Why do states all honor my non-Constitutional privileges?

[Purplehood]

In response to another thread, I noticed a blogger made the following statement:

They have to honor my drivers license, they have to honor my marriage license. They should have to honor my carry permit!

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Isn't there an amendment in the Constitution that pretty-much makes it mandatory for all states and the DofC to honor my DL, Marriage and Divorce certificates?

If so, why doesn't my Constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment (not mere privilege) have the same standing?

[The Annoyed Man]

In response to another thread, I noticed a blogger made the following statement:

They have to honor my drivers license, they have to honor my marriage license. They should have to honor my carry permit!

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Isn't there an amendment in the Constitution that pretty-much makes it mandatory for all states and the DofC to honor my DL, Marriage and Divorce certificates?

If so, why doesn't my Constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment (not mere privilege) have the same standing?

That may well become the eventual product of the 2nd being incorporated under the 14th (McDonald), might it not?


[edited to correct spelling]

[flb_78]

Is there a law that says they have to recognize those licenses?

Isn't one of the fights about gay marriage that most states won't honor that license?

I don't believe they're required to honor those licenses, they just do.

[chasfm11]

In response to another thread, I noticed a blogger made the following statement:

They have to honor my drivers license, they have to honor my marriage license. They should have to honor my carry permit!

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Isn't there an amendment in the Constitution that pretty-much makes it mandatory for all states and the DofC to honor my DL, Marriage and Divorce certificates?

If so, why doesn't my Constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment (not mere privilege) have the same standing?

...because the State chooses to treat them all as privileges. There was a news report the other night about a same sex married couple (from Maine, I think) not being recognized here in Texas.

If you look inside the DL manual, I'm pretty sure that one of the first statements that it makes is that driving is a privilege and the State can and will take it away from you under the right circumstances.

I also suspect that it is a very long jump for Progressives who might grudging acknowledge your right to have a gun to agree that you should be able to carry it, too. One of them reminded me that the word was "keep" not "carry". They can be very literal when it suits their purpose.

[Oldgringo]

Good question!

Our moving experiences have been that the new state of residency requires you to obtain their DL within 30 days of residency. I never checked on the marriage license thing....hmmm?

[Texas Dan Mosby]

One of them reminded me that the word was "keep" not "carry". They can be very literal when it suits their purpose.

....except when they get to the word "bear".

[OldCannon]

They don't "have to" honor marriage licenses or drivers licenses. States do by virtue of reciprocity agreements (but just watch two married guys from CA try to claim they're married after moving to Texas and see how far that reciprocity goes). If all states could find a common ground regarding CCW, I'm sure it would work out, but we'd have to throw California, New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii out of the union first.

Hmm...that doesn't sound like such a bad idea

CCW reciprocity is difficult even from state to state. In TX, you can be 18 and have a CCW. In Washington, you can't. Does that mean that a 19-yo Texan in Seattle has more privileges than a 19-yo Seattle resident? That's hardly fair.

Reciprocity isn't easy, but it's been getting easier.

[i8godzilla]

The Proposed Amendment:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07 ... amendment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two RINOs short of passage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02893.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cannot wait to see what happens in the upcoming Congressional Lame Duck Session

[Ashlar]

Mixed bag there.. I think you're thinking of the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith ... dit_Clause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Driver's licenses are reciprocal due in large part to the "Driver's License Compact", which was superseded by the "Driver's License Agreement". It also had the side effect of normalizing a lot of requirements surrounding licensing and suspension / revocation.

Marriage licenses are reciprocal not because of the Full Faith and Credit clause, but by agreement. No court has held that marriage licenses must be reciprocated. When interracial marriage was outlawed in some states, those states didn't honor interracial marriages from other states.

[jester]

CCW reciprocity is difficult even from state to state. In TX, you can be 18 and have a CCW. In Washington, you can't. Does that mean that a 19-yo Texan in Seattle has more privileges than a 19-yo Seattle resident?

WA doesn't recognize a Texas CHL.

[OldCannon]

CCW reciprocity is difficult even from state to state. In TX, you can be 18 and have a CCW. In Washington, you can't. Does that mean that a 19-yo Texan in Seattle has more privileges than a 19-yo Seattle resident?

WA doesn't recognize a Texas CHL.

