second Amendment has amounted to a damn.

>> Some states also criminalize unlicensed possession of handguns in motor vehicles, concealed or not. If that's the case, then how do people transport weapons to and from firing ranges, hunting areas, or sporting events? Cities may require licenses for posession, but I do not believe that a state may deny transportation of a firearm. If you can confirm that with a link to an actual law, I'd like to read it.

New York requires a license to possess a handgun, even in your own home.

Not the actual law, but the "plain English" version in New York ...

http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/Firearms/FAQs/FAQindex.html
--
Don in Upstate NY

"Don Priebe" <priebe@iname.com> wrote in message
news:W1cSa.72090$EQ5.25728@twister.nyroc.rr.com... Some states also criminalize unlicensed possession of handguns in motor vehicles, concealed or not. If that's the case, then how do people transport weapons to and from firing ranges, hunting areas, or sporting events? Cities may require licenses for posession, but I do not believe that a state may deny transportation of a firearm. If you can confirm that with a link to an actual law, I'd like to read it. New York requires a license to possess a handgun, even in your own home. Not the actual law, but the "plain English" version in New York ... http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/Firearms/FAQs/FAQindex.html -- Don in Upstate NY
If you live in New York City and want to own a pistol for target shooting
(at a range), how is that done since you can't own a gun in NYC?

Is it the same way in Washington D.C.?

Thanks,
Brett

"Don Priebe" <priebe@iname.com> wrote in message
news:W1cSa.72090$EQ5.25728@twister.nyroc.rr.com... Some states also criminalize unlicensed possession of handguns in motor vehicles, concealed or not. If that's the case, then how do people transport weapons to and from firing ranges, hunting areas, or sporting events? Cities may require licenses for posession, but I do not believe that a state may deny transportation of a firearm. If you can confirm that with a link to an actual law, I'd like to read it. New York requires a license to possess a handgun, even in your own home. Not the actual law, but the "plain English" version in New York ... http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/Firearms/FAQs/FAQindex.html -- Don in Upstate NY

IMHO, the state laws demanding a license in order to own a weapon is
unconstitutional.
As the 2nd Amendment already gives every citizen this right, the state may
not make it a hardship in order to do so.
However, this is not to say that the state might get away with enacting some
kind of law that would limit how many "arms", and of what kind, an
individual may own.
Oh so you own a gun huh? Where is your license sir?
I'd answer, it's written in the United States Constution officer. You know
that little piece of paper your sworn to uphold and protect? Care to
challenge me in the US Supreme Court?

When the federal law provides for a citizen to be allowed to do something, a
state may not enact a law denying a citizen that right, or making it a
hardhsip to do so.
If federal law grants the right to an 18 year old to vote, a state may not
turn around and deny the 18 year old the right to vote.
If that were the case, then why do we have federal laws at all?

Federal law prohibits the importation of cuban cigars.
Can Florida pass a law saying that it is legal to do so?
No they can not, not legally.

Even though a state law has never been challenged in higher courts, does not
necessarily make the law legal.

Unlike the Clinton administration, I totally agree with you on our right to
bear arms.
Even though a state law has never been challenged in higher courts, does
not necessarily make the law legal.

Unfortunately, you could be facing prosecution for violating state law.

In article <bfc7gj01std@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:IMHO, the state laws demanding a license in order to own a weapon isunconstitutional.As the 2nd Amendment already gives every citizen this right, the state maynot make it a hardship in order to do so.However, this is not to say that the state might get away with enacting somekind of law that would limit how many "arms", and of what kind, anindividual may own.Oh so you own a gun huh? Where is your license sir?I'd answer, it's written in the United States Constution officer. You knowthat little piece of paper your sworn to uphold and protect? Care tochallenge me in the US Supreme Court?

I would love to challenge you in the SUpreme Court. Since licensing
requirements for handguns have been deemed constitutional. Then your
conviction for criminal possession of a weapon would still stand.
When the federal law provides for a citizen to be allowed to do something, astate may not enact a law denying a citizen that right, or making it ahardhsip to do so.If federal law grants the right to an 18 year old to vote, a state may notturn around and deny the 18 year old the right to vote.If that were the case, then why do we have federal laws at all?

