Flashlightboy gives an accurate description of what the full faith and credit clause means. Anything else is fantasizing by those who don't know the history and meaning of the clause.

The driver's license example is perfect. Texas can make you get a new driver's license when you move here from Florida. It does not have to recognize your Florida license any more than it decides to, which is generally for a limited amount of time after you move to Texas. Also, Texas can impose some other restrictions if it chooses too and is not stuck with the conditions Florida imposes.

What the FF&C clause means is that your marriage in Florida is valid in Texas. And other things.

And almost all of the Bill of Rights rights are couched in absolute terms. Free speech, for example. Still, you can't slander. You can't threaten murder, you can't tell top secret military information to the Russians. If it were an absolute right, you could do those things.

There are limits on the 2A, too. No grenades. No 105mm howitzers. No pistols at the courthouse. These restrictions must pass various degrees of legal scrutinty, but no one serious claims there are no limits on the 2A right, just as no one claims there are no limits on freedom of religion. (Remember, Hawaiians can't throw maidens into volcanos.)

This stuff isn't "that simple." Law is not a perfect logic machine, and sometimes isn't even a very good one. Any set of rules to handle human behavior will have lots of conflicts, competing goals, and ambiguities. Getting them to work together with a minimum of inconsistencies is hard. We all have our preferences and subjects we think are important. And not everyone shares them. Working all that out is hard, not simple.

Bridge building looks like it isn't that complicated. After all, the Romans built bridges that still stand. It only looks simple because I don't know enough to know how complicated it actually is.

The 2nd amendment ought to be sufficient but it gets attacked all the time. I spend 98% of my time in Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado, and I can live with the laws. Once things go Federal then Massachusetts and California will want to weigh in and have a vote on my carry situation and they can go jump in the ocean for all I care.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Flashlightboy gives an accurate description of what the full faith and credit clause means. Anything else is fantasizing by those who don't know the history and meaning of the clause.

The driver's license example is perfect. Texas can make you get a new driver's license when you move here from Florida. It does not have to recognize your Florida license any more than it decides to, which is generally for a limited amount of time after you move to Texas. Also, Texas can impose some other restrictions if it chooses too and is not stuck with the conditions Florida imposes.

What the FF&C clause means is that your marriage in Florida is valid in Texas. And other things.

And almost all of the Bill of Rights rights are couched in absolute terms. Free speech, for example. Still, you can't slander. You can't threaten murder, you can't tell top secret military information to the Russians. If it were an absolute right, you could do those things.

There are limits on the 2A, too. No grenades. No 105mm howitzers. No pistols at the courthouse. These restrictions must pass various degrees of legal scrutinty, but no one serious claims there are no limits on the 2A right, just as no one claims there are no limits on freedom of religion. (Remember, Hawaiians can't throw maidens into volcanos.)

1) How is a marrige license valid always but a drivers license isn't?
2) A drivers license from Alabama is valid as you drive thru Texas. More in line with reciprocity.
3) 2A is limited? Says who? Not the writers and signers. What was the most powerful weapon at the time, Cannons. Guess what, many of these were owned by private citizens. What could possibly make anyone think the founders would want to limit the tools that they just used to establish the US?
4) Yes there are limits, such as you mention a courthouse, or jail but these are very specific places which are excepted, for very specific reasons not a blanket you can't carry a pistol.
5) One persons rights end at the start next persons. So yes no throwing another person into a volcano. Same with slander and libel. How does a person carry a firearm infringe on ANY one else's rights?

quote:

3) 2A is limited? Says who? Not the writers and signers. What was the most powerful weapon at the time, Cannons. Guess what, many of these were owned by private citizens. What could possibly make anyone think the founders would want to limit the tools that they just used to establish the US?
4) Yes there are limits, such as you mention a courthouse, or jail but these are very specific places which are excepted, for very specific reasons not a blanket you can't carry a pistol.

So . . . one the one hand there no limits, and then, in the very next sentence, there are limits.

