User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 4:37:29 AM EDT
[#1]
Edited: Misread question.
I don't believe so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 4:40:40 AM EDT
[#2]
Guns are icky
But cars kill thousands each year. see how that works? no really 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 4:49:11 AM EDT
[#3]
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution
Article IV Section 1 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. No. Furthermore, Section 2 states: 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ETA: Section 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 4:50:26 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. I no attorney but why doesn't this full faith and credit clause apply to my carry permit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 4:52:29 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. I no attorney but why doesn't this full faith and credit clause apply to my carry permit? Because guns aren't popular. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 4:52:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. I no attorney but why doesn't this full faith and credit clause apply to my carry permit? Because it hasn't been brought before the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 4:59:43 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. I no attorney but why doesn't this full faith and credit clause apply to my carry permit? Because it hasn't been brought before the Supreme Court. Well we may know today whether SCOTUS takes a case that will answer part of that question. ETA: They denied certiorari today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:00:38 AM EDT
[#8]
I don't think the interstate compact has much to do with Federal dollars
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:17:29 AM EDT
[#9]
Marriage licenses are honored. No direct federal dollars there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:19:06 AM EDT
[#10]
Yes. There are licenses (nursing, medical) that states don't necessarily honor.
And there is precedent (gay marriage, CCW).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:28:42 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: I realize that a State would lose federal highway dollars but could they if they wanted refuse to recognize another State's drivers license and ticket that State's drivers for driving without a license even if the driver possessed an out of State license? Yes, they could. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:32:41 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. Furthermore, Section 2 states: 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ETA: Section 2 This does not mean what you think it means, it simply means that states have to treat valid documents from another state as legal documents. Treating my out of state driver license as a legal document does not automatically authorize me to use that legal document to operate a motor vehicle in your state, that is what the interstate compact does. Just like a hunting license, professional license, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:35:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Does the Op realize that some states already do not recognize SOME licenses issued by other states? Specifically those licenses issued to drivers under 16 years of age in some states
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:35:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
I don't think the interstate compact has much to do with Federal dollars I haven't been able to find anything in the interstate compact that actually says that we will accept other state's driver's licensees. All I've been able to find is a sharing of ticket information. I would love to be proven wrong however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:38:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Does the Op realize that some states already do not recognize SOME licenses issued by other states? Specifically those licenses issued to drivers under 16 years of age in some states I did not know this. I gre up in NJ where the driving age was 17. I have lots of friends who got PA drivers licenses when they turned 16 which were valid in NJ. Which states don't accept other State's valid licenses? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:41:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think the interstate compact has much to do with Federal dollars I haven't been able to find anything in the interstate compact that actually says that we will accept other state's driver's licensees. All I've been able to find is a sharing of ticket information. I would love to be proven wrong however. I believe it starts with item 3 http://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/AAMVA%20Driver%20License%20Agreement%20text.pdf The former " Interstate Compact" is now called the Drivers License Agreement, that document is at the link above Quoted:
I did not know this. I gre up in NJ where the driving age was 17. I have lots of friends who got PA drivers licenses when they turned 16 which were valid in NJ. Which states don't accept other State's valid licenses? As I said earlier, its not all licenses. There are a handful of states who license drivers before their 16th birthday. Those licenses are not recognized outside of the state of issuance, generally. Been a while since I've read up on that, but that's my recollection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:44:03 AM EDT
[#17]
Why do you ask this OP? Is some state trying to do something?