Full Faith And Credit?

[bobbarker]

"Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states." -Wikipedia

Can anyone tell me how this does not apply to our CCW permits? As I see it, and have seen it for a long time, having a CCW in Michigan would give you the right to carry in any other state that allows CC. Obviously, I'm wrong, or some lawyer would have jumped on this a while ago, but can anyone explain to me how and why it does not pertain?

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Because Full Faith and Credit, the 9th, and the 10th have been ignored since the 1930s.

 

[ants]

I'm sure TuffPaws is right, but as a matter of personal education I'd like someone to discuss the answer more fully. Short sweet answers satisfy many folk, but never fully inform me of the larger picture.

 

[ServiceSoon]

It hasn't been specifically ruled on by the courts. They call this incorporation.

Its cool though, even gays don't have the rights they deserve according to this amendment.

 

[BrianB]

My attorney let me know soomething about this. It really hasn't been contested at th federal level. One state is not required to follow the laws of other states. So Illinois is not required to accept a Utah CCW permit.

However, there is gray area that hasn't been fought yet. And that's the issue of accepting resident CCW but not nonresident licenses. For example, Colorado accepts my Utah permit, but only if I lived in Utah. Same background check. Same class required. Just because I don't live in Utah.

It goes to the issue of discriminatiion against an individual (bad) vs discrimination against a separate class of people (gray area). States' supreme courts have ruled all over the place on this, but nothing yet on CCW.

Maybe there are cases pending, or ready to file. My guess is that a lot of folk are waiting on Heller.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Why doesn't your CCW apply in all 50 states? Because your marriage is recognized in all 50 states, because your driver's license is recognized in all 50 states, because your right to private property is recognized in all 50 states. What makes you think you have the right to effectively defend yourself in all 50 states?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[BrianB]

Because your marriage is recognized in all 50 states, because your driver's license is recognized in all 50 states, because your right to private property is recognized in all 50 states. What makes you think you have the right to effectively defend yourself in all 50 states?

Sans, I completely agree. But our country is a union of states who make their own decisions (it keeps the Fed's from being tyranical, theoretically). Each state agreed on all those you mentioned. My state doesn't even let me defend myself except on my own property!

 

[bobbarker]

"Why doesn't your CCW apply in all 50 states? Because your marriage is recognized in all 50 states, because your driver's license is recognized in all 50 states, because your right to private property is recognized in all 50 states. What makes you think you have the right to effectively defend yourself in all 50 states? "


Exactly my point. Is this something that could get pushed up to a federal level if someone were CC in a state that didn't reciprocate with their own? Is that what we are waiting for, or what? It just blows my mind, because, that is EXACTLY what the full faith and credit is for!:banghead:

 

[uneasy_rider]

There are lots of types of licenses that other states do not accept from other states. CCW licenses are not singled out. In fact, driver licenses are one of the few licenses that are accepted in other states.

 

[bobbarker]

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.

 

[danny]

Let's say you have a CCW from Indiana. This means that Indiana says it's OK to carry in Indiana. Illinois gives full faith and credit in that Illinois agrees that you can carry in Indiana.
Yes it sucks but can you see the logic?

 

[Coronach]

Interesting. The Wikipedia link re: Incorporation has a passage on each amendment. Looking at the blurb for the 2nd Amendment we see:

This provision has been held not to be incorporated against the states. See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).

This is opposed to "has not been held to be incorporated", which means that it could be incorporated, but the issue just hasn't come up yet. According to Wiki, Miller is a finding of not incorporated.

Is this correct, or is this just a case of Wikipedia being worth what you pay for it?

Mike

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is opposed to "has not been held to be incorporated", which means that it could be incorporated, but the issue just hasn't come up yet. According to Wiki, Miller is a finding of not incorporated.

Is this correct, or is this just a case of Wikipedia being worth what you pay for it?

In Cruikshank, which was passed after the 14th Amendment, the Second Amendment was held not apply to the states; but this was before the doctrine of selective incorporation was developed.

Essentially what happened was that the 14th Amendment was fully intended to extend the Bill of Rights to the states; but in the first Supreme Court case on it, the Court declined to do that. Rather than reverse the bad decision in the Slaughterhouse cases, later Justices came up with the "selective incorporation" doctrine around the 1920s.

If you'll pay attention, you'll notice that the Wikipedia article mentions the first tiny seedlings of the selective incorporation happened in an 1897 case (and that is being kind, most people would say 1925 was more accurate).

Either way, the Wikipedia article is claiming that the Second Amendment was held not to have been incorporated in 1894 several years before that doctrine was even invented - seems like kind of a flaw in the reasoning to me.

 

[uneasy_rider]

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.

No, thats not right, at least not the part about an MD getting a medical license for the state. There is a ton of documentation, background malpractice checks, board exam results, letters of reference, documentation of continuing medical education, etc involved.

 

[TAB]

Full faith and credit would be a good argument, but here inlies the prob with it. Not all states have the same laws about WHO can get CCWs.

For example, if you lived in one state you could have a crimal record( all be it very small one) and it would be perfectly legal for you to get a CCW, in other states it would be a instant DQ. So in that case you would have one states laws super seeding another states laws.