I get it, only certain limits, and ones that don't bother you too much.

(And your marriage license isn't valid elsewhere. Try getting married in Alabama with a Mississippi license. It is your already existing marriage that is valid and which cannot be nullified in another state.)

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

3) 2A is limited? Says who? Not the writers and signers. What was the most powerful weapon at the time, Cannons. Guess what, many of these were owned by private citizens. What could possibly make anyone think the founders would want to limit the tools that they just used to establish the US?
4) Yes there are limits, such as you mention a courthouse, or jail but these are very specific places which are excepted, for very specific reasons not a blanket you can't carry a pistol.

So . . . one the one hand there no limits, and then, in the very next sentence, there are limits.

I get it, only certain limits, and ones that don't bother you too much.

(And your marriage license isn't valid elsewhere. Try getting married in Alabama with a Mississippi license. It is your already existing marriage that is valid and which cannot be nullified in another state.)

Court houses and jails and police stations etc are limited access and not open to general public, hence the exception.
Just like if a property owner says "no guns/Pick a religion/pick an ethnicity/or any other person/place/thing on my property". That is his right, and your right does not supersede his.

You seem to be of the rights are only what the government allows you, belief. Not much of a right if you need permission, more of a privilege.

I must be misreading your statement "and your marriage license isn't valid elsewhere."

So if a Marriage LICENSE "is valid and which cannot be nullified in another state", why would any other LICENSE be treated any differently?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

And almost all of the Bill of Rights rights are couched in absolute terms. Free speech, for example. Still, you can't slander. You can't threaten murder, you can't tell top secret military information to the Russians. If it were an absolute right, you could do those things.

I always find such argument silly. In most simplistic terms, what you cannot do is HARM others. You absolutely can yell FIRE! in a crowded theater - if you reasonably believe there is a fire. You CAN say or print that Joe Schmoe is a cheating liar - if you reasonably believe he is. You CAN kill someone - if you do so during a reasonable self defense event.

What you cannot do is HARM other people without justification. RKBA is absolute in that it shall not be infringed. You CAN carry any arm under the Constitution, unless your rights have been taken under 5A Due Process. You cannot use such arms to unjustifiably harm someone. It is not the RKBA which is restricted, it is the next further step in that chain which is what you do with a weapon. Or with your speech. Or with your religion (you can worship but you cannot sacrifice humans).

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:

You seem to be of the rights are only what the government allows you, belief. Not much of a right if you need permission, more of a privilege.

There is nothing in anything I have said in this thread that suggests any such thing.

And a limit is a limit. If the 2A right were actually unlimited and not able to be infringed, I could walk right into the jailhouse with my pistol. Justifying why the limit exists (or exception, if you prefer) does not make it not a limit.

The point about marriage is that a license to get married and an already existing marriage are not the same thing. A marriage license is not like a drivers license which must be renewed or which can be revoked. Once you are married, the license completed by the officiant is just a record of the event. Marriage licenses are not very much like driver's licenses or concealed carry licenses. A marriage license which hasn't been solemnized with an actual marriage ceremony is not valid in any state other than the one that issued it.

But the 2A is in the constitution. All the other examples even marriage licensss (which were not standardised till the 1800’s) are not.

I’m not asking CA to recognise my FL driver license if I move there and take up permanent residency. Only to recognise my FL CCW for a short period while travelling though. Just like they would driver license or even my car that only has a rear FL license plate. FL does not issue front plates. If I drive to CA and they require front and rear plate and I’m there less than the 30 or 90 or whatever days to establish residency. I’m just suggesting that on a temporary basis if I’m travelling through a hostile state they recognise my home state paperwork. And I’d be safe from arrest for merely having a concealed weapon on my person.