Well, good point, but inapplicable. Since virtually every state has some
sort of permit requirement for guns, and they're all constitutional. Not
to mention restrictions on who can own guns (no children, no felons) and
where you can carry a gun (not near a school, etc.)
Federal law prohibits the importation of cuban cigars.Can Florida pass a law saying that it is legal to do so?No they can not, not legally.

Sure they can pass a law. Any state can pass a law about anything. But
the law isn't constitutional.
Even though a state law has never been challenged in higher courts, does notnecessarily make the law legal.

Actually, it does. A law is presumptively constitutional and valid until
declared otherwise.

none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in messagechallenge me in the US Supreme Court? I would love to challenge you in the SUpreme Court. Since licensing requirements for handguns have been deemed constitutional.

Please cite cases. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the
constitutionality of licensing requirements. State Courts have, but
then, they're not the final word on constitutionality, are they?

If that were the case, then why do we have federal laws at all? Well, good point, but inapplicable. Since virtually every state has some sort of permit requirement for guns, and they're all constitutional.

No, they're not. Never been ruled on. Please stop spreading
misinformation.

Not to mention restrictions on who can own guns (no children, no felons) and where you can carry a gun (not near a school, etc.)

Right, US v. Lopez was just a blip. You remember, the case in which
the Supremes stated that the "gun-free school zone" was an
unconstitutional exercise of Congress' power under the
Commerce-clause?

The Bill of Rights mentions "people", not "adults", not "non-felons".
In fact, following Clarence Thomas' reasoning in Lopez, there cannot
be a restriction based on convictions. A person's rights may be
restricted while they are under sentence, but once the sentence is
over, their rights are in full force. Otherwise, we could just ignore
the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments because the person was "just a
felon".
Federal law prohibits the importation of cuban cigars.Can Florida pass a law saying that it is legal to do so?No they can not, not legally. Sure they can pass a law. Any state can pass a law about anything. But the law isn't constitutional.

Sure it is, until SCOTUS says it isn't. That's you're reasoning
below...
Even though a state law has never been challenged in higher courts, does notnecessarily make the law legal. Actually, it does. A law is presumptively constitutional and valid until declared otherwise.

Ahh, but what about Marbury v. Madison? "An act of the legislature,
repugnant to the constitution, is void."

Thus, all your licensing requirements, restrictions, etc. are void,
since the Constitution does not explicitly allow for such to be
enacted.

Please review the Constitution again. And you might try US v.
Lopez...

Falconnier

In article <22a97650.0307241236.5bd1842d@posting.google.com>,
falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in messagechallenge me in the US Supreme Court? I would love to challenge you in the SUpreme Court. Since licensing requirements for handguns have been deemed constitutional.Please cite cases. The Supreme Court has never ruled on theconstitutionality of licensing requirements. State Courts have, butthen, they're not the final word on constitutionality, are they?If that were the case, then why do we have federal laws at all? Well, good point, but inapplicable. Since virtually every state has some sort of permit requirement for guns, and they're all constitutional.No, they're not. Never been ruled on. Please stop spreadingmisinformation.

No one has EVER raised a constitutional challenge to a state's firearms
licensing law? You sure about that? it's not for lack of standing... and
it's not for lack of gun owners with broad views of the second
amendment..... yet you really think no one, in any state, has ever said
that a gun licensing law was trumped by the federal constitution? Want me
to provide cites?
Not to mention restrictions on who can own guns (no children, no felons) and where you can carry a gun (not near a school, etc.)Right, US v. Lopez was just a blip. You remember, the case in whichthe Supremes stated that the "gun-free school zone" was anunconstitutional exercise of Congress' power under theCommerce-clause?

