CDW License Covered Under "Full Faith and Credit"?

[KYK22]

I have just gotten my Concealed Deadly Weapon License in Kentucky and have checked for the other states that accept Kentucky's CDW License and found that some do and some don't. Why are CDW Licenses not covered by the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" Clause in Article IV Clause 1 concerning Relations Among the States? If other staes have to accept my Driver's License under this Constitutional provision, why aren't CDW Licenses afforded the same protection? Does any one know if this has been challenged in the Federal Courts? Do CDW Licenses not qualify as a "public record" of a State the other States must accept? With 31 years of teaching U.S. Government and Law classes, I feel like I know what I am talking about!

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I have just gotten my Concealed Deadly Weapon License in Kentucky and have checked for the other states that accept Kentucky's CDW License and found that some do and some don't. Why are CDW Licenses not covered by the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" Clause in Article IV Clause 1 concerning Relations Among the States? If other staes have to accept my Driver's License under this Constitutional provision, why aren't CDW Licenses afforded the same protection? Does any one know if this has been challenged in the Federal Courts? Do CDW Licenses not qualify as a "public record" of a State the other States must accept? With 31 years of teaching U.S. Government and Law classes, I feel like I know what I am talking about!

They are, unless the necessity of a permit is itself unConstitutional.

Because the Constitution doesn't count.

Probably somebody knows; I think it hasn't been.

It would seem so.

So do I, but what you and I think doesn't, by itself, mean anything.

In general, what prevents passage and enforcement of unConstitutional laws?

 

[OKFC05]

Do CDW Licenses not qualify as a "public record" of a State the other States must accept?

Short answer, no, and there are many other licenses in the fields of law, education, and medicine that are also not automatically accepted by all other states. If you check back, I believe you'll find that the Federal government never mandated that drivers' licenses had to be accepted, but the states agreed on their own.

 

[photoman]

Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it's legal. What a screwed up country...

 

[2Loud4You]

I have family in SC but they do not reciprocate my GA permit so I can't carry there. Different states have widely different procedures to gain a permit and honestly, GA is fairly lax. I go in and fill out paperwork, get my thumbprint taken, go to another building for a full set of prints and 6 weeks later I got my permit, it doesn't even have my picture, just a fingerprint on it. States that require extensive classes don't really like our approach so some of them refuse to honor my permit. It is what it is. I don't like it but I'm not a politician or lawyer and don't have the answers why states aren't required to recognize carry permits the way they must recognize driver's licenses.

 

[The Big D]

As a point of reference, the cite you use is not appropriate. Even lawyers must be admitted to the Bar in the state(s) in which they practice. That's simply one example. I am more than a bit surprised you would use the "full faith and credit" reference given your professed teaching experience.

Be safe.

 

[KYK22]

Why Are Some Other Licenses/Permits Accepted Then?

It's my teaching experience that caused me to question the situation to begin with. A Driver's Licenses is a public record of a state, but not all states require the same qualifications to obtain one, but accept other state's DL's. A Marriage License is is a public recored of a state, but not all states require the same qualifications to get one, but accept other state's ML's too.
Article IV Section 1 of the Constiotution states "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." So I assume that a CDW License IS NOT considered to be a "public Act" or "public Record" of the State where it is obtained?
Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution further states that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." This seems to say to me that if you can get a CDW License in your state, then I, as a citizen of another state, should be able to get a CDW License in your State as well, or vise versa. But I know that most if not all States won't even consider that!
I am also aware that the amendment (Amendment #1618 offered as an attachment to Senate Bill 1290, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010) that would have allowed individuals with permits or licenses to carry in their own state be have them recognized nationwide failed to pass the Senate by TWO VOTES this year. It would have required that any state's permit to carry a loaded, concealed handgun in public be recognized by any other state, just as driver's licenses, pilot's licenses, and marriage licenses are recognized by every other state.
So apparently the only remedy to this situation is for the Federal Government to take over issuing CDW Licenses and establish a uniform, nationwide requirement to get one, but I can already hear the "anti-federal government getting any more involved groups" screaming about that too! I was one of only a few teachers nationwide to support a national educational system with uniform, national requirements for graduation from High School in the US. But that ain't gonna happen either! Seems I recall that a High School diploma is accepted by other state's universities and colleges as part of their admissions policies?
So my only reasonable choice seems to be to become a criminal and simply ignore the CDW laws of other states.
It's seems quite funny to me that I, who have never had so much as a Speeding Ticket, cannot carry a concealed deadly weapon to protect myself and family while traveling, whereas any low-life predator who wants to can! (In case you haven't heard, there have been numerous incidents where travelers have been shot to death at Rest Areas along the nation's interstate highways in recent years, four in my state in the last two years!)
Oh, and isn't the Bar a private organization of lawyers? I wasn't aware that the Bar was a State government organization, at least in my State it isn't!