On Guns, Trump Not Showing Hypocrisy on States' Rights
By Tom Knighton | 8:31 PM | November 12, 2024

The idea of states' rights is a convoluted one. It really depends on who you are and what you think as to whether it matters on any given issue. By and large, though, many people value states' rights for the things they don't want the federal government doing and oppose it on issues they want the feds involved in.
Since I largely want the federal government to be small enough to fill in office space in a D.C. strip mall, you can imagine where I fall on the issue.
For folks at the Daily Kos, though, they tend to think very differently. They want the federal government to do all the things, and at least one voice over there thinks Trump's Second Amendment stance is hypocritical.
“Concealed carry reciprocity” is the latest example of President-elect Donald Trump’s shifting views on state rights.
“I will protect the right of self-defense everywhere it is under siege, and I will sign concealed carry reciprocity. Your Second Amendment right does not end at the state line,” Trump said in a video.
If implemented, this would force states that don’t allow for concealed carry—i.e., carrying a firearm out of public view—to recognize permits from other states. That means a person from Arizona, which does not require a permit for concealed carry, could legally carry a hidden firearm in California, which requires a permit for concealed carry.
At the heart of Trump’s push for concealed-carry reciprocity is the idea that certain rights, like the right to bear arms, are so fundamental to American life that they should supersede state laws. But when it comes to, say, abortion? No, Trump feels very differently. For nearly half a century, abortion was constitutionally protected under Roe v. Wade, but now, due to the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, it’s been left up to the states.
Unlike concealed carry, apparently.
Yeah, actually.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time going into the abortion thing because that's not what we do here, but I'll note that abortion is not once mentioned in the Constitution.
On guns, though, things are different. The Second Amendment explicitly protects "the right to keep and bear arms." Bearing arms, or carrying them with you, is right there in black and white.
States have taken a dump on the Second Amendment for decades now, but it doesn't change that the Second Amendment is explicit in what it protects. The 14th Amendment incorporated the rights protected in the Constitution so that states couldn't circumvent those rights. As a result, the Second Amendment applies to states.
When a right is explicitly protected by the Constitution, states have no authority to undermine it. This is true of, say, the freedom of the press, where Florida can't decide that Daily Kos writers need to undergo special training and get a license from the state before they can publish opinion pieces that would be read by people there just as the federal government can't do any such thing.
I know it's hard for people like this writer to understand, but gun rights are rights. The Second Amendment applies to all levels of the government whereas any right to have an abortion is something interpreted from other rights, and that's at best. The Courts, however, disagreed in Dobbs and relegated it to the states because there is no explicit right to an abortion while there is one to carry guns.
You ain't gotta like it. You're just gonna have to learn to deal with it.
RIP

https://bearingarms.com/tomkni...a1cb93&lctg=21115632

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
But the 2A is in the constitution. All the other examples even marriage licensss (which were not standardised till the 1800’s) are not.

I’m not asking CA to recognise my FL driver license if I move there and take up permanent residency. Only to recognise my FL CCW for a short period while travelling though. Just like they would driver license or even my car that only has a rear FL license plate. FL does not issue front plates. If I drive to CA and they require front and rear plate and I’m there less than the 30 or 90 or whatever days to establish residency. I’m just suggesting that on a temporary basis if I’m travelling through a hostile state they recognise my home state paperwork. And I’d be safe from arrest for merely having a concealed weapon on my person.

That doesn't really bear on reciprocity. If you can convince a court (and ultimately the Supremes) that no state can limit concealed carry at all, including requiring a license, then the constitutional status of the right demands that no state can regulate concealed carry.

BUT, if any given regulation can be justified under the Bruen framework (and Bruen makes it clear that some limits are permissible), then the states are free to regulate within those limits, and the feds can't force the states to honor another's rules within its borders. So, if NY's regulations are consistent with the Constiutution (as described by Bruen), but Texas' regulations are less strict, then NY is free to enforce its regulations within its borders.

This is fundamental to our constitutional framework. The states are free to regulate themselves as they see fit AS LONG AS those regulations are consistent with the constitution. Within the constitutional guarantees, the states may act as they wish.

Reproductive rights are the example on the other side of the ideological spectrum. After reversing Roe, the states are now free to regulate abortion more strictly. Many here are glad this is true, and would not advocate that Texas should have to "honor" NY's laws about abortion. The several states are free to regulate as they see fit, subject to the requirements of the Constitution.

