Concealed Carry Permits Between States and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

[KYK22]

I would like someone to explain why Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses are not protected by the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution : "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." -Article IV, Section 1. State laws cannot conflict with the Constitution (Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2). I taught High School Government classes for 31 years, so I know what I am talking about here.
States have to recognize marriage licenses from every other state, so why not my Concealed Carry License I have from my home State of Kentucky? Does this mean that I am married in some States with a Marriage License from Kentucky, but not in others? The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not give a State the power to say "we will accept some public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other States, but not accept others". A public act, record, or judical proceeding IS a public act, record, or judical proceeding!
My wife and I travel quit a bit and I'm sorry, but I am not going out on the road without a pistol for our personal protection. Even the Police admit that they can't be everywhere all the time for the public's safety. I believe if someone or some national organization would challenge this in federal court, the federal court would have to apply the full faith and credit clause to cover concealed carry permits/licenses. My CCL was issued by the State, has the State Seal and other identifying marks, and my personal information on it just as my Driver's License does. As far as I am concerned, that makes it a STATE RECORD like any other license issued by my state. Am I legal to drive in some States with my Kentucky Driver's License, but not in others?
I had to complete an extensive course in gun safety and marksmanship before I got my CCL in Kentucky, more so than getting a marriage or drivers license! And don't use the argument that "guns are dangerous" - more people are killed by people driving cars each year in the US than by firearms. There is hardly any mention any more in the news about a death in a car wreck, but let one occur becasue of someone using a gun and the news outlets, especiall TV, are all over it! Just this morning out of Lexington, KY on TV : "Twelve Year Old Shot In The Chest While At Home", but nothing about the three people killed in a car wreck on I-75 yesterday!
In my opinion, the States should concentrate on toughing up the laws on punshiment for the use of a firearm to commit a violent crime (at least life without parole) and leave law-abiding citizens alone! Convicted felons in my area seem to pay little attention to the ban on them ever possessing a firearm again after their convictions.
I guess maybe that I will be the first to use the full faith and credit clause as a defense if and when I get arrested for LEGALLY carrying a pistol, with my CCL, in some of our ***-backward states.

:thank_you2:​

 

[geuse 21]

I agree, I can drive in NY and NJ but can't carry in either. Why?

 

[sdprof]

Driving licenses are a bit different. There is an agreement that the states participate in to recognize DLs, and if you check your state laws carefully you'll find reference to it.

Also, the qualification (at least initially) for a DL is pretty similar across state lines. And the laws of the road are pretty much the same across state lines.

Firearm laws - what a hodgepodge of variations.

I agree with KYK22 - a permit issued by one's home state should be recognized by all. Don't hold your breath.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Sure, you make a good point about that clause...but what about the second amendment? Shouldn't that have been enough?

 

[vernsimpson]

The short answer to why the 2nd Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply for across the US for our gun rights is we have Libtards who want nobody to have guns. They want to cherry pick what the Full Faith and Credit Clause covers.

 

[UATKP]

KYK22, I've never heard of such clause. But you make very good sense to me.
I'm not a lawyer; and I didn't stay in a holiday inn express last night; but I do wish I had the money to take this on in court.

 

[NotTwoShure]

The 14th Amendment and other clauses in the relatively brief social/political experiment referred to as America, now warped and convoluted by the Left only fits when convenient to the powers that appear to be in charge. Now it is the mainstream news that has the misinformed public’s attention. The reasons for this should be another discussion.
The terms used now “The right thing to do”, “Fair share” and so forth, make some feel better about themselves.
States’ rights only matter for liberal causes.
Ex-felons should be able to vote because it is the right thing to do but not to carry a weapon.
ID to buy a weapon, pack of smokes but not to vote.
The Supreme Court has taken many liberties with our liberties. Living in a glass bubble the liberals, think feeling good is all that matters, not what is per the Constriction.
It is a Right to have an abortion in one state therefore it should be in every state. It is ok to have homosexual (I shall not legitimize the term marriage and the term gay) unions in one state therefore it is forced down the throats of all states. DOMA is not fair now, it is the law of the land but it is not to be enforced.
Imigration, old school, not fair, not the right thing to do.
My reference is The Oxford Guide to the United States Government, Oxford Press 1993, 1994, 1998 and 2001. This book and a research of the issues from .gov and some .org as specify to the issue by the use of a Google search.
The dissenting author of Roe v. Wade, William Rehnquist, has some good points as to the over reach of the SCOTUS.
Now, let me see, touched on most every hot topic and covered the main post as well.

 

[KYK22]

