John Perz spoke in hushed tones to Daniel Digriz:
-> I have no problem with informal inter-state agreements to honor one
-> another's CCW licenses - but a Federal mandate is out of the question
-> State's rights are at issue there. The Federal "government" has no
-> right to so alter the sovereignty of a state. And the pragmatists
-> out there who have no notion of such things, that would be the
-> open door for more sinister interstate mandates. How, for instance,
-> would you like Texas required to honor some kooky Massachusetts
-> anti-gun law. It's bad precedent and gun-supporters should not
-> support it.
JP> Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
JP> states: 
JP> "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the
JP> public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every
JP> other State.  And the Congress may, by general laws
JP> prescribe the manner is which such acts, records, and
JP> proceedings shall be proved, AND THE EFFECT THEREOF." 
JP> Looks to me like it would be perfectly Constitutional for
JP> Congress to pass such a law.  And it wouldn't force Texans
JP> to obey some
JP> Massachusetts law while in Texas.  That's a different case
JP> entirely. 
You seem to be saying that it would not require a Texan in Texas to obey a 
Massachusetts law, but that's exactly what reciprocity is. For example, if MA 
passed a law saying that homosexual
marriages must be honored, then by such a precedent, TX must honor the 
marriages of homosexuals who go to Texas. Am I wrong?
Groetjes,
D. DiGriz
24 Julth 1996
--- FastEcho 1.30/g
---------------