Look at it this way, do you think it’s up to the states to set their own rules on slavery? Or search and seizure?
4moreDubya
September 14, 2011
Comment to House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
[States have powers to set their own tax rates, build (or not build) roads, license businesses, and many other things. States have not been given the power to infringe upon specific enumerated or natural rights. Some people just don’t grasp the difference between exercising powers granted to them and infringing upon rights specifically protected. Some people just aren’t very bright.—Joe]
Speech codes? Religious observance? Protest restrictions?
What if other states decided not to recognize your driver’s license?
Really though, we shouldn’t need a permit to exercise a right, so I’m more than a little dubious on this one. I don’t recognize any right to license any activity. I’m not being morally consistent when I renew my driver’s license. I just do it because it’s cheap and easy compared to the alternative of being killed (they’d try to haul me off to jail for driving and then I’d have to defend myself and eventually I’d be killed for that). I’m making a cost/benefit judgment.
It’s not a bad bill, but it is limited. It won’t work if you are visiting IL, for example, because there is no legal carry of any kind in IL (unless you are on your own property) and the bill stipulates you have to carry legally within state law.
Just to address his specific examples…
Until the 13th amendment the states were somewhat free to set policy on slavery. I say somewhat because of the various laws and compromises made in the run-up to the Civil War about the issue.
Until the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states, yes, they were allowed to set their own rules on search and seizure.
Full faith and credit has gotten very short shrift for far too long.