I believe the main problem in this stink pile is that most states call them a"concealed carry permit", whereas Kentucky calls them a "concealed carry license". It seems to me that there is a BIG difference in a "permit" and a "license"! I don't have a "driver's permit" from Kentucky - those are for drivers in Kentucky who are 16 years of age and who are in trainning for a "driver's license". Likewise, I don't have a marriage permit from Kentucky either, I have a marriage license. It would also seem that if the liberals are going to "pick and choose" which public records, acts and judicial proceedings" they will accept from the other states, then I should have the right to pick and choose which state laws that I will obey when traveling from one state to another - I bet there is a huge liberal scream going up over that statement! Again, it all comes down to whether mine or any other state can guarantee the absolute safety of my family and I at all times, which they cannot! There is noone, liberal, conservative, communist, or socialist in this country that is going to tell me that I don't have the right to protect myself and my family because the states and the federal government have chooses not to do it because they cannot do it. Anyone with any sense knows that the police do not prevent crimes - they merely respond to complaints about crimes that have already been committed. That is like closing the barn door after the livestock have gotten out, and criminals know it and take advantage of it.
Anyone breaking into my house while I'm home is going to meet MY HOME SECURITY of Remington, Smith and Wesson, Glock, Ruger, or whatever firearm I can get my hands on. They will also have a weapon in their hand before the police respond to the call too, even if it's just a hammer! A women in my county was getting ready to go to church one Sunday a few years back. Her husband and son had already left the house. Four thugs kicked the door in and came in, only to be greeted by the lady with a S&W .44 Magnum. Two started down the hall towards her with claw hammers raised and she killed both of them, wounded a third one, and one ran like a jack rabbit and got away because she was out of shots. She was arrested and charged with two counts of 2nd Degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon in her own home! Thankfully, the local judge ruled self-defense and threw the cases against her out! I've never seen so many angry people both inside and outside the court supporting this lady! She then had to deal with two civil cases of wrongful death brought by the two lowlifes families, that were also thrown out of court. Ditto for the assault with a deadly weapon civil case brought by the third lowlife she shot and only wounded. Where were the authorities when these four kicked in her front door? Probably stuffing their faces with the free meals our local Barney's get from restraunts in town.

 

[Anubis]

Wow, KYK22. I would expect your story to happen in CA or NJ, but not Kentucky.

 

[z4ciao]

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

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). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin."

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is invoked primarily to enforce judgments. When a valid judgment is rendered by a court that has jurisdiction over the parties, and the parties receive proper notice of the action and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that the judgment receive the same effect in other states as in the state where it is entered. A party who obtains a judgment in one state may petition the court in another state to enforce the judgment. When this is done, the parties do not relitigate the issues, and the court in the second state is obliged to fully recognize and honor the judgment of the first court in determining the enforceability of the judgment and the procedure for its execution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state. However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaii's statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to Strict Scrutiny if challenged on Equal Protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the state's marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. In response to the Baehr case, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Full Faith and Credit Clause was applied to new matters. Child Custody determinations had historically fallen under the jurisdiction of state courts, and before the 1970s, other states did not accord them full faith and credit enforcement. As a result, a divorced parent who was unhappy with one state's custody decision could sometimes obtain a more favorable ruling from another state. This was an incentive for a dissatisfied parent to kidnap a child and move to another state in order to petition for custody. In response to this situation, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1968. By 1984, every state had adopted a version of the UCCJA. In 1980, Congress passed the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A), which aids enforcement and promotes finality in child custody decisions by providing that valid custody decrees are entitled to full faith and credit enforcement in other states. The Violence against Women Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-322 [codified in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.A., 18 U.S.C.A., 42 U.S.C.A.]) extends full faith and credit to the enforcement of protective orders, which previously were not enforced except in the state where they were rendered. This gave a new measure of protection to victims who moved to a different state after obtaining a protective order in one state.

 

[ninjachica]

I don't think you should have to get any other permit to carry across state lines. I agree with your statements. Plus, isn't traveling one of the most important times to have your protection?! It is for me. Very, very frustrating.
I would recommend a Virginia Non-resident permit. It's good for carry in 28 states - Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It's fairly easy to get too. You can do everyting online and by mail. Here's a link - Virginia Concealed Carry Certification You can certify online and get a copy of the application packet. Super easy. Probably cheaper and less hassle than going to court later.

Good luck and I really appreciate the intelligent post.

 

[KYK22]

What z4ciao has brought up is the so-called liberal (broad) interpretationof the Constitution as opposed to the strict (conserative) interpretation of the document.
The liberals have used the broad interpretation of the Constitution to say, "Oh, this is what we think the Framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote this part of the document". Most often, this warpped view of the Constitution's wording has been used by the liberals to justify doing something that was not even mentioned in the Constitution. Example : Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government can spend billions of taxpayers dollars each year in welfare aid? Read the Constitution and if you can find that clause in the document, please tell me where it is! I've read and taught the Constitution in the past and I never have seen that specifically written anywhere in the Constitution. But the liberals have said that one of the purposes of the Constitution stated in the Preamble is to "promote the general welfare" for the people. So, the liberals in the 1930's said that this meant (in their broad interpretation) that the government should start paying money to Americans who would rather sit on their obese rears all day rather than work to support themselves and their families. So, the guy that was on the TV this past summer who had fathered 31 kids by 11 different women sits and screams that he only makes minimum wage and can't support all of his kids, so the government should do it for him! I won't say what my solution would be for this lowlife.
The Supreme Court even ruled in the 1930's that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to take tax money from one group to give to another group! (Scheckter Poultry Corp. vs. US , the so-called "sick chicken" case) Most of the situations in z4ciao's last paragraph falls under the liberal view about the reserved powers of the states - anything not mentioned in the Constitution is a power or concern left to the states. But sorry liberal Larry, gun ownership is addressed in the Second Amendment, and so occording to the liberals own viewpoint, is a power (concern) of the federal government and not of the states! But the liberals have become very adapt at saying, "No, this is what this means" in warpping the Constitution's wording to match their utterly rediculous viewpoints!

 

[Sir Diealotz]

Most states honor KY CCDW license.

No need for a non resident permit from another state.