House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines Read more: http://www

SmarterThanYou said:
that would actually be the full faith and credit clause.
Click to expand...

i did not know that FFCC has been applied to driver's licenses. my understanding is that it is for contracts, judgments ect...not drivers licenses. how is it that states require you to get a new license when you permanently move there? i'm pretty it is under the commerce clause, perhaps dormant. i don't remember.
 
Yurt said:
i did not know that FFCC has been applied to driver's licenses. my understanding is that it is for contracts, judgments ect...not drivers licenses. how is it that states require you to get a new license when you permanently move there? i'm pretty it is under the commerce clause, perhaps dormant. i don't remember.
Click to expand...

it escapes me at the moment, but I remember reading a reason article a few years ago about it. the commerce clause was discarded because someone driving on vacation from texas to new mexico wasn't considered commerce, therefore the states were supposed to give full faith and credit to things like drivers licenses and marriage licenses.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it escapes me at the moment, but I remember reading a reason article a few years ago about it. the commerce clause was discarded because someone driving on vacation from texas to new mexico wasn't considered commerce.
Click to expand...

it is interstate travel. commerce clause effects interstate travel and thus arguably interstate commerce. i'll try and look it up.
 
Yurt said:
it is interstate travel. commerce clause effects interstate travel and thus arguably interstate commerce. i'll try and look it up.
Click to expand...

you posted this before I could finish my edit. the full faith and credit works for marriage licenses, so drivers licenses were included in the article.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you posted this before I could finish my edit. the full faith and credit works for marriage licenses, so drivers licenses were included in the article.
Click to expand...

interesting. i believe that is wrong, because a drivers license isn't a contract like a marriage license. for example, you don't need to get a new marriage license when you move to a different state. maybe it falls under both. but i don't think so, because if you have a fishing license in one state, another state does not have to recognize it.
 
Yurt said:
interesting. i believe that is wrong, because a drivers license isn't a contract like a marriage license. for example, you don't need to get a new marriage license when you move to a different state. maybe it falls under both. but i don't think so, because if you have a fishing license in one state, another state does not have to recognize it.
Click to expand...

http://etech.northern.edu/epublius/faith_&_credit.htm

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

When thinking about federalism we tend to think of it as the relationship between the national and state governments. This is sometimes referred to as “vertical federalism,” i.e. up and down. There is also what is called “horizontal federalism,” which refers to the relationships of the 50 states with each other. The “full faith and credit clause” is one way in which the Constitution facilitates this second kind of federalism. This clause essentially says that many of the public documents and acts of one state are recognized as legitimate by all other states. A clear example is that of the driver’s license. This is a public document issues by the state. But when we cross state lines we do not need another license from the second state in order to legally drive. This is because each state gives “full faith and credit” to the driver’s licenses of other states. The same goes for marriage. Among other things, marriage is a legal arrangement that is licensed by states (thus the signing of a marriage license). When married couples cross state lines they do not need to get remarried for that marriage to be recognized. This latter example shows how the full faith and credit clause has become controversial in recent years. What if one state starts to recognize same sex marriages as valid? Do all other states have to recognize this marriage? In 1996 the US Congress passed the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). This act defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as being between a man and a woman. Congress, the Constitution states, has the power to decide what shall be given full faith and credit and what won’t. The DOMA was Congress exercising this prerogative by saying same sex marriages will not be given full faith and credit. This does not mean that each state can’t recognize same sex marriages, it just means that such marriages would not be deemed valid in states which do not recognize same sex marriages.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
http://etech.northern.edu/epublius/faith_&_credit.htm

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

When thinking about federalism we tend to think of it as the relationship between the national and state governments. This is sometimes referred to as “vertical federalism,” i.e. up and down. There is also what is called “horizontal federalism,” which refers to the relationships of the 50 states with each other. The “full faith and credit clause” is one way in which the Constitution facilitates this second kind of federalism. This clause essentially says that many of the public documents and acts of one state are recognized as legitimate by all other states. A clear example is that of the driver’s license. This is a public document issues by the state. But when we cross state lines we do not need another license from the second state in order to legally drive. This is because each state gives “full faith and credit” to the driver’s licenses of other states. The same goes for marriage. Among other things, marriage is a legal arrangement that is licensed by states (thus the signing of a marriage license). When married couples cross state lines they do not need to get remarried for that marriage to be recognized. This latter example shows how the full faith and credit clause has become controversial in recent years. What if one state starts to recognize same sex marriages as valid? Do all other states have to recognize this marriage? In 1996 the US Congress passed the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). This act defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as being between a man and a woman. Congress, the Constitution states, has the power to decide what shall be given full faith and credit and what won’t. The DOMA was Congress exercising this prerogative by saying same sex marriages will not be given full faith and credit. This does not mean that each state can’t recognize same sex marriages, it just means that such marriages would not be deemed valid in states which do not recognize same sex marriages.
Click to expand...

