Full Faith And Credit?

[hugh damright]

How hard have you looked? When the amendment was introduced to Congress, it was made clear that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend the 1-8 amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states.

I've studied the issue more than you imagine. The link you provided says that "MOST SENATORS ARGUED THAT THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE DID NOT BIND THE STATES TO THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS". I see no credibility in your continued assertion that it was clear and there was no doubt about the 14th making the USBOR binding upon the States.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I see no credibility in your continued assertion that it was clear and there was no doubt about the 14th making the USBOR binding upon the States.

The author of the 14th Amendment stating that isn't credible to you?

 

[Rugerlvr]

If red states are not going to extend full faith and credit to gay marriages, what makes you think blue states will extend it to gun rights?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But even with things like Nursing licenses and Doctor's (I know, my wife being a nurse,) All they have to do from state to state is show proficiency. They take a one day test, and if they pass that states test, they get their license. Is this a feasible option for CCW as well? Could that be a solution if things go sour with the "National Reciprocity" bill? Making someone meet the requirements of other states they wish to CC in, would make CCers happy, because they had the option, and would make the states happy, knowing they didn't have someone CCing in their state that had just gone and paid a fee and waited a couple weeks.

I don't regard that as a solution, and it wouldn't make me happy.

It's not reasonable to compare a "license" to practice self-defense with an occupational license, such as for a doctor, lawyer, nurse or engineer. People generally work in thier home state, and may obtain one or more additional licenses if they expect to practice the profession in another jurisdiction. Mostly they don't need another license, and if they do need it ... they get it specifically so they can earn more money with it.

Whereas us common serfs may at any time wish to visit relatives in other states, visit parks in other states, vacation in other states, or we may be asked by our employers to travel to and through other states on the employer's business. We don't derive any additional income from this. Even if we could obtain 49 additional licenses from all the other states ... why should we have to do so? Is my life suddenly worth less the moment I set foot outside of my home state?

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

The sword cuts both ways

Look at it like this. The 1st amendment has a variety of clauses, two of which apply to "religion".

--One guarantees freedom to practice one's religion
--The other prohibits the government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion" (separation of church & state)

The two things are in constant conflict with one another. One guy says that to practice my religion, my kids need a prayer time in school - that's what he claims he needs in order to exercise his freedom of religion. The next guy says that the first guy's practice of his religion in this way in fact violates his right to have the government free from a church & state tie-in. So the exercise of one right can arguably impede on another. Two rights; varying ways to interpret their intersection, and the courts must deal with this.

Think of full faith and credit as two rights, not one. State A is supposed to give full faith and credit to state B. So if state B has CCW, then the argument is state A should recognize the CCW permits of state B residents when in State A. But if state A has made a determination that it doesn't want any of its citizens carrying guns (putting aside for a moment the unconstitutionality of that), then making state A recognize state B's permitting system is ITSELF a violation of State A's rights to full faith and credit. State B must give full faith and credit to state A's rights by not expecting State A to recognize state B's CCW permits when its citizens are in state A (thus giving "credit" to state A's decisions). So the exercise one state's rights violates another's. So the line has to be drawn somewhere, and the courts hash that out on a case by case basis.

Another point is that even if it were a valid argument, the STATE would have to decide to become the litigant (through its governor or legislature) - a citizen of any state would not have standing.

Bottom line, full faith & credit clause does not in any way force states to accept ALL decisions of other states, nor should it. In my opinion.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Some things not recognized across state lines:

contractor's licenses
license to practice law
business license

Hunting license.

Fishing license.

Comedic license.

 

[ServiceSoon]

-------------------->

If red states are not going to extend full faith and credit to gay marriages, what makes you think blue states will extend it to gun rights?

This is key. One of the problems that the ROn Paul movement had to overcome.

 

[alaskanativeson]

Speaking of CCW permits, is there a good source for state carry laws and reciprocity now that packing.org has gone the way of the dodo?

 

[gtmerkley]

ccw means ccw no less no more

 

[sailortoo]

alaskanativeson - I believe that www.handgunlaw.us is one of the better sources online. There are others, but this is frequently referenced.
Sailortoo

 

[MechAg94]

As said on the last page, just because one state lets recognizing the license of another state doesn't mean you get to behave the same way as in the other state. You still have to abide by the laws of the state you are in.

1. If I drive to Louisiana, I have to obey the traffic laws of Louisiana, not Texas.
2. My CHL is good in Louisiana, but if I carry there, I have to obey the laws in Louisiana. If they say I can't carry in fast food joints with names beginning in "M" well then I can't carry in McDonald's while there. If I drive to New Jersey, I have to do the same. If NJ says I can't carry, well I can't.

3. I can get married in Texas, but if I move to California, I have to abide by California divorce laws if I get divorced. I don't get to apply Texas law.

 

[bobbarker]

Correct Mechage. You have to abide by Louisiana driving laws, and California marriage laws, and all that, but you're still Married in louisiana. And you can still drive in Jersey. I'm not saying that you're wrong about FFC(You're not,) But out here in Cali, I can't even carry. Just saying your situations didn't really match up with the theme here. I'd be more then happy to abide by Cali's Concealed Carry Law, but they don't recognize my right to CC. Whereas in your situations, The states recognized your Drivers license, marriage, etc.

 

[FTA84]

1. I think the discussion of driving/CDL falls more under commerece than full faith and credit.

2. For many professions, (perhaps doctor's, nurses as mentioned), the states have set up a system something like current CCW. If I recall correctly, engineers have this dilemma. A professional engineering license is granted by a state, the other states choose whether or not acknowledge your license. The norm is that all states respect each other, but there is no mandate that requires them to do so.