Boycott 'Constitutionally Disfunctional' States

[mshean]

Most have heard about Brian Aitken, he was thrown in jail in N.J. for 7 years for something that would not even have registered as a 'blip' on the radar screen in most states. Our U.S. citizenship does not end at the boarder of the states wherein we live, neither does our rights under the Constitution. We need to all start sending a loud and clear message, especially in this economy, that we will not spend a dime in states that have been boycotting our gun rights. We all need to take five minutes out of our day and email or phone the Chambers of Commerce of each 'constitutionally disfunctional' state and tell them to adhere to the Constitution and we will take them off the 'list' of boycotted states. Call their State Houses with the same very simple message, you dont honor our gun rights, no money from us. The link to all the states C.C. is, //2chambers.com/
As Americans we have to take a look at the Constitution, Article lV Sec.1 to be more specific. It is 'Full Faith and Credit' it reads in part, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of EVERY OTHER STATE, (emphasis added).

This means that every state honors our drivers licenses, why? Because of Art. lV Sec.1. We dont need fifty of them. We are issued a gun permit also, why is it we are 'good guys' in our home states but looked at as 'bad guys' by other states? Its a nationwide background check, so your license should apply nation wide, just like our drivers license.

We allow this BS, and we can end this BS. Hit these C.D. states in the pocketbooks and let them know EXACTLY why, and that we will continue until they wise-up and recognize OUR Constitution!

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the People by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations" JAMES MADISON

 

[Islander]

As Americans we have to take a look at the Constitution, Article lV Sec.1 to be more specific. It is 'Full Faith and Credit' it reads in part, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of EVERY OTHER STATE, (emphasis added).

I like the title and intent of your post and support that 100%.

Regarding what you quote, above, I have a question. Why hasn't there been a court case for gun rights that successfully uses Article IV? If there has, please correct me. If not, for some reason it has not worked. So is it useful to continue to quote it as pertaining to our gun rights? If it cannot be used, then readers will rightly dismiss those who attempt to use it as irrelevant and dilute the message.

I am by no means downplaying what you have written. It is just that citing this article has not gained a win for us, so I want to know if it is the place to concentrate effort, or elsewhere.

 

[PaxMentis]

I like the title and intent of your post and support that 100%.

Regarding what you quote, above, I have a question. Why hasn't there been a court case for gun rights that successfully uses Article IV? If there has, please correct me. If not, for some reason it has not worked. So is it useful to continue to quote it as pertaining to our gun rights? If it cannot be used, then readers will rightly dismiss those who attempt to use it as irrelevant and dilute the message.

I am by no means downplaying what you have written. It is just that citing this article has not gained a win for us, so I want to know if it is the place to concentrate effort, or elsewhere.

If we are to concede the battle every time the government (state or federal) unconstitutionally violates our rights, then why should we discuss any violations whatsoever?

When a right is violated and that violation is upheld by the politically statist SCOTUS or other kangaroo courts, do we just concede that they win and we no longer have rights?

 

[mshean]

The Second Amendment is stressed all the time, maybe it is time to put another 'tool' in our toolbox and attack the 'progressives from another angle.* Because this has not been mentioned does not mean it should not be utilized as a defense for those such as Brian Aitken in N.J. It exists, let a jury sort it out.

"It will be an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." GEORGE WASHINGTON

 

[Islander]

I'm with both of you. The point is, I think it is difficult to apply this article to concealed carry or other state-specific gun laws. If it were not, we would see (1) lots of case law using this article and (2) successful results.

I'm all for using every tool in our arsenal. But to use the wrong tool makes the user look ill-informed and weakens the argument. In this case, I am not saying this article cannot apply; I am saying that how and why it applies should be considered and articulated if it is to be used successfully.