i wonder who wrote that. i notice they didn't cite anything. they could be right, but imo, they are incorrect to compare marriage licenses with driver licenses. as i mentioned before, you do not need a new marriage license if you permanently move to a new state, unlike a drivers license, which the state requires you to obtain a new drivers license because they no longer recognize as valid the license of the other state once you permanently domicile in their state. imo, if the state has the power to no longer recognize the license, then FFCC does not apply to drivers licenses. if you have a valid judgment from another state, and then perm move to a new state, the state cannot require you to relinquish the judgment and obtain a new judgment in your new home state in order for the former judgment to be valid.
 
Yurt said:
i wonder who wrote that. i notice they didn't cite anything. they could be right, but imo, they are incorrect to compare marriage licenses with driver licenses. as i mentioned before, you do not need a new marriage license if you permanently move to a new state, unlike a drivers license, which the state requires you to obtain a new drivers license because they no longer recognize as valid the license of the other state once you permanently domicile in their state. imo, if the state has the power to no longer recognize the license, then FFCC does not apply to drivers licenses. if you have a valid judgment from another state, and then perm move to a new state, the state cannot require you to relinquish the judgment and obtain a new judgment in your new home state in order for the former judgment to be valid.
Click to expand...

the drivers license part might also have to do with some sort of permanent ID issue. even a state issued ID card isn't valid in other states if you move to another state.
 
mayors against illegal guns and the brady campaign are pulling out all the stops in campaigning against this bill. They're even retelling the 2000 Davud Hemenway report citing 'illegal defensive' gun uses. how the hell can you illegally defend your life? are there rules to saving yourself?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
mayors against illegal guns and the brady campaign are pulling out all the stops in campaigning against this bill. They're even retelling the 2000 Davud Hemenway report citing 'illegal defensive' gun uses. how the hell can you illegally defend your life? are there rules to saving yourself?
Click to expand...

technically, yes. it has to be a reasonable belief and so forth... i'm sure that is not what you mean though.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Are you suggesting that the right to carry a gun is some sort of "God-given" right?
Click to expand...
The right to protect ourselves, be it from criminals intent on harm, or whether it is from and encroaching government, is a right inherent in the condition of being human. There are those, including myself, who hold the belief that the condition of being human comes from God. Others, who do not believe in God, still believe that the condition of being human derives certain inalienable rights, and of those rights, the ability to defend our rights is an essential one.

In short, yes.
 
Yurt said:
i've countered each one. you just refuse to see the light. there is no such right. tell you what, call up a DUI attorney, they usually give free consuls, and ask them if driving is a right.

:)
Click to expand...
There are many courts which for many years have stated ownership of firearms is a collective rather than individual right. They are wrong.

The right to travel without undue encumbrance by government is a long-established right. Mix that with the fact that modern society both expects and demands long distance travel under a variety of circumstances, and we have a situation in which the factors of modern society requires the ability to drive be established as a right, instead of a "privilege".

Sometimes changes in society DO result in a change in what is perceived as a right. The measure, however, is rights should expand, rather than be curtailed as liberals are always demanding.
 
Yurt said:
i've countered each one. you just refuse to see the light. there is no such right. tell you what, call up a DUI attorney, they usually give free consuls, and ask them if driving is a right.

:)
Click to expand...

screw attorneys and their opinions. I deal with letter of the law. and you have not countered each one. link me where you've done that please.

let me ask you something.

you have the inherent right to travel, right? what power does the government have then to regulate the means with which you can travel? you either have a right to travel or you only have permission.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
screw attorneys and their opinions. I deal with letter of the law. and you have not countered each one. link me where you've done that please.

let me ask you something.

you have the inherent right to travel, right? what power does the government have then to regulate the means with which you can travel? you either have a right to travel or you only have permission.
Click to expand...

you don't have a right to drive. you can still travel without driving. i don't remember the thread, but i know we've had this discussion more than once.
 
Yurt said:
you don't have a right to drive. you can still travel without driving. i don't remember the thread, but i know we've had this discussion more than once.
Click to expand...
That is a load of crap. There are many, many places in which it is impractical to travel without use of a motor vehicle. "You can travel without driving" is nothing less than big mommy government excuse for allowing them to make us ask "Mother may I?" before exercising a basic human right. Try telling a person who lives 5 miles from their place of employment that their right to travel is not encumbered by needing a license to drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top