Yes, that was my point. In TX, you can have a CHL at 18 if you are a member or veteran of armed forces (etc, etc.). In WA, it's 21. Period. I was using this to emphasize the difficulty of reciprocity agreements for CCW.

[Purplehood]

In response to another thread, I noticed a blogger made the following statement:

They have to honor my drivers license, they have to honor my marriage license. They should have to honor my carry permit!

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Isn't there an amendment in the Constitution that pretty-much makes it mandatory for all states and the DofC to honor my DL, Marriage and Divorce certificates?

If so, why doesn't my Constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment (not mere privilege) have the same standing?

...because the State chooses to treat them all as privileges. There was a news report the other night about a same sex married couple (from Maine, I think) not being recognized here in Texas.

If you look inside the DL manual, I'm pretty sure that one of the first statements that it makes is that driving is a privilege and the State can and will take it away from you under the right circumstances.

I also suspect that it is a very long jump for Progressives who might grudging acknowledge your right to have a gun to agree that you should be able to carry it, too. One of them reminded me that the word was "keep" not "carry". They can be very literal when it suits their purpose.

That is exactly my point. I seem to recall that one of the Constitutional amendments imply that the States recognize one anothers Drivers Licenses and Marriages and other things. I don't see either of those things enshrined as a right in the Constitution.
Yet my 2nd Amendment right has been so eroded over the last few centuries that both the public and our elected-officials seem to think that it is something that they can give and take away from at will and treat differently from state to state.

It ain't a privilege, it is a right.

[jimlongley]

It wasn't too long ago that not all states recognized each others' drivers' licenses. Even when I was a teenager, you could obtain a drivers' license in some states as early as age 14, but NY State did not recognize those licenses. One of the kids I went to junior high school with spent a summer with relatives in one of those states (vaguely I recall NM) and got a license while there. Got caught in NY riding a motorcycle, and was convicted of driving without a license, which, in NY back then, meant that you couldn't get a NY license for several years.

Similarly for motor vehicle registrations. I don't recall which state now, but if your vehicle was licensed in that state, in order to drive it in NY, you had to obtain a sticker from the DMV.

This has all changed over the years, but mainly due to legislative wrangling and lawsuits, not because of Constitutionality.

When my late wife was trying to divorce her first, very abusive, husband, she discovered that: A) NY would not allow her to divorce him: 1) because she was under 21 and her parents had consented to her marriage, therefore she was essentially his property, and; 2) The only grounds for divorce in NY at the time were adultery, and NY was so tough on proof that the adultery, almost literally, had to happen in front of the judge, and even then she still had to be over 21 or have a legal guardian other then her parents. (Nelson Rockefeller got this changed in 1962 so he could divorce Mary and marry Happy. He was the only one commiting adultery and that wasn't grounds for him to divorce Mary, and she wasn't about to divorce him)

And; B) She could not divorce him in Nevada or Mexico, because NY did not recognize divorces under their laws, among others, and in NY she could be arrested for adultery if she obtained a divorce there and then returned to NY and even so much as kissed another man.

We used to have such interesting laws.

None of the changes since have been under the 14th Amenment, that I know of anyway, so incorporation of the 2nd under the 14th, may have more power than interstate agreements or lower court judicial rulings, those could change at any minute.

[Kythas]

That is exactly my point. I seem to recall that one of the Constitutional amendments imply that the States recognize one anothers Drivers Licenses and Marriages and other things. I don't see either of those things enshrined as a right in the Constitution.
Yet my 2nd Amendment right has been so eroded over the last few centuries that both the public and our elected-officials seem to think that it is something that they can give and take away from at will and treat differently from state to state.

It ain't a privilege, it is a right.

Just want to make a small, anal-retentive point here.

You don't have a 2nd Amendment right. You have an inalienable right recognized and guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

The Amendment in and of itself doesn't grant you anything.

I think a lot of people lose sight of this idea when they speak of Constitutional Rights, and it's exactly what the statists want us to do. They want us to get into the mindset that the Constitution grants us rights; after all, if the Constitution (and, by extension, the government) grants rights, then those rights can be taken away.

We all have to keep in mind that these are inalienable rights, endowed to us by our Creator, and the Constitution merely recognizes that fact. The Constitution itself grants us nothing but a recognition that these rights, among others, exist and government can not take them from us - unless we allow it to, that is.

[Ashlar]

Good point, Kythas.

See US v Cruikshank- "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."