Right. Striken due to the commerce clause, not the second amendment. And
most states have laws similar to the federal rule at issue in Lopez. And
how about felons carrying guns?
The Bill of Rights mentions "people", not "adults", not "non-felons".In fact, following Clarence Thomas' reasoning in Lopez, there cannotbe a restriction based on convictions. A person's rights may berestricted while they are under sentence, but once the sentence isover, their rights are in full force. Otherwise, we could just ignorethe 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments because the person was "just afelon".

Yep, all true. And all constitutional. The same way a convicted felon
can't vote, and can't run for many public offices. Again, want cites? If
it makes you feel better, think of these as aspects of their sentence - 10
years in jail and a life sentence of not being allowed to own a gun.
Federal law prohibits the importation of cuban cigars.Can Florida pass a law saying that it is legal to do so?No they can not, not legally. Sure they can pass a law. Any state can pass a law about anything. But the law isn't constitutional.Sure it is, until SCOTUS says it isn't. That's you're reasoningbelow...

Well, it also depends on the negative commerce clause. Did Congress
intend to preempt the states in the area of cigar importation? Is it a
state or federal issue? Can the statutes coexist? Too many questions to
answer for certain.
Even though a state law has never been challenged in higher courts, does notnecessarily make the law legal. Actually, it does. A law is presumptively constitutional and valid until declared otherwise.Ahh, but what about Marbury v. Madison? "An act of the legislature,repugnant to the constitution, is void."Thus, all your licensing requirements, restrictions, etc. are void,since the Constitution does not explicitly allow for such to beenacted.

The Constitution is a framework, not a detailed plan. Plus, if you read
Marbury in its entirety, and don't just pick out the quotes you like,
you'd see that the only way an "act of the legislature" can be declared
"repugnant to the constitution" is byu the Supreme Court. Judicial review
is not even in the constitution. It was established in Marbury itself, so
nice try.

none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message news:<none-2407032142260001@192.168.2.4>... In article <22a97650.0307241236.5bd1842d@posting.google.com>, falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message
No one has EVER raised a constitutional challenge to a state's firearms licensing law? You sure about that? it's not for lack of standing... and it's not for lack of gun owners with broad views of the second amendment..... yet you really think no one, in any state, has ever said that a gun licensing law was trumped by the federal constitution? Want me to provide cites?

Please, cite Supreme Court cases where a licensing law was challenged.
NOT State Supreme Court, Federal District Court, or Federal Courts of
Appeal - JUST SCOTUS cases. You can't because there AREN'T ANY.

Not to mention restrictions on who can own guns (no children, no felons) and where you can carry a gun (not near a school, etc.)Right, US v. Lopez was just a blip. You remember, the case in whichthe Supremes stated that the "gun-free school zone" was anunconstitutional exercise of Congress' power under theCommerce-clause? Right. Striken due to the commerce clause, not the second amendment.

Because it was only challenged on the commerce clause, not the second
amendment.


And most states have laws similar to the federal rule at issue in Lopez.

And they're all unconstitutional, since they all derive from the
statute in Lopez.

And how about felons carrying guns?

The restriction is only statutory, and the restriction is most likely,
unconstitutional.
The Bill of Rights mentions "people", not "adults", not "non-felons".In fact, following Clarence Thomas' reasoning in Lopez, there cannotbe a restriction based on convictions. A person's rights may berestricted while they are under sentence, but once the sentence isover, their rights are in full force. Otherwise, we could just ignorethe 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments because the person was "just afelon". Yep, all true. And all constitutional. The same way a convicted felon can't vote,

Sure they can, in most states. And in the states where they can't,
those restrictions are being challenged as unconstitutional, with
great chance of success.

and can't run for many public offices.
Again, want cites?

Don't really care, since the voting rights issue is currently being
challenged, and the public offices issue is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE.

If it makes you feel better, think of these as aspects of their sentence - 10 years in jail and a life sentence of not being allowed to own a gun.

Ah, but the restriction is imposed statutorily, not as a condition of
sentence. Big difference.

