[falcon1]

I know that national reciprocity legislation has been introduced, but I have a question...why doesn't the "full faith and credit" clause in Article IV of the Constitution apply to state carry permits? It applies to marriage licenses, driver's licenses, etc. The clause itself, as I remember it, admits of no exceptions: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State."

This is not an attack on national reciprocity legislation...if that is what it takes, so be it. But is anyone aware of any attempts to use this more (at least in my opinion) direct approach to get permits honored nationally?

 

[elkhunter]

IMHO Liberal opinions from Fed & State courts have opened the door to ignoring Article IV. (And just about any other part of the Constitution they don’t like.)
In this case: “…And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
It makes sense to me, and looks like they (Congress) may be trying to right a wrong. Proof will be in the final draft I guess.

 

[P95Carry]

The theory stands up but - SCOTUS seems to have whittled away at certain aspects - making some less than relevant it seems. Too much ''Fed everything'' across a wide spectrum IMO.

Hardest thing is to make one puny vote do a whole lot to wake up some folks and get change to where it should be. This thing has many miles to run yet before we are likely to see real results.

 

[Roadrunner]

You're right, Article IV should be enough. However, states, towns and cities have a habit of passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws. The only way to get them to stop is to challenge it in court, and no one wants to be the test case. I'd like to see this taken to court, but it's not likely.

 

[chiefs-special-guy]

be careful what you wish for.
i am not sure my state (Alabama) would be too keen on recognizing same sex marriages, for example, passed by the legislature of Massachusetts.
rb

 

[elkhunter]

I can't quote the exact wording or timing, but Colorado passed a law in the last few years stating that a CCW permit issued in one county had to be honored in all counties and cities in the state.
Now, I have to be careful carrying in Denver and particularly (The People's Republic of) Boulder, but the state says I can.
So, there are some movements in the right direction, but probably not shouted from the housetops.

 

[AirForceShooter]

when it comes to marriage and drivers licenses the states all recognize each other's stuff. You're right. They should automatically recognze each others CCW. Somehow they don't. I never figured it out.
So a Federal law just takes it out of the States hands on a specfic basis.
Of course NYC, Cali, Mass and a few others will simply ignore the law and tell you Don't carry. NYC already does it with the Retired LEO's from out of state already.

AFS

 

[Tubby45]

A concealed weapon permit is not a public act, record, or judicial preceeding. Thinking that it is, is nice. However if we go that route, if I buy a deer license in MI I should be able to go to any other state and hunt deer. Again, seems nice, but doesn't hold water.

Just remember marriage is a legal contract. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[falcon1]

freakshow10mm...

Good point. So the distinction is, that a CCW or HCP is an authority to carry in a particular jurisdiction, which NY or MA or wherever is happy to recognize that TN has granted in TN? Makes sense. Thanks!

 

[dimmak]

be careful what you wish for.
i am not sure my state (Alabama) would be too keen on recognizing same sex marriages, for example, passed by the legislature of Massachusetts.
rb

very keen foresight!!!

 

[dimmak]

Just remember marriage is a legal contract. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Too True....

Perhaps if it did, the divorce rate wouldn't be what it is....

 

[falcon1]

I agree on "be careful what you wish for." As a constitutional matter, however, those situations probably will be covered under the full faith and credit clause, if anyone decides to litigate it. That wouldn't be my choice, but I think that would likely be the case. That's why, although I can see the logic behind freakshow10mm's comments and agree with it, I wish it were otherwise. :frown: