Full faith and credit

[jmacgregor]

According to Article IV of the Constitution there is a mutual agreement or regard to particular proceedings between all 50 states and territories. For example, your driver's licence is valid anywhere in the US. It is recognized among every state that you have the ability to drive in an appropriate manner, abide by universal rules, and have taken some form of a test to prove so.

So tell me this...
Why, despite required weapon handling classes and such, do conceled weapons permits not adhere to this same article?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems simple enough.
jM

 

[quuen]

Maybe because certain states consider the well being and safety of the people that live in that particular state, more so than other states.

 

[jmacgregor]

If that were so then there would be far more regulations on other things due to logic and statistics alone. Perhaps some states should have their people all drive Nerf cars in consideration for the well-being and safety of the people. That would be far more beneficial to society than any of the 20,000+ existing firearm regulations.

Additionally, people have a tendency to feel "safer" when armed. If you were about to commit a crime, would you be more or less inclined to do so not knowing who is and is not armed at any given time?

Granted, there is a time and place for everything...everything includes responsibility.

Nonetheless, my question is more in regards to the consistency of the constitution and the structure which fortifies that consistency.

 

[quuen]

I think people have the tendency to feel safer when they know that the average joe cant go walking around the streets with a firearm. If people were allowed to carry guns, the death rate would be a lot higher in every state on ever corner. Personally if I carried a gun I would have been in jail a long time ago.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

I can supply a possible reason: practicality. When there is a practice that cannot be dealt with reasonably with varying state laws, federal law covers that issue. For example, copyright -- it would be impossible to have 50 different types of laws for each state. Administration would be impossible, impractical, and the interests of each state wouldn't really vary.

What might qualify better under state law? Criminal penalties. For example, would horse stealing be as much of a problem in NY as it is in TX? No, as there are far more ranches down south than in the north. Thus, states are permitted to enact their own laws for their own territories so as to use the appropriate "police power" for each state to govern its area, in the manner that the local authorities deem necessary and proper.

Driving -- this would be another difficult issue to deal with if every state required you to obtain a license to drive. It would be virtually impossible to ask someone to take a road test in every state they enter. How about the trucking business? Should we ask the drivers to take 40 road tests? The economy would come to a screeching halt.

Laws regarding weapons are more of a state matter, although I can understand an increasing desire to make this an area that would be covered more by federal protections. However, people down south might feel that they need guns more than the people up north for various reasons (I don't know... cattle thieves? ) When owning a firearm, it is not unreasonable to require the owner, who needs to obtain a permit, to know exactly what the law is in each state he carries it. The more deadly the item, the higher degree of care placed upon the licensee -- and that is not unreasonable.

In short, the constitution realizes that each state does need to have it's own "police power" to decide what is necessary to create law and order in its territory. What is necessary varies.