>Federal law prohibits the importation of cuban cigars. >Can Florida pass a law saying that it is legal to do so? >No they can not, not legally. Sure they can pass a law. Any state can pass a law about anything. But the law isn't constitutional.Sure it is, until SCOTUS says it isn't. That's you're reasoningbelow... Well, it also depends on the negative commerce clause. Did Congress intend to preempt the states in the area of cigar importation? Is it a state or federal issue? Can the statutes coexist? Too many questions to answer for certain. >Even though a state law has never been challenged in higher courts, does not >necessarily make the law legal. Actually, it does. A law is presumptively constitutional and valid until declared otherwise.Ahh, but what about Marbury v. Madison? "An act of the legislature,repugnant to the constitution, is void."Thus, all your licensing requirements, restrictions, etc. are void,since the Constitution does not explicitly allow for such to beenacted. The Constitution is a framework, not a detailed plan.

The *Constitution*, yes. The Bill of Rights (more like a Bill of
Prohibitions on Government), no. The BoR is quite detailed, laid out
in plain language as restrictions on Federal Government.

And the Fourteenth Amendment applied them to the States.

Plus, if you read Marbury in its entirety, and don't just pick out the quotes you like, you'd see that the only way an "act of the legislature" can be declared "repugnant to the constitution" is byu the Supreme Court.

No argument there. But then, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the
consitutionality of handgun licensing restrictions.


Judicial review is not even in the constitution.

Didn't need to be. It was already in common law. See below.

It was established in Marbury itself, so nice try.

No, it wasn't established in Marbury. It was established by Lord Coke
in Bonham's Case in 1610, where he stated:

"...it appears in our books that in many cases the common law will
control acts of parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly
void; for when an act of parliament is against common right or reason,
or repugnant or impossible to be performed, the common law will
control it and adjudge such act to be void."

You really should bone up on your jurisprudence.

In article <22a97650.0307250530.57438316@posting.google.com>,
falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message
news:<none-2407032142260001@192.168.2.4>... In article <22a97650.0307241236.5bd1842d@posting.google.com>, falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message No one has EVER raised a constitutional challenge to a state's firearms licensing law? You sure about that? it's not for lack of standing... and it's not for lack of gun owners with broad views of the second amendment..... yet you really think no one, in any state, has ever said that a gun licensing law was trumped by the federal constitution? Want me to provide cites?Please, cite Supreme Court cases where a licensing law was challenged. NOT State Supreme Court, Federal District Court, or Federal Courts ofAppeal - JUST SCOTUS cases. You can't because there AREN'T ANY.


There may not be, but it is completely IRRELEVANT to your assertion that
no one has ever rasied a constitutional challenge to a firearms licensing
statute.

First, state courts can interpret state constitutions, and are in fact the
only states which can. So cases there are not only relevant, but there
are more there than federal cases, I'd imagine. Next, and most
importantly, appeal from federal District Court to a Court of Appeals is
an appeal of right, but an appeal to SCOTUS is at SCOTUS's discretion. So
the fact that *they never chose* to hear a constitutional challenge to a
state licensing law, if true (which I do not concede), is not relevant to
whether such a suit was filed. SCOTUS usually only hears cases if and
when there is a circuit split or conflicting authority as to the law or
interpretation. But since every federal circuit encompasses entire
states, SCOTUS is in no better position than a circuit court of appeals to
analyze a particular state statute against the federal constitution.
And most states have laws similar to the federal rule at issue in Lopez.And they're all unconstitutional, since they all derive from thestatute in Lopez.

Ummm, no.

Since the decision in Lopez was based on the commerce clause, as you
agree, then the decision there is completely inapplicable to states.
And how about felons carrying guns?The restriction is only statutory, and the restriction is most likely,unconstitutional.

Speculation, without not only any legal precedent, but contrary to
numerous existing laws. For example, in New York, using a weapon of any
sort is often a misdemeanor (purely the "use," excluding any injury) but
it automatically gets "bumped-up" to a felony if the person using the
weapon has a criminal conviction *of any kind* felony or misdemeanor.
Sure they can, in most states. And in the states where they can't,those restrictions are being challenged as unconstitutional, withgreat chance of success.


"Great chance"? Get back to me when there is "actual success" here.

