Article: Why don't states have CCW Reciprocity yet when it's in the Constitution?

[Aim1]

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-law-pits-virginia-against-111500329.html?nf=1

A New Gun Law Pits Virginia Against the Constitution

The Fiscal Times By Edward Morrissey

December 31st, 2015

A new battle in the debate over gun rights and restrictions bears one striking similarity to another major cultural battle recently fought over another cultural divide. It once again pits the concepts of federalism against those who would assert the consistent recognition of individual rights across the nation. And oddly, this battle puts many of the same combatants on the opposite side of the question. This fight began in Virginia last week. Attorney General Mark Herring announced that he would unilaterally repeal agreements with 25 other states for reciprocal recognition of carry permits by February 1st, claiming that he found their standards for issuing carry permits too low. Herring argued that Virginia residents could apply for and receive carry permits in other states when they couldn’t qualify within their own state and therefore evade the restrictions imposed by Virginia law.

Herring has now placed responsible Virginia gun owners into these kinds of inadvertent traps by canceling reciprocity agreements with states in the region. That prompts a larger question: why are they needed in the first place? Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The inclusion of that clause clearly intended to prevent these kind of legal traps for law-abiding citizens by forcing other states to recognize the licenses and permits of other states, and its placement in the original articles shows that this takes precedence over the 10th Amendment recognition of state sovereignty.

Ironically, this was also one of the arguments used to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by Bill Clinton. Congress in that case passed the law with the express purpose of voiding the Full Faith and Credit clause when it pertained to the definition of marriage, especially when it came to court judgments and state benefits. The Supreme Court used other constitutional arguments to strike down DOMA in its Windsor decision, and mooted the argument entirely when it demanded full national recognition of same-sex marriage in Obergefell. In earlier decisions such as Pacific Employers Insurance (1939) and Hyatt (2003 on tax rates), the court also ruled that states may have “some limitations” in recognizing other state’s laws – when those statutes utterly conflict with their own. That, however, is not the case with carry permits. Virginia will continue to issue carry permits, just as these other states do. Herring claims that the processes used by other states do not meet the standards of Virginia, but that turns the Pacific Employers Insurance decision on its head. Each state that issues carry permits has settled on their own criteria for issuance, and those requirements remain in effect for the duration of the permit regardless of temporary travel.

 

[MAKster]

Driver's Licenses are one of the only state-issued license/permits that are accepted by every state. That's because not doing so would restrict interstate commerce which is under the authority of the federal government. Other things like business licenses, doctor licenses, teacher licenses are only valid in the state where issued.

 

[maxsnafu]

The Constitution is no impediment to our present form of government.

 

[Spats McGee]

Herring has now placed responsible Virginia gun owners into these kinds of inadvertent traps by canceling reciprocity agreements with states in the region. That prompts a larger question: why are they needed in the first place? Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The inclusion of that clause clearly intended to prevent these kind of legal traps for law-abiding citizens by forcing other states to recognize the licenses and permits of other states, and its placement in the original articles shows that this takes precedence over the 10th Amendment recognition of state sovereignty.

This author doesn't understand the FF&C Clause.

Driver's Licenses are one of the only state-issued license/permits that are accepted by every state. That's because not doing so would restrict interstate commerce which is under the authority of the federal government. Other things like business licenses, doctor licenses, teacher licenses are only valid in the state where issued.

No. DLs are recognized in every state because every state has adopted the Interstate Compact on Driver Licenses.

Personally, I'd like to see every state adopt the Interstate Compact on Concealed Carry . . . . but I guess someone would need to write it first.

 

[joem1945]

OP : Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

Taken at face value this section would seem to force NY to accept CCW from other states. That's Not Going To Happen any time soon.

 

[TomJ]

One of the concerns I've heard expressed is what that national law would look like. States with more restrictive laws object to the requirements of states with less restrictive laws and vice versa. I'm not sure the rest of the country wants to be subject to the requirements of New York, Illinois, New Jersey, etc. The politicians in those states will never agree to something less restrictive.