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:45:24 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Does the Op realize that some states already do not recognize SOME licenses issued by other states? Specifically those licenses issued to drivers under 16 years of age in some states and thats all folks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:04:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would love to be proven wrong however. I believe it starts with item 3 http://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/AAMVA%20Driver%20License%20Agreement%20text.pdf Thank you |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:04:32 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. Furthermore, Section 2 states: 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ETA: Section 2 This does not mean what you think it means, it simply means that states have to treat valid documents from another state as legal documents. Treating my out of state driver license as a legal document does not automatically authorize me to use that legal document to operate a motor vehicle in your state, that is what the interstate compact does. Just like a hunting license, professional license, etc. Yup, you are right. T'was early and I wasn't considering the nuances. Consider me corrected. Although, the ability of states not recognizing each others documents and acting like their own little independent countries was what brought us the Constitution in the first place. The Articles of Confederation were not adequate. (At some level, enforcement of reciprocity at federal level is preferable to a state level piecemeal enforcement IMO concealed carry, DL, legal documents, etc. falls under that. No federally issued licenses of any sort.) Edited for clarity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:05:20 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Why do you ask this OP? Is some state trying to do something? I don't know about the OP but I would like for Texas to stop recognizing the driver's license issued by other states if the other state doesn't recognize our CHL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:13:29 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: I realize that a State would lose federal highway dollars but could they if they wanted refuse to recognize another State's drivers license and ticket that State's drivers for driving without a license even if the driver possessed an out of State license? Sure. Growing up, NYC didn't not recognize my valid NJ license since I was 17. They required 18 to drive and did not care if you had a valid license from another state. Not a license issue, but VA does not legally allow my Texas Truck to be driven on their roads due to window tint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:16:20 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. I no attorney but why doesn't this full faith and credit clause apply to my carry permit? Because it hasn't been brought before the Supreme Court. Well we may know today whether SCOTUS takes a case that will answer part of that question. ETA: They denied certiorari today. Translate for us retards, plz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:19:20 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. I no attorney but why doesn't this full faith and credit clause apply to my carry permit? Because it hasn't been brought before the Supreme Court. Well we may know today whether SCOTUS takes a case that will answer part of that question. ETA: They denied certiorari today. Translate for us retards, plz. Put their fingers in their ears and said 'We can't hear you.' |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:30:08 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Well we may know today whether SCOTUS takes a case that will answer part of that question. ETA: They denied certiorari today. Translate for us retards, plz. The court was petitioned to hear the case. They denied "cert" meaning they declined to hear the case. Usually they will do this if they think the issue is not ripe (meaning there is no disagreement between lower circut courts), or for many other reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:46:45 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip.. This does not mean what you think it means, it simply means that states have to treat valid documents from another state as legal documents. Treating my out of state driver license as a legal document does not automatically authorize me to use that legal document to operate a motor vehicle in your state, that is what the interstate compact does. Just like a hunting license, professional license, etc. Yup, you are right. T'was early and I wasn't considering the nuances. Consider me corrected. Although, the ability of states not recognizing each others documents and acting like their own little independent countries was what brought us the Constitution in the first place. The Articles of Confederation were not adequate. (At some level, enforcement at federal level is preferable to a state level piecemeal enforcement IMO concealed carry, DL, etc. falls under that.) I'm still a bit confused. It requires the states to recognize legal documents from another state. If I'm an unrestricted 16 year old driver and get pulled over in your state (that has a 17 year old driver's license requirement). They give me a ticket for speeding/head light out, etc....how can they also give a ticket for 'no driver's license'? I have a valid legal document from my state saying I can drive. Now, if they give me a ticket saying "Driving Underage" (not mentioning the license itself), I could understand it...but if they say 'you don't have a valid license' (based on the age)...I'd say that violates the Full Faith and Credit clause(s). I figure it would be the same if I could get married at 17 in my state...then move to your state (18 year age requirement)...and they cite me for 'cohabitation without marriage'...because 17 year olds can't get married in that state. AFARR |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:49:46 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Full Faith and Credit Clause in our US Constitution Article IV Section 1 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. No. I no attorney but why doesn't this full faith and credit clause apply to my carry permit? Oh, it's one of those threads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:51:31 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip.. This does not mean what you think it means, it simply means that states have to treat valid documents from another state as legal documents. Treating my out of state driver license as a legal document does not automatically authorize me to use that legal document to operate a motor vehicle in your state, that is what the interstate compact does. Just like a hunting license, professional license, etc. Yup, you are right. T'was early and I wasn't considering the nuances. Consider me corrected. Although, the ability of states not recognizing each others documents and acting like their own little independent countries was what brought us the Constitution in the first place. The Articles of Confederation were not adequate. (At some level, enforcement at federal level is preferable to a state level piecemeal enforcement IMO concealed carry, DL, etc. falls under that.) I'm still a bit confused. It requires the states to recognize legal documents from