{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/27/2015 6:35:47 PM
5
So, this is just a matter of licenses being uniform/recognized/accepted between States?
Works for drivers licenses. Even though driving laws and licensing requirements are different between the states, each state must accept the fact that a license issued by another state makes the individual a valid driver within their state. Even if there's a difference in requirements or other details. This is based on the "equal protection" aspect of the 14th Amendment.
Now works for marriage licenses too. Each state must allow for issuance, and each state must respect, honor and recognize the licenses from all other states, even if the terms and laws of other states are different. This is also based on the "equal protection" aspect of the 14th Amendment.
What about my license to carry a concealed weapon/firearm? The laws between the states vary, but in my state, I can apply for and obtain a license. Does/should it become invalid when I go to another state that has different laws and requirements? Or should it be respected, honored and recognized no matter what state I visit? Not only would that comply with the "equal protection" aspect of the 14th Amendment, it would also comply with the "keep and bear" aspect of the 2nd.
Emotions aside (no really, TRY putting them aside), is there a problem or flaw in this reasoning?
-
An interesting take on the recent ruling. Sort of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation, especially with the inclusion of both the Second and Fourteenth being factors in "making sure that personal freedoms are not to be denied by any state". http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html It would certainly make the issue of state-to-state reciprocity agreements a lot less complicated, though I would imagine that many cities, counties and states would object that they "have the right to write legislation that protects their citizens and complies with the wishes of their own states citizenry". Which is the same argument used by states (and overturned by the Court) who passed laws restricting or prohibiting same-sex marriage. The recent decision increased freedom and recognized the rights of the people, and so it very well may be a foundation for many other challenges to existing laws and status-quo. It will be interesting to see if such cases are brought up and how they are handled.