Another example is contracting Lic ( of which I have one from 4 diffrent states) in CA for example if you have a felony you can not get a CL, in OR you can. So would it be fare for a OR contractor to do work in CA?

 

[Coronach]

Either way, the Wikipedia article is claiming that the Second Amendment was held not to have been incorporated in 1894 several years before that doctrine was even invented - seems like kind of a flaw in the reasoning to me.

Gotcha. I need to get my money back from Wiki.

Mike

 

[RioShooter]

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.

Not even close for teachers. Some states require only a bachelor's degree, where others require a master's. In addition to that, course work in education law, state history, subject area, etc. can be required when moving from one state to another.

 

[M203Sniper]

Why doesn't your CCW apply in all 50 states? Because your marriage is recognized in all 50 states, because your driver's license is recognized in all 50 states, because your right to private property is recognized in all 50 states. What makes you think you have the right to effectively defend yourself in all 50 states?

-Sans Authoritas

Actually not all marriages are recognized in all 50 states. The same with a driver's license; and it really depends on What personal property we are talking about because you may not have the "right" to it that you thought you did when you cross state lines or elected reps at home.


I'm just saying. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

 

[roscoe]

Some things not recognized across state lines:

contractor's licenses
license to practice law
business license

 

[hugh damright]

the Wikipedia article is claiming that the Second Amendment was held not to have been incorporated in 1894 several years before that doctrine was even invented - seems like kind of a flaw in the reasoning to me.

Maybe the article means "incorporated" in the sense that the right to own property was incorporated or the right to sue was incorporated, and is not a reference to the incorporation doctrine nor a flaw in reasoning.

the 14th Amendment was fully intended to extend the Bill of Rights to the states

It occurs to me that the 14th says nothing about the Bill of Rights. From what I understand, the 14th was needed to make the civil rights bill part of the Constitution (for nefarious reasons) ... the civil rights bill spelled out the privileges and immunities and I see no apparent correlation with the USBOR:

"to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property"

I have a rather good book on the USBOR (The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding - Hickok) which says that the 14th was intended to create a limited federal power to strike down State laws, but that the incorporation doctine is "an unconstitutional assumption of powers by courts of the US which no lapse of time or respectable array of opinion should make us hesitate to correct".

 

[Regen]

Full faith and credit would be a good argument, but here inlies the prob with it. Not all states have the same laws about WHO can get CCWs.

One, the constitution says nothing about the laws of the states having to be similar in order to extend full faith and credit.
Two, Look at driver's license. States have different laws about when you can get a driver's license. In FL you used to be able to get a license at 14. In New Jersey, you had to be 17. I knew people that had FL licenses and drove in NJ when they were 15 with no problems.

 

[FieroCDSP]

Some things not recognized across state lines:

contractor's licenses
license to practice law
business license

My father, who drove long-haul trucks for 20+ years, made mention of this one day after a few beers. His Ohio CDL is recognized by all 50 states as long as he's transporting for a company under Ohio law and requirements. Were he to change to a place in say, Louisianna, he'd have to pass a state requirements there for a different, but equal, certification. Or something like that. He'd had a few beers and was ranting.

Failing national reciprocity, I'd be in favor of a bill instituting a shall-issue "endorsement" throughout all 50 states. California would never sign on, but it'd be worth a try. You'd have to go to that state to earn that endorsement... hmm....I don't know if that'll work. Imagine the time required. I'm sure some states would be open to issuing one if you fill out forms and fax a copy of your current permit. They could then send you a small sticker in the shape of their state to stick on your permit.
I'll have to give this more thought.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It occurs to me that the 14th says nothing about the Bill of Rights. From what I understand, the 14th was needed to make the civil rights bill part of the Constitution (for nefarious reasons) ... the civil rights bill spelled out the privileges and immunities and I see no apparent correlation with the USBOR

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.

John Bingham (the author) also made it clear that the privileges and immunities language was intended to overturn the infamous Dred Scott opinion.

For example this language from the Scott opinion:
For if they [blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

Looking at the legislative history is common even with bills, to ignore it in the ratification of an amendment strikes me as odd. Looking at the legislative history of the 14th, there isn't any more question of whether it was intended to extend the Bill of Rights than there is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

 

[esq_stu]

driver licenses are one of the few licenses that are accepted in other states

Not because of the constitution. There is a Federal statute requiring states to recognize each others' driver licenses. There is also a Federal law not requiring states to recognize gay marriages in other states. And there is no Federal law requiring states other than Michigan to recognize my license to practice law.

The SCOTUS decided in 1939 to recognize a "public policy" exception to full faith and credit: "the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state." Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident.

IOW, what's legal for me in Michigan does not become legal for me in another state.

 

[Henry Bowman]

esq stu explains it correctly.

Hopefully, the next person wanting an answer to this question next week will use the "search" feature and find this thread or one of the other 3 identical ones started in the past 10 days. The concept is understandably confusing, but gets asked over and over again as if a new answer will come from hoping it so.