another state. If I'm an unrestricted 16 year old driver and get pulled over in your state (that has a 17 year old driver's license requirement). They give me a ticket for speeding/head light out, etc....how can they also give a ticket for 'no driver's license'? I have a valid legal document from my state saying I can drive. Now, if they give me a ticket saying "Driving Underage" (not mentioning the license itself), I could understand it...but if they say 'you don't have a valid license' (based on the age)...I'd say that violates the Full Faith and Credit clause(s). I figure it would be the same if I could get married at 17 in my state...then move to your state (18 year age requirement)...and they cite me for 'cohabitation without marriage'...because 17 year olds can't get married in that state. AFARR This is just thinking aloud, but you wouldn't have a valid license for the activity. Georgia issues learner permits at 15. Gotta have an adult over the age of 21 in the car, but you can do the driving. If Alabama doesn't recognize that learner's permit and I drive into Alabama, I do not have a valid license to drive in Alabama. So, by my thinking, an "invalid license" or even "no license" would be a reasonable ticket, because you don't have a license that would permit your activity in Alabama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 7:00:44 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
(At some level, enforcement at federal level is preferable to a state level piecemeal enforcement IMO concealed carry, DL, etc. falls under that.) You'll change your mind if the FedGov ever gets to regulate firearm carry permits. Unfortunately, by the time you figure out that you were wrong, Congress will have regulated carry permits out of the hands of most citizens. In other words, a Federally regulated system of permits will end up like NY's not like IN's. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 7:24:11 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
(At some level, enforcement at federal level is preferable to a state level piecemeal enforcement IMO concealed carry, DL, etc. falls under that.) You'll change your mind if the FedGov ever gets to regulate firearm carry permits. Unfortunately, by the time you figure out that you were wrong, Congress will have regulated carry permits out of the hands of most citizens. In other words, a Federally regulated system of permits will end up like NY's not like IN's. I don't want a national system of federal permits issued by the feds. Hell no. But nationwide reciprocity of state permits would be nice (decision at the federal level). In reality I don't even like the whole concealed permit thing. You shouldn't need a permit to carry a firearm. But it is our reality and we have to deal with the very serious legal question of how to travel through multiple states while armed. I am all for states rights, however at some point you have to have a higher level of government to get the states to all agree. There is a valid application for a federal government, albeit very limited, in the scope of enforcing cooperation among the states, defense and international affairs. Our country almost fell apart at one point because we did not have a federal government strong enough to take care of these issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 7:24:24 AM EDT
[#31]
My wife is an RN in Ohio. Some states will issue a TEMPORARY license to practice nursing to an Ohio licensee but not all. No other state allows an Ohio licensee to practice nursing without getting a temporary license to practice though.
So much for the full faith and credit clause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 7:45:41 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
(At some level, enforcement at federal level is preferable to a state level piecemeal enforcement IMO concealed carry, DL, etc. falls under that.) You'll change your mind if the FedGov ever gets to regulate firearm carry permits. Unfortunately, by the time you figure out that you were wrong, Congress will have regulated carry permits out of the hands of most citizens. In other words, a Federally regulated system of permits will end up like NY's not like IN's. I don't want a national system of federal permits issued by the feds. Hell no. But nationwide reciprocity of state permits would be nice (decision at the federal level). In reality I don't even like the whole concealed permit thing. You shouldn't need a permit to carry a firearm. But it is our reality and we have to deal with the very serious legal question of how to travel through multiple states while armed. I am all for states rights, however at some point you have to have a higher level of government to get the states to all agree. There is a valid application for a federal government, albeit very limited, in the scope of enforcing cooperation among the states, defense and international affairs. Our country almost fell apart at one point because we did not have a federal government strong enough to take care of these issues. You've missed the point. Apparently you've never paid attention to how your government works. 
Rule Number 1: What you want in the way of regulation doesn't mean shit to a tree (to borrow a phrase). It also doesn't mean anything to FedGov. If the FedGov passes a statute which requires that all states recognize carry permits from every state, it won't be long before politicians from states like NY complain that (fill in the names of many states) permit system is "too loose". After a few shootings by non-residents they will complain more loudly. Eventually the disarmers will get enough votes in Congress to enact a statute which imposes uniform regulations on the states which must be followed when issuing carry permits. Those regulations will be Progressively tightened until you won't be able to get a permit. One would hope that everyone older than 20 years of age would be on to the game by now, be able to see how the game is played and be able to foresee the outcome. One would hope in vain.
Here's a second rule you can live by: NO ONE EVER GAINED LIBERTY BY INVITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE ANY ASPECT OF THEIR LIFE. THE ONLY OUTCOME OF SUCH A MOVE IS A LOSS OF LIBERTY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 7:48:20 AM EDT
[#33]
I bet Bloomberg would like that to a city level.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 7:49:48 AM EDT
[#34]
SNIP
You've missed the point. Apparently you've never paid attention to how your government works.
