Concealed carry reciprocity passes in the House

Just to ask a lawyer here: Doesn't the Federal legislation run afoul of the 10th amendment? It doesn't fall under full faith and credit and there is no decision by the USSC calling for a "right" to bear arms outside of the home. (Heller). Even if a dream bill were signed into law, how does this not get thrown out by the USSC under the 10th? How is this not political theatre?

The US SC has no authority to decide the meaning of the 2nd. Everything the SC does is total BS and a theft of power.

The Constitution creates the SC. The Constitution is superior to the SC. The subordinate is NOT authorized to define the meaning of the superior. We the People and our States are superior to the Constitution having created the Constitution. We the People and the States are superior to the supreme court and We the People and the States do not have to accept any decision of the SC.

The usurped power of interpreting the Constitution is and has always been a lie perpetrated on the People by the SC. The SC DOES NOT have the final say. The People do. See Blackstone Book 1.

THe Full Faith and credit clause already REQUIRES and ORDERS the states to recognize CCWs. The States have no choice and the Congress has no authority to decide otherwise.

Reciprocity could be considered a militia regulation preventing armed reserve militia members from being disarmed by state regulation while in daily protective service to the federal government and the people.

FWB, thank you for saying what is the truth of the matter. I cannot count the conversations I've had with other persons, even learned of the US Constitution, who disagree. I am utterly flabbergasted how few persons are aware of this yet act vehemently in opposition.

Those learned persons of the Constitution have fooled themselves. The language is clear and evidence is available. Their problem is they are NOT as brilliant as they think they are.

I have had some argue that the Full Faith and Credit ONLY applies to judicial decisions which was historically correct BUT that is NOT correct under the language, different from historical, of the Constitution. The inclusion of "public acts, Records" before "and judicial proceedings" covers CCW. And Congress can ONLY pass general laws, i.e. applying to ALL public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, not specific laws. Even then Congress cannot pass anything that contradicts the first clause requiring "Full Faith and Credit shall be given..."

People argue that if the SC doesn't interpret or decide the Constitution, who does? I explain the Creator/Created or Superior/subordinate relationship. I tell them to go to work and tell their boss what his/er job is and let me know the outcome. We the People through our States created the Constitution. The Constitution created the three branches of government. It is the Constitution "FOR" the United States NOT "of" the United States. Read the preamble. Our laws FOR them not their laws to interpret. All lies. The judiciary has been the most detrimental to our Constitution, pulling things out from under their robes that cannot be found anywhere in the document.

I point out that Hamilton sold the Constitution to the People with Federalist 84 wherein he stated that there was no need for a Bill of Rights because the Constitution did not empower Congress to legislate in ANY of the areas covered by a Bill of Rights. If Hamilton wasn't correct, the the Constitution was ratified through fraud.

Best study: Eliot's Debates or Meigs' Growth of the Constitution for a short version. Add the Documentary History from UW-Madison to top things off. There were 57 folks at the 1787 Convention. Using the words of even 2 or 3 is meaningless. All too often interpreters pick and choose rather than using ALL available information because they have an agenda. The judicial agenda is to transfer more power to themselves because they were pissed about being called the weakest branch during the ratification period. Marshall couldn't stand being in the basement.

Regarding the tenth amendment...

The 14th amendment gives the fed gov the power to prevent states from violating the bill of rights, including the second amendment.

If a court is so bigoted as to ignore the second amendment, the bill also refers to the interstate commerce clause. It is the fervent belief of the liberals that the interstate commerce clause gives the fed gov the power to do any damn thing it wants. No left wing judge will rule it unconstitutional for that reason. BS, we know, but whatever works- the Second Amendment and the 14th are where this is really justified.

Actually the 14th only gives Congress the power to respond to a state violating privileges and immunities. While many in the legal profession claim Rights are the same as privileges and immunities that is a false claim. Rights come from the Creator, are inalienable, and are not covered under the 14th no matter how loud folks scream and yell. Privileges and immunities come from government and can be granted or taken away.

Congress' power under the 14th is also contingent on a state first violating those items enumerated in the first paragraph. Congress is not empowered to pass preemptive laws and cannot Constitutionally apply those laws to states that have not violated those points in the 14th. Originally, the wording of the 14th would have allowed preemptive legislation but it was changed so that reactive legislation was all that was permitted.

The Doctrine of Incorporation is another court created authority that is not part of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights applied to the states when written under the supremacy clause but the Court screwed that up in 1833 in Barron V Baltimore. Rawle covered this in his View of the Constitution written in 1825 and 1829.

If the SC hadn't screwed things up they wouldn't have had to invent the Incorporation Doctrine in the 1930s. Funny how it took 60-70 years before the 14th suddenly applied to the Bill of Rights.