CBS 60 Minutes: Recognizing Concealed Carry Permits Across State Lines

[eboos]

Funny how none of that is in the NH or US Constitutions

Not in NH Constitution

NH.gov - The Official Web Site of New Hampshire State Government - State Constitution, Judiciary Power

Nor is that in article iii of the US Constitution

Constitution of the United States - We the People

Are you freakin serious? I even quoted the article and sections above. Here it is again:

Both US Const. art. III Sec. 2, cl. 1. and N.H. Const. art. 72-a refer to the "judicial power" resting within certain courts. Judicial power is not otherwise defined anywhere in the Constitutions. Blacks Law Dictionary defines Judicial Power to be: the authority vested in courts and judges to hear and decide cases and to make binding judgments on them; the power to construe and apply the law when controversies arise over what has been done or not done under it.

If you put on your critical thinking hat, it doesn't take much to understand that this power is one that decides whether certain situations fall afoul of restrictions on government actions and establish certain rules to define the boundaries.

 

[eboos]

Normally I get paid to explain the law to people.

Both the US and NH constitutions clearly lay out what the judiciary may and may not do......

Apparently clarity is very subjective. I thought I clearly showed you exactly where both constitutions allowed it. TWICE. It is in the plain language of the text. What else did you think the constitutions meant by judicial power?

 

[eboos]

The only thing thats subjective seems to be your ability to read the US and state constitutions in question.......stick to the facts

Quote the enumerated power or RSA

For the third time: US Const. art. III Sec. 2, cl. 1. and N.H. Const. art. 72-a.

I am done.

 

[eboos]

And for the nth time your assertions cannot be found anywhere in either as per below

State Constitution > Judiciary Power

Established October 31, 1783 Effective June 2, 1784 As Subsequently Amended and in Force January 2007


[Art.] 72-a. [Supreme and Superior Courts.] The judicial power of the state shall be vested in the supreme court, a trial court of general jurisdiction known as the superior court, and such lower courts as the legislature may establish under Article 4th of Part 2.

November 16, 1966

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Please show me where in the constitutions, the US Code, or in your coveted RSAs the definition of judicial power is. If absent, then what is the legal definition of judicial power?

 

[eboos]

You're the one asserting that the judiciary has some mystical power not outlined in the constitution not me......

The Constitution is the outline for the formation of a government and the powers enumerated to each branch

If its not there there they dont get to do it........

It is there in the first three words of the respective articles.

I have nothing more to add to this conversation if you simply cannot comprehend what had already been stated.

 

[42!]

The argument seems to be that eboos contends that "Judicial Power" is specifically granted as "Judicial Power". and jpk contends that "Judicial Power" is not granted, not because "Judicial Power" isn't specified but rather that the definition of "Judicial Power" isn't included in the document itself.

This latter argument isn't rational since there are many things not specifically defined, simply because the authors didn't feel it was necessary, and that does not negate their existence. In fact this is a role of the courts, to interpret. And while there is often objection to how the courts interpret, there is little doubt that this is their role.

If you need an example, show me where in the constitution "arms" is defined. Does the lack of a definitian make the second amendment meaningless. No, it does not. The term was in common use and well understood, a definition was not necessary.

 

[Toast]

USC AIII, S2, c2, ".... In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" seems to explicitly enumerate the power of the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction of determination of law.

The fact that Congress hasn't created more exceptions and regulations of their power isn't the court's fault. Congress could remove entire sections of law from their reach, if they had the backbone.

 

[KBCraig]

True...
"REAL ID allows jurisdictions to issue identification cards and driver’s licenses that are not in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Those licenses and identification cards, however, must clearly state on their face and in the machine readable zone that the card is not acceptable for official purposes."

The federal government has no authority to dictate what is printed on driver licenses.

But...
Once a state has become compliant, why would they issue a non compliant ID?

Gee, I dunno... maybe because liberty-loving people of that state demand that option, and their state government listens to them?

 

[Qwikdraw45]

But...
Once a state has become compliant, why would they issue a non compliant ID?

Gee, I dunno... maybe because liberty-loving people of that state demand that option, and their state government listens to them?[/QUOTE]

Great idea - until you want to get on an airplane. Then, you have to provide another ID, that you had to pay more money for, to some other agency. Face it. .Gov has got us where they want us, whether we like it or not.

 

[NFD9]

Great idea - until you want to get on an airplane. Then, you have to provide another ID, that you had to pay more money for, to some other agency. Face it. .Gov has got us where they want us, whether we like it or not.

Exactly!
Who the F**K wants to carry their passport to fly from Boston to Buffalo?

BTW...NY doesn't give you the option of non real ID...from my experience anyways.

 

[NFD9]

The federal government has no authority to dictate what is printed on driver licenses.
Gee, I dunno... maybe because liberty-loving people of that state demand that option, and their state government listens to them?

Tell that to anyone that holds a CDL.
If your that freedom loving then why "bend a knee" to even get a drivers Lic?

 

[drgrant]

Great idea - until you want to get on an airplane. Then, you have to provide another ID, that you had to pay more money for, to some other agency. Face it. .Gov has got us where they want us, whether we like it or not.