Rule Number 1: What you want in the way of regulation doesn't mean shit to a tree (to borrow a phrase). It also doesn't mean anything to FedGov. If the FedGov passes a statute which requires that all states recognize carry permits from every state, it won't be long before politicians from states like NY complain that (fill in the names of many states) permit system is "too loose". After a few shootings by non-residents they will complain more loudly. Eventually the disarmers will get enough votes in Congress to enact a statute which imposes uniform regulations on the states which must be followed when issuing carry permits. Those regulations will be Progressively tightened until you won't be able to get a permit. One would hope that everyone older than 20 years of age would be on to the game by now, be able to see how the game is played and be able to foresee the outcome. One would hope in vain.
Here's a second rule you can live by: NO ONE EVER GAINED LIBERTY BY INVITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE ANY ASPECT OF THEIR LIFE. THE ONLY OUTCOME OF SUCH A MOVE IS A LOSS OF LIBERTY. [/quote] Your right. The federal government is worthless and should be disbanded. There is no logical need for it in our country. Every state should be free to coin their own money, make their own trade agreements, approve or deny all legal documents from other states, etc....We should get rid of the Constitution while we are at it. Damn Feds. Edit: spelling |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 8:07:36 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Your right. The federal government is worthless and should be disbanded. There is no logical need for it in our country. Every state should be free to coin their own money, make their own trade agreements, approve or deny all legal documents from other states, etc....We should get rid of the Constitution while we are at it. Damn Feds. Edit: spelling That's a poor attempt at a straw man, son. In case you haven't noticed, somehow the republic has endured without FedGov involvement in regulating firearm carry permits. Leaving the states free to make thier own decisions about reciprocity and leaving the citizens free from FedGov involvement in this aspect of their lives will not cause the republic to crumble. Keeping the FedGov within the narrow limits set out in the Constitution does not injure the nation. Allowing it to run amok DOES injure it - and the citizens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 8:10:51 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
SNIP You've missed the point. Apparently you've never paid attention to how your government works.
Rule Number 1: What you want in the way of regulation doesn't mean shit to a tree (to borrow a phrase). It also doesn't mean anything to FedGov. If the FedGov passes a statute which requires that all states recognize carry permits from every state, it won't be long before politicians from states like NY complain that (fill in the names of many states) permit system is "too loose". After a few shootings by non-residents they will complain more loudly. Eventually the disarmers will get enough votes in Congress to enact a statute which imposes uniform regulations on the states which must be followed when issuing carry permits. Those regulations will be Progressively tightened until you won't be able to get a permit. One would hope that everyone older than 20 years of age would be on to the game by now, be able to see how the game is played and be able to foresee the outcome. One would hope in vain.
Here's a second rule you can live by: NO ONE EVER GAINED LIBERTY BY INVITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE ANY ASPECT OF THEIR LIFE. THE ONLY OUTCOME OF SUCH A MOVE IS A LOSS OF LIBERTY. Your right. The federal government is worthless and should be disbanded. There is no logical need for it in our country. Every state should be free to coin their own money, make their own trade agreements, approve or deny all legal documents from other states, etc....We should get rid of the Constitution while we are at it. Damn Feds. Edit: spelling[/quote] Slaves would disagree with your second point but I concede that this is the rare exception to the rule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 8:10:56 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your right. The federal government is worthless and should be disbanded. There is no logical need for it in our country. Every state should be free to coin their own money, make their own trade agreements, approve or deny all legal documents from other states, etc....We should get rid of the Constitution while we are at it. Damn Feds. Edit: spelling That's a poor attempt at a straw man, son. In case you haven't noticed, somehow the republic has endured without FedGov involvement in regulating firearm carry permits. Leaving the states free to make thier own decisions about reciprocity and leaving the citizens free from FedGov involvement in this aspect of their lives will not cause the republic to crumble. Keeping the FedGov within the narrow limits set out in the Constitution does not injure the nation. Allowing it to run amok DOES injure it - and the citizens. That's because it wasn't a straw man. It was reductio ad absurdum. Almost the same, but not quite. Did you miss the part where I said this: "There is a valid application for a federal government, albeit very limited, in the scope of enforcing cooperation among the states, defense and international affairs." Or this: "In reality I don't even like the whole concealed permit thing. You shouldn't need a permit to carry a firearm." Or is reading for faggots? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2013 8:23:55 AM EDT
[#38]
I don't see why not - but then again the only valid reason would be due to different licensing requirements. I would suspect most restricted licenses might not be recognized universally.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