 

[BSA1]

It seems to me that the real issue in Virginia is the Attorney General bypassing the State Congress by implementing a more restrictive requirement for conceal carry permits.

Since the A.G. is declaring out-of-state conceal carry permits as not legal unless those States meet his standards does that mean he can declare all Virginia Conceal Carry Permits null and void outside of Virginia?

And does this mean he can declared conceal carry permits null and void in certain counties and cities within Virginia if they fail to mean some new standard his Office issues?

 

[Shovelhead]

It seems to me that the real issue in Virginia is the Attorney General bypassing the State Congress by implementing a more restrictive requirement for conceal carry permits.

They're following in the footsteps of the master.
US Constitution?........ HAH!

 

[JSH1]

One of the concerns I've heard expressed is what that national law would look like. States with more restrictive laws object to the requirements of states with less restrictive laws and vice versa. I'm not sure the rest of the country wants to be subject to the requirements of New York, Illinois, New Jersey, etc. The politicians in those states will never agree to something less restrictive.

Which is why the States have not agreed to a universal standard for concealed carry or universal reciprocity.

To the OP's question, as MAKster said, the the vast majority of licenses issued by states are not accepted by other states. A driver's license is a rare exception and that is due to an agreement by the States, not a requirement by the Constitution.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The next time a UBC is floated in congress (next year) it will more than likely pass. It will require that all sales or transfers be made with an FBI background check. With it will be the requirement that all states honor any permit issued by any state if the person has passed a federal background check to obtain that permit. All do as far as I know.

The new law will make all states CC permit requirements applicable to only the residence of that state. All non-residents get a free pass.

Most AG advocates don't understand or care about the permit process for concealed carry. They just want background checks for every breathing person who transfers a firearm. A bill like this will look very innocuous to the average AG person who doesn't have a permit and doesn't carry. I would think that only about 5% of the population has a permit to carry.

Of course there will be lawsuits, there always are. Liberal SC will support the congressional action.

I'm not a proponent of any of this. That's just how I see things shaping up.

 

[Flechette]

A observation on legal precedents being set under the Obama Administration:

1. Sanctuary cities are allowed to ignore Federal immigration laws.
   
2. Colorado and Washington state are allowed to ignore Federal drug laws.
   
3. Therefore, it stands to reason that other states should be allowed to ignore Federal gun laws.

For example, if Colorado grows marijuana in their state and sells it in their state no one is being prosecuted.

Therefore, if a company made a full-auto machine gun in their state and sold it in the same state it should not be illegal.

 

[lysanderxiii]

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-law-pits-virginia-against-111500329.html?nf=1

The full quote of that section:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And, the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This means that each state has to recognize the laws, records, and court rulings of the other states.

It does not means that all states have to recognize all other states licenses, as the requirements for such licenses may vary from state to state.

Driver's licenses are recognized because all states have agreed that most of the requirements are the same

 

[DeepSouth]

In our current system it's not in the Constitution until the courts say it is, then it's gone when say that to.

Yes, our current system is....... Let's say, needs improvement.

 

[yugorpk]

In our current system it's not in the Constitution until the courts say it is, then it's gone when say that to.

Yes, our current system is....... Let's say, needs improvement.

Thats how its been since the beginning of the republic or at least since John Marshall's court really established the precedence in 1801.

 

[Robert]

Folks we are a firearms forum. Anything outside of firearms is off topic for this discussion. In other words. If you post was deleted it is because it was off topic for the thread and THR as a whole.

 

[TruthTellers]

One of the concerns I've heard expressed is what that national law would look like. States with more restrictive laws object to the requirements of states with less restrictive laws and vice versa. I'm not sure the rest of the country wants to be subject to the requirements of New York, Illinois, New Jersey, etc. The politicians in those states will never agree to something less restrictive.

