[size=3]Whats the deal here?
They do with marriage & drivers licence. Why not CCW?

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.

Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.[/size=3]

No real surprise there.  As the record stands, pubic officials couldn't care less if the laws they pass are Constitutional or not!  They are only interested in their own agendas, and what they perceive as "the public good".  The Framers of the Constitution warned about this in various writings.

They CHOOSE to disregard it if it doesn't suit their agenda!

[blue]
Minuteman2k nailed it.
They don't care about us or our
"Rights".  They will do anything
they can to divide and conquer.
Why do think you have say what
you are on thier form ie;
what race, religion age etc.
They will also make as many
criminals out of us as they can.
Can't vote, own weapons etc.

Hold Hard[/blue]

Minuteman2K and Bluelky, your tinfoil hats are on wayyyyy toooo tight.

Ripmeyer, just exactly how far would you extend the FFC and P&I clauses?  If you are a person who beleives in states' rights, then think about the logical extension of liberal reading of those clauses.  Suppose Hawaii decides, as is well within their right, to condone gay marriage.  Two gays marry.  One dies, without a will.  The other stands to inherit a bunch of stuff in another state.  That other state does not recognize gay marriage.  What happens?

Here's another one:  Imagine you're busted in State 1, and leave to State 2.  You live a perfectly legal existence in State 2.  As it is today, they can't enforce criminal judicial proceedings from another state.  Would you change that?

Have you ever compiled a list of just what are the P&Is?

It's pretty tricky.

The Slaughterhouse cases disposed of many of these questions, if you want to look it up.

HTH and good luck.

Cible

State's rights are clear in the Constitution.  If two gays are married legally in State A and move and take up residency in State B, then State B would have to recognize the validity of the marriage whether they allow gay marriage or not.  The Constitution was founded on principles of morals and responsibility, and those who are immoral and irresponsible are protected by it as well.  There are always those who will abuse the System.  We don't have to agree with their actions, but we can't apply the law to only some.  Power not enumerated in the Constitution are delegated to the States or to the People.  That is why some states refuse to rule on it.  

As far as your second argument, this is covered in the Constitution under Article IV section 2:
[i]A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.[/i]
I think that explains itself.

If you KNOW what the Constitution says, then you can question the validity of some laws!

Drivers Licenses are recognized between states because the States have signed an Interstate Compact agreeing to recognize each others licenses, not because of that quoted section of the Constitution.

Minuteman2K;

The marriage might be recognized, but why?  Can a state not ban gay marriage?  I think that they can, so far.  So if the gays are married in Hawaii, but move to Colorado (assuming Colorado passes a ban on gay marriage).  Who wins? Is marriage a privilege?  An immunity?  Neither is clear in the Constitution.

As to part 2, I probably should have been clearer.  It does, as you assert, explain itself.  The key word is [i]jurisdiction[/i].  Do my P&Is change with changing jurisdictions?  I think that they do.  Anyways, you are referring to extradition.  I was referring to enforcement, i.e. going to jail in State #2 for a crime committed in, and adjudicated in, State #1.  Maybe a better example is a professional license.  I assume you're OK with licensing MDs, or real estate agents.  Should a MD or a real estate agent licensed in one state automatically be allowed to practice anywhere?  I say not no but HELL NO.  Do not the states have rights, those not enumerated in the Constitution, to exercise the police power as they see fit within their own borders?  I think they do.