 

[230therapy]

It is unconstitutional to license or tax a right at the Federal level. I am not certain if that court decision applies to the states.


Paying $2 for the Brady check is also unconsititional because it is a tax.

Paying for a CCW permit is taxing and licensing a right. However, since it's at the state level, and various states have different RKBA's in their constitutions, I am not sure how it's controlled. One would think the Federal 2A applies, but STUPID SCOTUS ruled that it does not.

Yet, people don't seem to have a problem with either.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

One would think the Federal 2A applies, but STUPID SCOTUS ruled that it does not.

Am I uninformed yet again? I thought that what very few rulings SCOTUS has made on the subject have been in our favor, although mostly fairly limited in scope.

 

[OKFC05]

Am I uninformed yet again? I thought that what very few rulings SCOTUS has made on the subject have been in our favor, although mostly fairly limited in scope.

Last year's decision was mostly in our favor, but stopped short of incorporating the 2nd amendment under the provisions of the 14th. On Sep 29th, SCOTUS is scheduled to decide whether to put that question on their calendar. There are conflicting opinions in the lower Federal courts.

A major (futile) objection to Sotomayor was that she decided that the 2nd amendment is NOT binding on the states, so NY was free to make any anti-gun laws it wished and even to ignore the Federal 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.

So without a ruling tht the 2nd amendment is binding on the states, passing a Nation Carry Law could be ignored by MA, NY, CA, and the other usual suspects. See the problem?

 

[Pasifikawv]

It's my teaching experience that caused me to question the situation to begin with. A Driver's Licenses is a public record of a state, but not all states require the same qualifications to obtain one, but accept other state's DL's. A Marriage License is is a public recored of a state, but not all states require the same qualifications to get one, but accept other state's ML's too.
Article IV Section 1 of the Constiotution states "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." So I assume that a CDW License IS NOT considered to be a "public Act" or "public Record" of the State where it is obtained?
Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution further states that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." This seems to say to me that if you can get a CDW License in your state, then I, as a citizen of another state, should be able to get a CDW License in your State as well, or vise versa. But I know that most if not all States won't even consider that!
I am also aware that the amendment (Amendment #1618 offered as an attachment to Senate Bill 1290, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010) that would have allowed individuals with permits or licenses to carry in their own state be have them recognized nationwide failed to pass the Senate by TWO VOTES this year. It would have required that any state's permit to carry a loaded, concealed handgun in public be recognized by any other state, just as driver's licenses, pilot's licenses, and marriage licenses are recognized by every other state.
So apparently the only remedy to this situation is for the Federal Government to take over issuing CDW Licenses and establish a uniform, nationwide requirement to get one, but I can already hear the "anti-federal government getting any more involved groups" screaming about that too! I was one of only a few teachers nationwide to support a national educational system with uniform, national requirements for graduation from High School in the US. But that ain't gonna happen either! Seems I recall that a High School diploma is accepted by other state's universities and colleges as part of their admissions policies?
So my only reasonable choice seems to be to become a criminal and simply ignore the CDW laws of other states.
It's seems quite funny to me that I, who have never had so much as a Speeding Ticket, cannot carry a concealed deadly weapon to protect myself and family while traveling, whereas any low-life predator who wants to can! (In case you haven't heard, there have been numerous incidents where travelers have been shot to death at Rest Areas along the nation's interstate highways in recent years, four in my state in the last two years!)
Oh, and isn't the Bar a private organization of lawyers? I wasn't aware that the Bar was a State government organization, at least in my State it isn't!

I like your argument, but I am no lawyer or constitutional law scholar...

Perhaps we need a volunteer with a stellar reputation and clean record and a CCW to cross into a State that does not recognize the CCW, call the State Police and turn themselves in, seek the support of the NRA and/or 2A lawyers on pro bono, and challenge the arrest as unconstitutional due the full faith and credit clause. Of course, it would be necessary/wise to have the NRA/legal council established ahead of time and have the attny available for immediate represenation of the volunteer at time of crossing into the non-CCW State - or perhaps even DC...

Finding a volunteer may be hard - certainly wouldn't be me. If the case fails, that person would loose their CCW priveldges forever and prehaps even sacrifice their RTKBA if the infraction is veiwed as a felony. They would certainly loose it while the case and appeals are pending.

I recall Woody Harrelson (sp?) doing something similar to challenge laws against agricututral/industrial hemp in support of KY farmers. He lost... That is always the gamble. Who knows how a court would rule??

BUT: if the case won (questionable at best) it would open the door for national reciprocity via the courts rather than waiting for legislation to pass at the federal level...