You don't get it. A non compliant ID is an opt in sort of affair.... EG, anyone who is getting that ID is getting it
because they asked for it explicitly, and whatever "disadvantages" that it entails.

I forget which state offhand but this concept is no different than that state (Idaho maybe?) that has a standard carry license and an enhanced carry license. The standard one gets you the parent state and limited reciprocity. The enhanced permit has additional bullshit/requirements associated with it (not normally required by the parent state, but that of some other states) but gets you way better reciprocity. Then the citizen is allowed to choose whichever fits their needs without being forced to purchase only the "better" license that would have otherwise illegal requirements attached to it.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Exactly!
Who the F**K wants to carry their passport to fly from Boston to Buffalo?

Most of the states fighting this real ID bullshit are likely going to end up offering two different types of licenses, so this entire made up phantasm of "being forced to carry your passport around to ride on an airplane" is a non starter. I don't see any indication that NH is eventually not going to do something like that.

-Mike

 

[NFD9]

Most of the states fighting this real ID bullshit are likely going to end up offering two different types of licenses, so this entire made up phantasm of "being forced to carry your passport around to ride on an airplane" is a non starter. I don't see any indication that NH is eventually not going to do something like that.

-Mike

I agree, the points I'm trying to make are...

1.The Fed has already set standards on drivers lic's that can make your driving/travel more inconvenient. Look at CDL's for example, if you get popped @ .04 BAC you lose your lic. Along with other disqualifiers/violations that go beyond the state level.
States

2. If your applying for a DL or non-DL ID then why would you not jump through the extra hoops and get the Real ID? More B-S involved applying but easier to travel with later... the Fed's strike again!

The Fed/State consider a DL a privilage, not a right. So IMHO, the Fed can and will get away with all kinds of BS.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

You renew your license in NH recently?

You're badgered repeatedly to understand the consequences if you choose non real id compliant.......

Its a choice not a mistake

I did. But I did it online, so a REAL ID compliant license was out. No big deal this spring when I fly; but when I fly in 2 years, I'll either have to go in and renew it 3 years early (extra $$ for the State), or get a passport card (extra $$ for the Feds). So, what choice then? Somebody will get extra money, and somebody will verify extra documents.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

You renew your license in NH recently?

You're badgered repeatedly to understand the consequences if you choose non real id compliant.......

Its a choice not a mistake

I did. But I did it online, so a REAL ID compliant license was out. No big deal this spring when I fly; but when I fly in 2 years, I'll either have to go in and renew it 3 years early (extra $$ for the State), or get a passport card (extra $$ for the Feds). So, what choice then? Somebody will get extra money, and somebody will verify extra documents.

OP: Sorry, this thread has gotten so far off track...

 

[Dennis in MA]

As a quick aside - this bill seemed to get some positive feedback, excepting 60Min in the last week or three. Then the FL shooting happened. It seems every time it gets brought up, someone goes on a crazy-person rampage. One has to wonder how much of a coincidence it is. Anyone been in touch with Mulder & Scully?

 

[Palladin]

after Florida, this is going down the shitter real quick, no one is going to want to be associated with National CCW

 

[Dennis in MA]

We thought that after Vegas. And by last week, things were looking OK again. This just takes time.

 

[PreliatorX]

We thought that after Vegas. And by last week, things were looking OK again. This just takes time.

True but that was "more okay" because it was shooting at folks who were more than likely right of center due to the country concert. This one is going to stick a while.

 

[drgrant]

I agree, the points I'm trying to make are...

1.The Fed has already set standards on drivers lic's that can make your driving/travel more inconvenient. Look at CDL's for example, if you get popped @ .04 BAC you lose your lic. Along with other disqualifiers/violations that go beyond the state level.
States

That doesn't have anything to do with REAL ID, lol.

And just because the feds have pushed something, doesn't make it gospel in every particular
circumstance.

2. If your applying for a DL or non-DL ID then why would you not jump through the extra hoops and get the Real ID? More B-S involved applying but easier to travel with later... the Fed's strike again!

Maybe someone just doesn't need a REAL-ID or whatever additional infringement(s) it brings.

The Fed/State consider a DL a privilage, not a right. So IMHO, the Fed can and will get away with all kinds of BS.

They can say they "want" a lot of things (like stupid printing on some license that isnt reall ID) but that doesn't
mean that a state is legally obligated to do that. Particularly when they are trying to argue that some other license
is invalid, that kind of throws away the notion that they have the right to control that printing at all, lol.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

after Florida, this is going down the shitter real quick, no one is going to want to be associated with National CCW

National reciprocity was in the shitter from the moment someone thought it was a good idea to push the bill at the
federal level. IMHO nat rep has been a big pandering point for the NRA, an excuse to avoid doing things that were
more controversial, etc.

 

[KBCraig]

I did. But I did it online, so a REAL ID compliant license was out. No big deal this spring when I fly; but when I fly in 2 years, I'll either have to go in and renew it 3 years early (extra $$ for the State), or get a passport card (extra $$ for the Feds).

No you won't.

Remember, they've been saying that it was just two years away since it was passed, which was 13 years ago.

No ID is required at all to fly domestically. It's a PITA, and you'll get the extra scrutiny, but you can still get on the plane.