The 2nd Amendment clearly specifies the rights of individual citizens "to keep and bear arms". Additionally, the "full faith and credit" clause also requires other states to recognize the "official acts and records" of other states.
So, how come North Carolina grants me a CCW license to carry concealed in NC, yet Massachusetts will throw me in jail as a felon for carrying the exact same pistol and NC CCW license in Massachusetts - not recognizing either my official NC license or enumerated rights under the 2nd Amendment?
Why does the "full faith and credit" apparently not apply here when it does for a marriage license? Aren't the situations similar? Even though 38 States specifically do not recognize this sort of "marriage" under the Derense of Marriage Act, we still need an Amendment to close the circle? Is this schizophrenic or am I missing something here?
In theory, the whole US Constitution should be as applicable in state courts as in federal courts. It is, after all, the "supreme Law." However, state courts have neglected the 2nd amendment as aggressively as the federal courts.
As for your specific question about taking CCW permits across state lines, as long as the right to bear arms is not treated as a fundamental right (as intended by the Framers), then it falls into the category of privileges, like driving a car. Once that initial mistake is made, then it becomes no different than the use of different laws concerning automobiles when people drive across state lines.
Bottom line, your point is well taken. But the problem cannot be solved until the 2nd Amendment is given its rightful respect as part of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Until that happens, any federal or state courts will give short shrift to a Full Faith and Credit Clause argument as you outline it.
John / Billybob