Don't really care, since the voting rights issue is currently beingchallenged, and the public offices issue is NOT A CONSTITUTIONALISSUE.

Wow, what a democracy. The right to run for office is subject to
limitation, but the right to own assault rifles isn't?
If it makes you feel better, think of these as aspects of their sentence - 10 years in jail and a life sentence of not being allowed to own a gun.Ah, but the restriction is imposed statutorily, not as a condition ofsentence. Big difference.

All sentences are based on statutes. What else could they be based on?
One law says "if you commit crime X you can be sentenced to Y time in
jail." Another statute says "if you commit any crime, you cannot own a
gun." The merits of the law aside, they're both statutory, see?
Judicial review is not even in the constitution.Didn't need to be. It was already in common law. See below. It was established in Marbury itself, so nice try.No, it wasn't established in Marbury. It was established by Lord Cokein Bonham's Case in 1610, where he stated:"...it appears in our books that in many cases the common law willcontrol acts of parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterlyvoid; for when an act of parliament is against common right or reason,or repugnant or impossible to be performed, the common law willcontrol it and adjudge such act to be void."You really should bone up on your jurisprudence.

Right. I must have been absent the day in law school that said caselaw
from other countries, issued over 100 years before the US was created, is
not only valid law i the US, but was intended by the framers to be
incorporated into US law.

none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message n There may not be, but it is completely IRRELEVANT to your assertion that no one has ever rasied a constitutional challenge to a firearms licensing statute.

Go back and read what I originally said, dumbass: I said that the
Supreme Court had never ruled on the constitutinality of handgun
licensing.

First, state courts can interpret state constitutions, and are in fact the only states which can.

No, the Supreme Court can in fact interpret a state constitution,
particularly when the state constitution impermissible infringes on
rights guaranteed by the Federal constitution.


So cases there are not only relevant, but there are more there than federal cases, I'd imagine.

I never said they weren't, nor that they were few. I was under the
impression we were talking about the Federal Constitution originally.

Next, and most importantly, appeal from federal District Court to a Court of Appeals is an appeal of right, but an appeal to SCOTUS is at SCOTUS's discretion. So the fact that *they never chose* to hear a constitutional challenge to a state licensing law, if true (which I do not concede), is not relevant to whether such a suit was filed.

I never said that one was never filed. I have no knowledge of one
being filed, nor of cert being denied. Again, I only stated that
there were no cases where THE SUPREME COURT HAD RULED ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HANDGUN LICENSING.
You might want to actually pay attention to what I wrote, not what you
wanted me to have written....


SCOTUS usually only hears cases if and when there is a circuit split or conflicting authority as to the law or interpretation. But since every federal circuit encompasses entire states, SCOTUS is in no better position than a circuit court of appeals to analyze a particular state statute against the federal constitution. And most states have laws similar to the federal rule at issue in Lopez.And they're all unconstitutional, since they all derive from thestatute in Lopez. Ummm, no. Since the decision in Lopez was based on the commerce clause, as you agree, then the decision there is completely inapplicable to states.

Bull****. If Congress can't pass legislation impermissibly, the
States have no greater authority to pass similar legislation.

And how about felons carrying guns?The restriction is only statutory, and the restriction is most likely,unconstitutional. Speculation, without not only any legal precedent, but contrary to numerous existing laws. For example, in New York, using a weapon of any sort is often a misdemeanor (purely the "use," excluding any injury) but it automatically gets "bumped-up" to a felony if the person using the weapon has a criminal conviction *of any kind* felony or misdemeanor.

I said nothing about sentence enhancements due to aggravating factors.
Again, pay attention.
Sure they can, in most states. And in the states where they can't,those restrictions are being challenged as unconstitutional, withgreat chance of success. "Great chance"? Get back to me when there is "actual success" here.Don't really care, since the voting rights issue is currently beingchallenged, and the public offices issue is NOT A CONSTITUTIONALISSUE. Wow, what a democracy. The right to run for office is subject to limitation, but the right to own assault rifles isn't?