If a woman can travel from TX to CA and have an abortion and not be in danger from either state why shouldn’t I be able to travel to a 2A hostile state and not have my home states papers honored, of an enumerated right. Even temporarily. I’m starting to feel some interstate commerce clause stuff is starting to come into play if some of my rights are restricted while travelling and engaging in commerce.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
But the 2A is in the constitution. All the other examples even marriage licensss (which were not standardised till the 1800’s) are not.

I’m not asking CA to recognise my FL driver license if I move there and take up permanent residency. Only to recognise my FL CCW for a short period while travelling though. Just like they would driver license or even my car that only has a rear FL license plate. FL does not issue front plates. If I drive to CA and they require front and rear plate and I’m there less than the 30 or 90 or whatever days to establish residency. I’m just suggesting that on a temporary basis if I’m travelling through a hostile state they recognise my home state paperwork. And I’d be safe from arrest for merely having a concealed weapon on my person.

That doesn't really bear on reciprocity. If you can convince a court (and ultimately the Supremes) that no state can limit concealed carry at all, including requiring a license, then the constitutional status of the right demands that no state can regulate concealed carry.

BUT, if any given regulation can be justified under the Bruen framework (and Bruen makes it clear that some limits are permissible), then the states are free to regulate within those limits, and the feds can't force the states to honor another's rules within its borders. So, if NY's regulations are consistent with the Constiutution (as described by Bruen), but Texas' regulations are less strict, then NY is free to enforce its regulations within its borders.

This is fundamental to our constitutional framework. The states are free to regulate themselves as they see fit AS LONG AS those regulations are consistent with the constitution. Within the constitutional guarantees, the states may act as they wish.

Reproductive rights are the example on the other side of the ideological spectrum. After reversing Roe, the states are now free to regulate abortion more strictly. Many here are glad this is true, and would not advocate that Texas should have to "honor" NY's laws about abortion. The several states are free to regulate as they see fit, subject to the requirements of the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
This is correct. Most of us are probably Federalists (meaning we think the feds should stay in their lane). We shouldn't abandon our Federalism just because we like this particular override of States' authority.

All of our constitutional rights can be regulated to some degree, under some circumstances. Even our right to free speech is not completely unregulated. And that regulation is pursuant to the general police power of the States, which is the power to regulate for health, safety and welfare. And that is a STATE power, not a federal power. There is no general federal police power. (But the feds pervert the power to regulate commerce to find a de facto police power.) We shouldn't allow a usurpation of the States' police power just because we like the result. Because we won't like the next result. And the one after that.

Dang. It probably wasn’t happening anyway, but you had to go and ruin it with logic. Sigh…

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
If a woman can travel from TX to CA and have an abortion and not be in danger from either state why shouldn’t I be able to travel to a 2A hostile state and not have my home states papers honored, of an enumerated right.

You don't seem to realize that your example is counter to your position. But your example shows that the states can regulate withing their borders, consistent with the constitutional limits. So if you want to do something one state regulates, you must go to another. To get an abortion, or to carry a gun without a license. Just for examples.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

(And your marriage license isn't valid elsewhere. Try getting married in Alabama with a Mississippi license. It is your already existing marriage that is valid and which cannot be nullified in another state.)

Hmm We got married in HI, I had a KY license, the Wife a CA license, does this mean we aren't married in the eyes of the state of FL we live in today? Am I now a free man? no of course not...

Then again our minister was also a plumber on Maui so we might be licensed to fix plumbing in HI and not married....

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
And almost all of the Bill of Rights rights are couched in absolute terms. Free speech, for example. Still, you can't slander. You can't threaten murder, you can't tell top secret military information to the Russians. If it were an absolute right, you could do those things.

There are limits on the 2A, too. No grenades. No 105mm howitzers. No pistols at the courthouse. These restrictions must pass various degrees of legal scrutinty, but no one serious claims there are no limits on the 2A right, just as no one claims there are no limits on freedom of religion.