A national reciprocity law would only be passed by a Republican controlled Congress. In that event, they'll have enough votes to override any opposition that would call for tighter controls.

I think if a pro gun candidate is elected president this year, then there will be a movement to create a National Reciprocity Act (NRA) which will be heavily lobbied for by... the NRA (can't wait to hear Fallon, Colbert, and Mahr tear that to pieces.)

Anyway, in that NRA I think the law will allow anyone who can pass a background check and own a gun, to be allowed to carry it concealed, possibly openly so long as the state or local jurisdiction they're in allows open carry. There may be a vision test to make sure people carrying can actually see what they're shooting at if the need arose, but I think that will be it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-law-pits-virginia-against-111500329.html?nf=1

A New Gun Law Pits Virginia Against the Constitution

The Fiscal Times By Edward Morrissey

December 31st, 2015

A new battle in the debate over gun rights and restrictions bears one striking similarity to another major cultural battle recently fought over another cultural divide. It once again pits the concepts of federalism against those who would assert the consistent recognition of individual rights across the nation. And oddly, this battle puts many of the same combatants on the opposite side of the question....

Sorry, but apparently the author of the article is not a lawyer and didn't do his homework. The Full Faith and Credit approach is pretty much a losing proposition.

1. States recognize each others driver's licenses because they have specifically agreed among themselves to do so -- not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
   
   
2. In fact the courts have applied Article IV, Section 1 fairly narrowly.
   
   
   • For example, see this article:

     ...In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935).....

     
     
   • Or this article:

     ...The Court first interpreted the clause in the 1813 case Mills v. Duryee [11 U.S. 481]. Currently, the Court has heard numerous cases involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court says that the clause can be used in three different ways. First, the clause can command a state to take jurisdiction, or control, over a claim that started in another state. Second, the clause can determine which state's law should be applied when a case involves more than one state. And lastly, the clause directs states to acknowledge and enforce court judgments from other states. ...

     
     
   • As discussed here, the scope of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been well settled in the courts:

     ...The Supreme Court has invoked the clause to police state-court proceedings in three contexts: (1) determining when a state must take jurisdiction over claims that arise in other states; (2) limiting the application of local state law over another state's law in multistate disputes; and (3) recognizing and enforcing judgments rendered in sister-state courts....

     
     
   • And here's another interesting commentary on the finer points of the Full Faith and Credit Clause:

     ...Article IV, Sec. 1, has had its principal operation in relation to judgments. Embraced within the relevant discussions are two principal classes of judgments. First, those in which the judgment involved was offered as a basis of proceedings for its own enforcement outside the State where rendered, as for example, when an action for debt is brought in the courts of State B on a judgment for money damages rendered in State A; second, those in which the judgment involved was offered, in conformance with the principle of res judicata, in defense in a new or collateral proceeding growing out of the same facts as the original suit, as for example, when a decree of divorce granted in State A is offered as barring a suit for divorce by the other party to the marriage in the courts of State B....

   
   
3. Let's look at some applications of Article IV, Sec. 1:
   
   
   • Your State B license to marry means nothing in State A:
     
     
     • It won't allow you to legally contract marriage in State A.
       
       
     • What would matter is that if you legally contracted marriage in State B now State A would recognize you as being married.
       
       
     • But any consequences of being recognized as married by State A will be decided under the laws of State A. For example:
       
       
       • If you and your spouse remain residents of State B but have investments in State A, your liability for State A income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State A.
         
         
       • If after having been married for a while and living in State B (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State A (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State A, even though the marriage was contracted in State B and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State B continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State B.
     
     
   • Similarly:
     
     
     • If you acquired title to a 1997 Ford F-150 by intestate succession under the laws of State B because the decedent was a resident of State B when he died, and under the intestate succession laws of State B you were entitled to that property, State A would recognize you as the owner of that 1997 Ford F-150.
       