 

[The Big D]

Yikes! Good luck finding a volunteer for that assignment.

Even if you did, there are two (2) instant problems that are, in reality, long term problems.

First, there's the old saying "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." In most jurisdictions illegal CCW or OC is gonna buy you some jail time...at a minimum 'til arraignment.

Second, it will take a long time and a whole lotta cash to get the case to SCOTUS. And that presumes they'll render certiorari.

Interesting approach, however.

Be safe.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Yikes! Good luck finding a volunteer for that assignment.

Even if you did, there are two (2) instant problems that are, in reality, long term problems.

First, there's the old saying "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." In most jurisdictions illegal CCW or OC is gonna buy you some jail time...at a minimum 'til arraignment.

Second, it will take a long time and a whole lotta cash to get the case to SCOTUS. And that presumes they'll render certiorari.

Interesting approach, however.

Be safe.

You are right on Big D.

The "volunteer" would definetly serve time and risk a permentant criminal record- just like civil rights folks went to jail for breaking segregation laws in order to challenge their constitutionality.

Any such "volunteer" would have to have some big stones and strong beliefs to be willing to take that risk in defense of 2A and CCW rights/priveldges - just as civil rights folks put their butt on the line for their beliefs and rights...

It would take some serious finacial backing from somewhere (NRA, GOA, etc.) and many years of effort in the court system. Even if the "volunteer" and his team of lawyers won the first go round, the opponets would appeal - just as the "volunteer" would appeal should his side loose the first go round... It could be a decade or more before it was settled - and no garuntee that it would be a winner...

Our country is built upon numerous examples of the brave souls willing to sacrifice in defense of our rights. There may be someone out there willing to take the leap, but it wouldn't be me.

I have no confidence that it would actually suceed even with the best lawyers and the full backing of the NRA - just throwing it out there.

 

[straightshooter1]

1. There are already cases from the United States Supreme Court that control this issue.

And, much to my surprise, Wikipedia actually has these cases and the principle they stand for in their discussion of "full faith and credit."

The short answer is that the Court has said the Full Faith and Credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute the conflicting statute of another state.

An example might be:

State One is a shall issue state and State Two's statutes make it a crime to carry a concealed firearm (no provision for concealed carry).

A resident of State One who has a valid permit from State One goes to State Two and proceeds to carry a concealed firearm, until he meets this nice young policeman who charges him with carrying a concealed firearm in violation of State Two's statutes.

The Supreme Court says State Two does not have to substitute State One's statute for its statute because of the FF & C clause.

In other words, the guy from State One gets convicted.

If the charge is a felony, he won't be owning or carrying any guns in State One anymore since State One DOES give FF & C to the judgments of other states, including State Two.

2. The State Bars, in every state I am familiar with, and I suppose there may be exceptions, are not voluntary organizations, but, to practice law in that state (except for limited exceptions for an out-of-state lawyer to appear in a particular case) one must be a member of the Bar.

3. A number of posters have suggested (or said) that licenses to carry concealed firearms and other restrictions are "unconstitutional." While everyone is entitled to their opinions, we have agreed to a Constitution for more that two hundred years which allows the Courts to determine whether a law is unconstitutional. If the highest Court in one's state says a law is constitutional and no higher court (i.e. US Supreme Court) has said the state court was wrong, then, like it or not, it is constitutional.

The remedy is to change to law (or, perhaps, the members of the court).

Bob

 

[Alk8944]

Paying for a CCW permit is taxing and licensing a right. However, since it's at the state level, and various states have different RKBA's in their constitutions, I am not sure how it's controlled. One would think the Federal 2A applies, but STUPID SCOTUS ruled that it does not.

It is characterized as a "fee", not a tax. Would you be so kind as to cite the case in which this decision was reached? To the best of my knowledge this question has never been brought before the court.

Likewise, there has not been a test case where the "Full faith & credit" clause has been raised as a defense where a non-resident was charged in another state with carrying a concealed firearm.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Likewise, there has not been a test case where the "Full faith & credit" clause has been raised as a defense where a non-resident was charged in another state with carrying a concealed firearm.

If there has not been such a case, there probably should be.

What is the NRA waiting for? Perhaps analysis such as Straightshooter provided leads the legal team of the NRA to believe it is a loosing cause?

I dunno. Just a layman... It just burns my buttons that State issued CCW licenses are not granted full faith and credit as State issued Drivers licenses are...

Of course, a bipartisan majority recently voted for a law change, but not quite enough votes to hurdle the threats of filibuster by the anti-gun blow-hards... It would pass easily on an up or down vote... 58 senators (Dem and GOP) voted for national reciprocity...