An Interesting Legal Question...

[wa3ra]

With the SCOTUS ruling incorporating the Second Amendment, would not the Full Faith and Credit clause theoretically apply to firearms licenses?

Just like a marriage license, driver's license, or any other state-issued piece of paper, isn't every state supposed to recognize the licenses of every other state?

[Nullifidian]

With the SCOTUS ruling incorporating the Second Amendment, would not the Full Faith and Credit clause theoretically apply to firearms licenses?

Just like a marriage license, driver's license, or any other state-issued piece of paper, isn't every state supposed to recognize the licenses of every other state?

OMG, I think you are on to something there. We couldn't get automatic universal reciprocity before because the 2A wasn't applicable to the states until now.

[ChamberedRound]

With the SCOTUS ruling incorporating the Second Amendment, would not the Full Faith and Credit clause theoretically apply to firearms licenses?

Just like a marriage license, driver's license, or any other state-issued piece of paper, isn't every state supposed to recognize the licenses of every other state?

Technically, this is true regardless of whether it pertains to 2A issues or not. "Full faith and credit" doesn't care what the contents of the license, contract, etc. are, as it doesn't specify. However, now that the 2A has been incorporated, it makes for a stronger case.

Still, until "reasonable restrictions" are clarified, it could still be possible for states to reject reciprocity.

[Andrew17019]

I was hoping for this too, since I'm in the process of applying/receiving CCHL/LTCF in three different states. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be in the military.

[GunLawyer001]

I have a license to practice law in PA; that doesn't entitle me to practice anywhere else. The same applies for doctors, and I believe realtors, and other professions. This is true even though "earning a living" must be a fundamental liberty interest.

States recognize the drivers' licenses of other States, because the Feds attached strings to the return of tax dollars intended for highways. States recognize marriages and legal judgments issued by other States, because of the Full faith & Credit clause. States retain original jurisdiction over child custody matters, so if a 2nd State issues a conflicting order, the 1st State can ignore it; but part of that is due to a statute specifically addressing such matters. Frankly, I don't know how far "Full Faith & Credit" goes, I imagine that there's quite a bit of case law on it as people changed States and judgments followed. There may be some useful case law from the interracial marriage cases.

States have inherent police powers, and it's under those powers that they purport to regulate firearms. Now that Heller established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and McDonald incorporated that limitation and applied it to the States, I expect to see less difference between the various State laws, as the extreme anti-gun States get kicked in the nuts and are forced to repeal the worst laws; but the differences won't be eliminated, because some States will recognize far more than the minimum rights, and other States will be dragged kicking and screaming to the most restrictive level allowed by the USSC. Without uniformity of standards, I'd expect that Pennsylvania can't license someone to carry firearms in New Jersey, if New Jersey makes traffic citations "prohibiting offenses", while PA doesn't.

[Nullifidian]

Without uniformity of standards, I'd expect that Pennsylvania can't license someone to carry firearms in New Jersey, if New Jersey makes traffic citations "prohibiting offenses", while PA doesn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the judgement in this case stating that an individual may not be deprived of their RKBA without due process?

Summary offenses do not offer due process; it's just a police officer. I doubt it would stand up in court that they can strip someone of a fundamental right willy nilly without a trial or hearing.

They couldn't do it retroactively because that would be ex post facto. You can't change the sentence after the fact, and adding on "you are barred from ever owning a firearm" to traffic offenses would qualify as such I would think.

[GunLawyer001]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the judgement in this case stating that an individual may not be deprived of their RKBA without due process?

Summary offenses do not offer due process; it's just a police officer. I doubt it would stand up in court that they can strip someone of a fundamental right willy nilly without a trial or hearing.

They couldn't do it retroactively because that would be ex post facto. You can't change the sentence after the fact, and adding on "you are barred from ever owning a firearm" to traffic offenses would qualify as such I would think.

Cops issue the citations, but to be guilty you have to either plead out, or face a judge or magistrate; after that, you probably have the right to appeal to a higher court. That sounds like "due process" to me.

"Ex post facto" laws are laws that in 2010 make what you did in 2009 illegal, when it wasn't illegal in 2009. They are retroactive criminal laws. Not the same as changing the classes of prohibited persons, to include people who are already in those classes. If Congress decides to prohibit the retarded from owning guns, that applies to a 40 year old retarded man, even though he was already retarded before the law became effective. It's the same for other statuses, like "being a felon" or "being disabled vet" or "being left-handed". If the prohibition itself stands up to whatever scrutiny is applied, then the retroactivity is distinguishable from ex post facto laws. It's not punitive (we don't punish minors for being minors, we just don't let them have guns), it's a determination that some people may not safely possess guns.

We have to attack such laws on the basis that the classification is overly broad; and our burden will depend on the level of scrutiny. We couldn't win a "rational basis" test, but we might prevail under "strict scrutiny". "Intermediate scrutiny", nobody knows.

[Nullifidian]

Cops issue the citations, but to be guilty you have to either plead out, or face a judge or magistrate; after that, you probably have the right to appeal to a higher court. That sounds like "due process" to me.

"Ex post facto" laws are laws that in 2010 make what you did in 2009 illegal, when it wasn't illegal in 2009. They are retroactive criminal laws. Not the same as changing the classes of prohibited persons, to include people who are already in those classes. If Congress decides to prohibit the retarded from owning guns, that applies to a 40 year old retarded man, even though he was already retarded before the law became effective. It's the same for other statuses, like "being a felon" or "being disabled vet" or "being left-handed". If the prohibition itself stands up to whatever scrutiny is applied, then the retroactivity is distinguishable from ex post facto laws. It's not punitive (we don't punish minors for being minors, we just don't let them have guns), it's a determination that some people may not safely possess guns.

We have to attack such laws on the basis that the classification is overly broad; and our burden will depend on the level of scrutiny. We couldn't win a "rational basis" test, but we might prevail under "strict scrutiny". "Intermediate scrutiny", nobody knows.

So basically they can get away with it because they can claim that stripping someone of a fundamental right "isn't punitive"?

Wow. That sucks.

If they can do that, what's to stop them from saying that stripping someone of free speech "isn't punitive"?

[wa3ra]

This ought to keep the trial lawyers quite busy for the next few years!

[MDJschool]

"Ex post facto" laws are laws that in 2010 make what you did in 2009 illegal, when it wasn't illegal in 2009. They are retroactive criminal laws. Not the same as changing the classes of prohibited persons, to include people who are already in those classes. . . . It's not punitive (we don't punish minors for being minors, we just don't let them have guns), it's a determination that some people may not safely possess guns.

That's hogwash given that offenders may have made a different choice depending on the result of sentencing. Calling it a 'civil disability' really makes it no less penal since property and liberty interests surely are at stake, and I find it just as easy to say that 'some people may not safely be at liberty' as a reason to synthesize extra jail time which shall immediately apply to offenders even after they've already served their sentences. Where it may not be called ex post facto it surely must be attainder.

Unfortunately, GunLawyer (hopefully) only reflects a position the PA judiciary has already taken in Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 576 Pa. 365, 839 A.2d 265 (2003). What a sad read, holding, I fear, a basis for which all of our firearms and rights can be taken as a matter of 'civil disability' (they also reminded us that taking away our other forms of self-government are also not punitive.) "As noted earlier, the purpose of the GCA is not to punish felons, but to ensure firearms are kept out of the hands of unsuitable persons." When that was written, I can only guess justices had in their minds "free people who want to self-govern" as the group of unsuitable persons who shouldn't have firearms.