Bingo! Exactly. Finally, you get it. Read the Constitution again -
lots of restrictions on who can run for office, and it even leaves it
up to the states as to what they want for qualifications for Senator.

But the Second Amendment is quite clear. No restrictions.

If it makes you feel better, think of these as aspects of their sentence - 10 years in jail and a life sentence of not being allowed to own a gun.Ah, but the restriction is imposed statutorily, not as a condition ofsentence. Big difference. All sentences are based on statutes. What else could they be based on? One law says "if you commit crime X you can be sentenced to Y time in jail." Another statute says "if you commit any crime, you cannot own a gun." The merits of the law aside, they're both statutory, see?

But the restriction is not exacted as a condition of sentence, nor is
it a sentence in itself. It is based purely on status.

Perhaps you would like it if there were a restriction on Jews, Blacks
or Hispanics, or perhaps persons of low economic status from keeping
and bearing arms?


Judicial review is not even in the constitution.Didn't need to be. It was already in common law. See below. It was established in Marbury itself, so nice try.No, it wasn't established in Marbury. It was established by Lord Cokein Bonham's Case in 1610, where he stated:"...it appears in our books that in many cases the common law willcontrol acts of parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterlyvoid; for when an act of parliament is against common right or reason,or repugnant or impossible to be performed, the common law willcontrol it and adjudge such act to be void."You really should bone up on your jurisprudence. Right. I must have been absent the day in law school that said caselaw from other countries, issued over 100 years before the US was created, is not only valid law i the US, but was intended by the framers to be incorporated into US law.

If not absent, then at least not paying attention. You must know that
virtually all of our law is based upon English common law. You
certainly have read early cases in which English precedent and English
interpretation played a major role in determining the court's holding.
Numerous quotes to both Lord Coke and Blackstone's Commentaries (both
of which are still quoted today, BTW) abound in the early cases. Why
exactly would they NOT use jurisprudence that was, in their minds,
perfectly sound?

Falconnier

none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message Right. I must have been absent the day in law school that said caselaw from other countries, issued over 100 years before the US was created, is not only valid law i the US, but was intended by the framers to be incorporated into US law.

And Larry, before you get all worked up about being in law school...
I graduated Cum Laude from an East Coast law school, where both of my
con law professors (regular Con Law class AND a course in State
Constitutional Adjudication) were both of the opinion that the Second
Amendment guarantees an unrestricted right in individuals.....

Falconnier

In article <22a97650.0307261233.6fabee0a@posting.google.com>,
falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message n There may not be, but it is completely IRRELEVANT to your assertion that no one has ever rasied a constitutional challenge to a firearms licensing statute.Go back and read what I originally said, dumbass: I said that theSupreme Court had never ruled on the constitutinality of handgunlicensing.

I read what you wrote, "dumbass." Look back at message 13 in this thread
- I wrote "virtually every state has some sort of permit requirement for
guns, and they're all constitutional." You quoted that text and replied
"No, they're not. NEVER BEEN RULED ON. Please stop spreading
misinformation." (capitals added)

"Never been ruled on" is different from "Never been ruled on by SCOTUS."
If you want to admit your first statement was overbroad or poorly worded,
I accept your apology and understand. But if you still stand by "never
been ruled on" I again will try to explain hoew SCOTUS hearing the issue
is irrelevant and not indicative of whether lower courts have ruled on the
issue.
First, state courts can interpret state constitutions, and are in fact the only states which can.No, the Supreme Court can in fact interpret a state constitution,particularly when the state constitution impermissible infringes onrights guaranteed by the Federal constitution.

Right, but they cannot interpret whether a state statute violates a state
constitutional provision.

Next, and most importantly, appeal from federal District Court to a Court of Appeals is an appeal of right, but an appeal to SCOTUS is at SCOTUS's discretion. So the fact that *they never chose* to hear a constitutional challenge to a state licensing law, if true (which I do not concede), is not relevant to whether such a suit was filed.I never said that one was never filed. I have no knowledge of onebeing filed, nor of cert being denied. Again, I only stated thatthere were no cases where THE SUPREME COURT HAD RULED ON THECONSTITUTIONALITY OF HANDGUN LICENSING.You might want to actually pay attention to what I wrote, not what youwanted me to have written....

SCOTUS usually only hears cases if and when there is a circuit split or conflicting authority as to the law or interpretation. But since every federal circuit encompasses entire states, SCOTUS is in no better position than a circuit court of appeals to analyze a particular state statute against the federal constitution. And> most states have laws similar to the federal rule at issue in Lopez.And they're all unconstitutional, since they all derive from thestatute in Lopez. Ummm, no. Since the decision in Lopez was based on the commerce clause, as you agree, then the decision there is completely inapplicable to states.Bull****. If Congress can't pass legislation impermissibly, theStates have no greater authority to pass similar legislation.

But the commerce clause in the federal constitution is a limitation on the
federal government. It's entire reason for existing is to make sure the
federal government regulates only interstate commerce, not intrastate
commerce. So it specifically leaves the issue of intrastate commerce to
the states, and Lopez held that the issue of guns near schools is an
intrastate, local issue. If anything, Lopez specifically ALLOWS for state
regulation in this area, since it holds that federal regulation is too
much of an encroachment on states' rights.
And> how about felons carrying guns?>The restriction is only statutory, and the restriction is most likely,unconstitutional. Speculation, without not only any legal precedent, but contrary to numerous existing laws. For example, in New York, using a weapon of any sort is often a misdemeanor (purely the "use," excluding any injury) but it automatically gets "bumped-up" to a felony if the person using the weapon has a criminal conviction *of any kind* felony or misdemeanor.I said nothing about sentence enhancements due to aggravating factors.Again, pay attention.

You said you think it's unconstitutional to prevent felons from owning
guns. So then, all laws restricting felons from owning guns are
unconstitutional. From that flows the argument that a statute which
punishes felons for owning guns more severely than non-felons who own guns
is also constitutional. It's a logical extension of your argument, and I
was just showing one example of a law that is valid and is counter to your
argument.

Ah, but the restriction is imposed statutorily, not as a condition ofsentence. Big difference. All sentences are based on statutes. What else could they be based on? One law says "if you commit crime X you can be sentenced to Y time in jail." Another statute says "if you commit any crime, you cannot own a gun." The merits of the law aside, they're both statutory, see?But the restriction is not exacted as a condition of sentence, nor isit a sentence in itself. It is based purely on status.

Jail is itself "based purely on status." After all, only a convicted
criminal goes to jail, right? Just like a convicted felon can't own a
gun. Same thing - a statute which penalizes someone convicted of a
certain crime.
Perhaps you would like it if there were a restriction on Jews, Blacksor Hispanics, or perhaps persons of low economic status from keepingand bearing arms?

Of course I wouldn't like it. These would be equal protection violations,
as well as discrimination based on classifications protected by federal
statute. "Convicted criminals" are not a protected class.
Right. I must have been absent the day in law school that said caselaw from other countries, issued over 100 years before the US was created, is not only valid law i the US, but was intended by the framers to be incorporated into US law.If not absent, then at least not paying attention. You must know thatvirtually all of our law is based upon English common law. Youcertainly have read early cases in which English precedent and Englishinterpretation played a major role in determining the court's holding. Numerous quotes to both Lord Coke and Blackstone's Commentaries (bothof which are still quoted today, BTW) abound in the early cases. Whyexactly would they NOT use jurisprudence that was, in their minds,perfectly sound?

You exactly highlight the difference. US cases looked to English
precedent, and when they agreed with it, incorporated it into their
decision. So all subsequent decisions had the US precedent - we only
needed to cite to the English common law when the issue was one of first
impression in our young nation. Not now, generations later, where there
have been several hundred years of US judicial opinion on which to base
decisions.