Eh, I think our early history defends the idea that the 2nd protects explosives, cannons, machine guns etc.

There were always storage restrictions (Colonial limits on the size of stockpiles of black powder in town, etc)

Similar to restrictions on WMDs - too hard to prevent storage errors from wiping out society.

IOW, I think it would be entirely defensible to say that keeping a 105mm howitzer ready to fire, in Manhattan, is an unreasonable way to defend your 400 sq ft apt.

Furthermore, I could see urban areas imposing ammunition and caliber restrictions - a 50 BMG with AP rounds is also grossly irresponsible to use in a dense urban environment/at least to keep in a ready to fire condition.

(I think an interesting area to explore would be that the 2nd is intended to arm the populace against the government - which leads to protecting a very different type of weapon than ones meant to permit people to defend themselves and their property. IE, a sawed off shotgun might be the arm most suited, purely, to the defense of self, and a long-range rifle the most purely aimed at the defense of liberty.)

But, it is a right, and traditionally, the state is required to permit the expression of a right as much as possible.

quote:

(I think an interesting area to explore would be that the 2nd is intended to arm the populace against the government - which leads to protecting a very different type of weapon than ones meant to permit people to defend themselves and their property. IE, a sawed off shotgun might be the arm most suited, purely, to the defense of self, and a long-range rifle the most purely aimed at the defense of liberty.)

ohh then ownership of a real operational tank with ammo would be good.....

Most likely. Privately held ships loaded with canon was quite normal. As were privately owned artillery.

That, in most ways, we have fewer rights to be armed than the colonists did under George III, makes it an interesting place to argue.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
And almost all of the Bill of Rights rights are couched in absolute terms. Free speech, for example. Still, you can't slander. You can't threaten murder, you can't tell top secret military information to the Russians. If it were an absolute right, you could do those things.

There are limits on the 2A, too. No grenades. No 105mm howitzers. No pistols at the courthouse. These restrictions must pass various degrees of legal scrutinty, but no one serious claims there are no limits on the 2A right, just as no one claims there are no limits on freedom of religion.

Eh, I think our early history defends the idea that the 2nd protects explosives, cannons, machine guns etc.

There were always storage restrictions (Colonial limits on the size of stockpiles of black powder in town, etc)

Similar to restrictions on WMDs - too hard to prevent storage errors from wiping out society.

IOW, I think it would be entirely defensible to say that keeping a 105mm howitzer ready to fire, in Manhattan, is an unreasonable way to defend your 400 sq ft apt.

Furthermore, I could see urban areas imposing ammunition and caliber restrictions - a 50 BMG with AP rounds is also grossly irresponsible to use in a dense urban environment/at least to keep in a ready to fire condition.

(I think an interesting area to explore would be that the 2nd is intended to arm the populace against the government - which leads to protecting a very different type of weapon than ones meant to permit people to defend themselves and their property. IE, a sawed off shotgun might be the arm most suited, purely, to the defense of self, and a long-range rifle the most purely aimed at the defense of liberty.)

But, it is a right, and traditionally, the state is required to permit the expression of a right as much as possible.

Bruen describes the framework of the analysis for whether any particular limit on the 2A is permitted. It is new law, so it is not very well developed. But the conceptual framework is there. Interestingly, it is not similar to the framework used in other contexts.

You can't talk about this subject intelligently without knowing the Bruen standard.

I will read the decision when I have time.

Does this seem like a reasonable summation:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...ealed-carry-licenses

Far and away, the historical restrictions were meant for blacks/immigrants/poor whites.

Bruen seems to pretty clearly require shall issue/constitutional carry, but I don’t think it addressed the second prong of the intent to arm the populace against the government.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:

Eh, I think our early history defends the idea that the 2nd protects explosives, cannons, machine guns etc.

"All the terrible implements of the soldier" are the exact words of Tench Coxe, and he was one of the founders.