       
     • That would be the case even though under the intestate succession laws of State A you would not have been entitled to that truck.
       
       
     • But again, any consequences of your ownership of that truck in State A would be determined in accordance with the laws of State A. So, for example, if the windows of that truck have a dark tint permissible in State B but not in State A, you'll be likely to get a ticket if you drive your truck in State A.
     
     
   • For another example:
     
     
     • You sue Y in State B and win. The court in State B issues a judgement in your favor against Y to the effect that Y must pay you $100,000.
       
       
     • Y splits to State A where he has all his property and bank accounts.
       
       
     • You now take that judgement to a court in State A to get a writ of execution to allow you to attach Y's property and/or bank accounts so you can get paid the money Y owes you.
       
       
     • In general, the court in State A will recognize and accept the State B judgement as conclusively establishing that Y owes you $100,000 (although there are some limited bases upon which Y might try to collaterally attack that judgement).
       
       
     • But even though the court in State A has accepted (given Full Faith and Credit to) that State B judgement, the way you can collect that judgement in State A (e. g., terms of the writ of execution, how it may be served, the interest payable on the unpaid judgement, exemptions of property from levy, limitation on garnishment of wages, etc.) will all be determined under the laws of State A.
   
   
4. However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel).

A observation on legal precedents being set under the Obama Administration:

1. Sanctuary cities are allowed to ignore Federal immigration laws.
   
2. Colorado and Washington state are allowed to ignore Federal drug laws.
   
3. Therefore, it stands to reason that other states should be allowed to ignore Federal gun laws.

For example, if Colorado grows marijuana in their state and sells it in their state no one is being prosecuted.

Therefore, if a company made a full-auto machine gun in their state and sold it in the same state it should not be illegal.

Drivel.

1. Legal president is not created by the acts of the Obama (or any) administration. It is the result of court decisions.
   
   
2. Federal and state law can be different. While marijuana (and, in theory, machine guns) could be legal under state law, they remain illegal under federal law (in the case of machine guns, if one doesn't have the necessary tax stamp). So you get arrested by a federal agent rather than a local cop; you are tried in a federal court rather than a state court; and you go to federal prison instead of state prison.

 

[JSH1]

The next time a UBC is floated in congress (next year) it will more than likely pass....

There is absolutely no chance universal background checks will pass Congress next year or any year before 2022. That is the next time congressional districts will be redrawn based on the 2020 census.

 

[DMK]

One of the concerns I've heard expressed is what that national law would look like. States with more restrictive laws object to the requirements of states with less restrictive laws and vice versa. I'm not sure the rest of the country wants to be subject to the requirements of New York, Illinois, New Jersey, etc. The politicians in those states will never agree to something less restrictive.

Driver's licenses are recognized because all states have agreed that most of the requirements are the same

That's not necessarily true. With current CCL reciprocity, you must follow the local rules, not those of the home state where the permit is issued.

Even using the driver's licences as an example, in some states a right turn on a red light is legal. In some states it's not. In some states, you are allowed to split lanes with a motorcycle. In one state radar detectors are illegal. I'm sure there are many traffic laws that vary from state to state. Even if you are ignorant of them, you can be cited regardless of whether your DL is from that state or another.

In states recognizing your CCL, you'd also need to follow the local laws. Some states have a duty to retreat law, some have limitations on magazine capacity, all states issuing CCLs have limitations on where you can carry. It doesn't matter what you can do at your home state. When in Rome, you do as the Romans or else.

 

[mio]

I don't want it. It would open up anti gun states to influencing my rights. You know all states would push for a national standard of requirements that they would have a say in developing.

 

[Warp]

The next time a UBC is floated in congress (next year) it will more than likely pass.

No. It will NOT.

Please stop spreading this crap.

I would think that only about 5% of the population has a permit to carry.

This varies greatly by state. It is higher than that in some states. And in other states no license is required at all