All this does is allow Congress to issue a law that says how a “public Act”, “record”, or “judicial Proceeding” shall be proved, and what the effect of proving them is. It does NOT authorize Congress to force a state to pass a law saying that the Act or Record or Proceeding result MUST be accepted by the other states. The extent to which a state MUST accept such an Act, record or Proceeding result is contained in the meaning of the words “Full Faith and Credit”.
Sorry, stupid edit limit forces this into a new post.
So, for example:
I get divorced. I live at the time of the divorce in California; I own property in Michigan. The court in California decrees that the property in Michigan become the property of my wife.
The FF&C clause may require that Michigan honor that decision, and force the county in Michigan to record a deed for the property in my ex-wife’s name. IF the FF&C clause does indeed require Michigan to do that (and please let’s avoid debate about the question of what the FF&C clause can force states to do), then Congress can certainly pass the Property of Divorced People’s Recording Act (PODPRA), establishing what it is my ex-wife needs to do to get Michigan to record the new deed, and could even limit if they wanted the effect of such proof (for example, allowing such proof to satisfy FF&C concerns only vis-a-vis each of us, but not as to third-party mortgage holders, or some such thing).
I believe that this is what federal child-support legislation hangs its hat on.
How does “effect of proving them” differ from “shall provide the same rights and privileges as if issued by the resident State”.
IANAL, so I’m not sure what you mean by the meaning of “Full Faith and Credit”. What do the Supremes say it means?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/014.pdf
Enjoy! 
Um, in answer to your question, the Court has not fully addressed the issue of the extent of Congress’ power to “prescribe … the effect thereof.” Indeed, I can think of no cases directly on that point.
I’m well-known in the gun control threads on this board for being pro-gun, and I’m a licensed CCW holder, and I opposed this bill. I don’t want people from other States where they may have much weaker CCW licensing to be given the same rights to carry in public as I do. What the hell is wrong with the current State-decided reciprocity system?
I just think it’s a good idea to cut all the red tape surrounding gun laws in America. Any lawfully-licensed permit holder from any state is statistically very, very unlikely to commit violent crime. Give me a list of murders and armed robberies committed by carry-permit holders - a real list, not two or three incidents - in the past 10 or 20 years.
The proceedings regarding the Bill That Does Nothing But Maintain the Status Quo don’t allow for any gratuitous political grandstanding. That’s what’s wrong with the current system.
First off, I don’t need to provide such a list - not only have I successfully argued that CCW holders are a safe and law-abiding population, I’ve done the actual research and argued with Cecil himself over the subject. I didn’t convince him 100%, but I did get him to
Second, this does very little to reduce red tape - every CCW holder going to another State would need to know ALL of the CCW-related ordinances and regulations, and that can end up being quite a lengthy list of rules, exceptions, restrictions, and gotchas.
Third…dude, this is so not the fight gun owners and those who still believe in lawful self-defense should be fighting right now. We got demonized enough over the fairiy innocuous CCW in parks law (“ZOMG! They’re going to KILL SMOKEY THE BEAR!”) already.
…that should be “consider other viewpoints.”
Well, look; you don’t need a driver’s license for every state in the union; why should it be different with a CC permit? Cars are much more dangerous than guns, and more common as well.
A worthy comparison, but not completely parallel. I’m usually on your side in these threads, but I really do think there are too many problems with this proposed law, even setting aside the States rights issues.
Well, you know what? I’ll agree to your interpretation of this law, and I’ll oppose the idea of national universal concealed carry on the grounds of states rights - if the government abolishes the 1992 federal import ban, which bans all rifles not having a “sporting purpose” from being imported from Europe (a ban which was pushed through by Republicans George H Bush and Bob Dole). If an individual state can decide not honor another state’s carry permit, then an individual state can decide that in that state it’s okay to import thousands of SIG 550s and AMTs and semi-auto-only AK-47s and Soviet SVD rifles from Europe.
Totally irrelevant, and you know it. You were better off with the drivers’ license analogy. 
Not irrelevant at all. If a state has the right to reject a permit granted by another state, it has the right to allow certain kinds of guns to be imported.
No that’s not what you are equating. You are saying If a state has the right to reject a permit granted by another state, it has the right to ignore federal gun import laws. I don’t see the equivalency.
The import ban was as silly and ignorant as the 1986 bans, but I’m not sure that States rights has ever been used to over-ride the Federal government’s control over imports/exports with other countries. I believe there was a Supreme Court case where California tried to prevent agricultural imports in a trade dispute and ultimately was prevented from doing so…but either my Search skills fail me, or else I’m thinking of something else.
Alright, I guess it’s a bad analogy. Still, I don’t see why we can’t have bills that give us more rights instead of the opposite.
I’d like to see the States get together more to establish a better “least common denominator” to allow reciprocity on a much, much wider scale than we have now. That would be the next best thing. But then again, that might not be possible - everyone has their specific wants and needs, and the same applies to States. Shoot, if I was elected Evil Empress of the US, I reckon my ideas on firearms ownership and use would offend both anti and pro-gun people.
On the one hand, the fact that some reciprocity exists is one good reason that the amendment in question was a bad idea. Federal legislation isn’t needed to deal with things that states are dealing with. By the way, that’s usually the mantra of those on the “right”, and it’s annoying when that belief gets shunted to the side when the federal action in question happens to be the darling of those on the “right.”
On the other hand, one has to concede that the concerns of a state like Wyoming, for example, which has no significant urban area and a relatively low population, would be much different from the concerns of California, which has huge urban areas, massive population, and proximity to a border that is barely under control. We can argue what those differences actually mean in terms of controlling permits for concealed carry (:p), but they will be different concerns.
California was barred from blocking agricultural imports from other U.S. states. I’m unsure of the cite but sure of the substantive content of the decision, which is of course not on point as regards international import/export policy.