-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Full faith and credit
- Thread starter xiphoris
- Start date
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
It doesn't apply to the laws of each of the states (which CC laws are) so much as to court rulings.
***According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.***
***If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy***
IOW, if a court decision is based on say, a civil Rights violation, it would apply to citizens in every state....on the other hand, if the decision was based on a state law, it may not apply to citizens of other states.
Edit to remove useless hyperlink
It doesn't apply to the laws of each of the states (which CC laws are) so much as to court rulings.
***According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.***
***If the legal pronouncements of one state conflict with the public policy of another state, federal courts in the past have been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state in contravention of its own public policy***
IOW, if a court decision is based on say, a civil Rights violation, it would apply to citizens in every state....on the other hand, if the decision was based on a state law, it may not apply to citizens of other states.
Edit to remove useless hyperlink
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
The issue of state police powers overrides the FF&C with respect to "public safety and welfare." Some argue--incorrectly, that the Privilege and Immunity clause should apply. Again, state police powers trump that with respect to firearm laws. FF&C, as stated, applies to court rulings, primarily. While drivers/pilots licenses are applied under Federal constructs, fishing licenses are not. If a Federal ruling is applied to one state, it is applied to all. But state statutes don't work that way. And history shows repeated conflicts among the states resolved by the Feds. Once resolved, the FF&C generally applies.
The issue of state police powers overrides the FF&C with respect to "public safety and welfare." Some argue--incorrectly, that the Privilege and Immunity clause should apply. Again, state police powers trump that with respect to firearm laws. FF&C, as stated, applies to court rulings, primarily. While drivers/pilots licenses are applied under Federal constructs, fishing licenses are not. If a Federal ruling is applied to one state, it is applied to all. But state statutes don't work that way. And history shows repeated conflicts among the states resolved by the Feds. Once resolved, the FF&C generally applies.
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
If FFC applied to handgun laws, it would be a two-way street. If it were recognized so that a Texan with a CHL could carry his handgun in Chicago, then it would be illegal for a Chicagoan to so much as touch a single round of ammunition while in Texas.
In short, "full faith and credit" doesn't mean what most people think it means.
If FFC applied to handgun laws, it would be a two-way street. If it were recognized so that a Texan with a CHL could carry his handgun in Chicago, then it would be illegal for a Chicagoan to so much as touch a single round of ammunition while in Texas.
In short, "full faith and credit" doesn't mean what most people think it means.
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
KBCraig wrote:
Your "Texan, Chicago" example couldn't happen if FF&C applied.....
KBCraig wrote:
....then handgun laws would be uniform in all states.
Your "Texan, Chicago" example couldn't happen if FF&C applied.....
Phoenixphire
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Comp-tech wrote:
Nah... Full Faith and Credit has nothing to do with laws themselves. It means that one State chooses to accept the granting of lawful authority by another State as though it was granted by their own. Lawful authority means you are permitted to take action that would be otherwise unlawful.
This applies to many different areas. Driving, the practice of law and medicine, permit to carry a firearm, etc.
In short, FFC applies in matters of granting exceptions to law, not overriding the law.
Comp-tech wrote:
Nah... Full Faith and Credit has nothing to do with laws themselves. It means that one State chooses to accept the granting of lawful authority by another State as though it was granted by their own. Lawful authority means you are permitted to take action that would be otherwise unlawful.
This applies to many different areas. Driving, the practice of law and medicine, permit to carry a firearm, etc.
In short, FFC applies in matters of granting exceptions to law, not overriding the law.
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
Phoenixphire wrote:
Nah?....did you bother reading any of the posts other than the one you replied to?
KBCraig wrote: If FFC applied to handgun laws
I responded to KBCraig with...
....then handgun laws would be uniform in all states.
You're off base on your understanding of FF&C...it has little to do with a state "choosing" to accept lawful authority of another states laws.
Driving, the practice of law and medicine and carry permits are an entirely different matter from FF&C. If FF&C applied to drivers licenses and carry permits, traffic laws and carry laws would have to be uniform in all states...."we all know that ain't so".
Please read Gunslingers post above.....he sums it up pretty well.
*** If a Federal ruling is applied to one state, it is applied to all. But state statutes don't work that way***
That is FF&C
Phoenixphire wrote:
Nah?....did you bother reading any of the posts other than the one you replied to?
KBCraig wrote: If FFC applied to handgun laws
I responded to KBCraig with...
....then handgun laws would be uniform in all states.
You're off base on your understanding of FF&C...it has little to do with a state "choosing" to accept lawful authority of another states laws.
Driving, the practice of law and medicine and carry permits are an entirely different matter from FF&C. If FF&C applied to drivers licenses and carry permits, traffic laws and carry laws would have to be uniform in all states...."we all know that ain't so".
Please read Gunslingers post above.....he sums it up pretty well.
*** If a Federal ruling is applied to one state, it is applied to all. But state statutes don't work that way***
That is FF&C
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
States' Rights don't work that way.
States' Rights don't work that way.