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:none-2707030138470001@192.168.2.4... In article <22a97650.0307261304.5cefc287@posting.google.com>, falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message Right. I must have been absent the day in law school that said caselaw from other countries, issued over 100 years before the US was created,
is not only valid law i the US, but was intended by the framers to be incorporated into US law.And Larry, before you get all worked up about being in law school...I graduated Cum Laude from an East Coast law school, where both of mycon law professors (regular Con Law class AND a course in StateConstitutional Adjudication) were both of the opinion that the SecondAmendment guarantees an unrestricted right in individuals..... Good for you..... I also graduated with honors from a Top 20 East Coast law school, and I'm currently an assistant district attorney in New York. I haven't brought that up because I'm not interested in comparing credentials or resumes, we're discussing an issue.

Gawd. I've heard this anonymous traffic court solicitor brag about his
credentials ad nauseam.

none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message news:<none-2707030138470001@192.168.2.4>... In article <22a97650.0307261304.5cefc287@posting.google.com>, falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message Right. I must have been absent the day in law school that said caselaw from other countries, issued over 100 years before the US was created, is not only valid law i the US, but was intended by the framers to be incorporated into US law.And Larry, before you get all worked up about being in law school...I graduated Cum Laude from an East Coast law school, where both of mycon law professors (regular Con Law class AND a course in StateConstitutional Adjudication) were both of the opinion that the SecondAmendment guarantees an unrestricted right in individuals..... Good for you..... I also graduated with honors from a Top 20 East Coast law school, and I'm currently an assistant district attorney in New York. I haven't brought that up because I'm not interested in comparing credentials or resumes, we're discussing an issue.

Sure you are...that's why your posting thru Interop Show Network's
nntp server in California....

So stop being so friggin anonymous, and show us who you really are....

In article <22a97650.0307270729.195cd809@posting.google.com>,
falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message
news:<none-2707030138470001@192.168.2.4>... In article <22a97650.0307261304.5cefc287@posting.google.com>, falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message> Right. I must have been absent the day in law school that said caselaw> from other countries, issued over 100 years before the US was created, is> not only valid law i the US, but was intended by the framers to be> incorporated into US law.And Larry, before you get all worked up about being in law school...I graduated Cum Laude from an East Coast law school, where both of mycon law professors (regular Con Law class AND a course in StateConstitutional Adjudication) were both of the opinion that the SecondAmendment guarantees an unrestricted right in individuals..... Good for you..... I also graduated with honors from a Top 20 East Coast law school, and I'm currently an assistant district attorney in New York. I haven't brought that up because I'm not interested in comparing credentials or resumes, we're discussing an issue.Sure you are...that's why your posting thru Interop Show Network'snntp server in California....So stop being so friggin anonymous, and show us who you really are....

The content of my posts speak for themselves. I just want to avoid all
the Spam I'd get from having my email address in my posts. Would it make
any difference if I said I was Larry Q. Smith and set up a dummy yahoo
account?

Judge my posts on their merits, not who they're coming from.

In article <vi7hkibeukrcac@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith"
<dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:none-2707030138470001@192.168.2.4... In article <22a97650.0307261304.5cefc287@posting.google.com>, falconnier@hotmail.com (Falconnier) wrote:none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message> Right. I must have been absent the day in law school that said caselaw> from other countries, issued over 100 years before the US was created,is> not only valid law i the US, but was intended by the framers to be> incorporated into US law.And Larry, before you get all worked up about being in law school...I graduated Cum Laude from an East Coast law school, where both of mycon law professors (regular Con Law class AND a course in StateConstitutional Adjudication) were both of the opinion that the SecondAmendment guarantees an unrestricted right in individuals..... Good for you..... I also graduated with honors from a Top 20 East Coast law school, and I'm currently an assistant district attorney in New York. I haven't brought that up because I'm not interested in comparing credentials or resumes, we're discussing an issue.Gawd. I've heard this anonymous traffic court solicitor brag about hiscredentials ad nauseam.

After you make baseless personal attacks like that, Larry, I set the
record straight. I didn't beign personal qualifications or background
into the argument. And, for the record, I've never once been in traffic
court, excpet to pay a speeding ticket I got in Illinois about 6 years
ago.

And what exactly makes me anonymous? The fact that I don't publish my
name, address, height, weight, hair and eye color, and email address with
my posts?