Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SirAllen

The Full Faith & Credit clause was primarily intended to provide for the continuity between states and enforcement across state lines of non-federal laws, civil claims and court rulings.

Without this clause, enforcement of state-to-state extradition, portability of court orders, nationwide recognition of legal status, out-of-state taxation, spousal and child support, and the collection of fees and fines would all be impossible without separate federal action, or a similar action by the other states.

A gun permit says that you have the legal right to own (and sometimes carry) a gun IN THE JURISDICTION where it is issued. If you carry the gun into another state (another jurisdiction), they won't charge you with violating the terms of the other state's permit. They will charge you with violating their state laws by carrying the gun in their jurisdiction without legal authority to do so.

The custom has been that a married couple in one jurisdiction doesn't suddenly become 'unmarried' when they cross their home state's borders. That makes a lot of sense, to be fair - the new jurisdiction doesn't mandate that they get married again.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that he feared application of the full faith and credit clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy "the structure . . . that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions."

If Scalia's dissentiing opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them.


20 posted on 07/21/2004 11:10:47 AM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: HitmanNY

Thanks for the reply.

"If Scalia's dissentiing opinion held true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal loophole allowing same-sex marriages and obliging all other states to recognize them."

If that happens, and the courts back up that argument, then won't gun/carry permits fall under the same line of reasoning? I don't see how they couldn't.


21 posted on 07/21/2004 11:26:01 AM PDT by SirAllen ("Republicans think every day is July 4th. Democrats think every day is April 15th." (RWR))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson