RW>RW>As long as a TX CCW holder follows CA carry law I would
RW>RW>think it would work.  Imagine if New York City said
RW>RW>that it would no longer honor drivers license issued
RW>RW>from any other state or city the way they do for CCWs.
RW>DR>    FYI, the FF&C clause has nothing to do with driver's
RW>DR> licenses at all.  That is done through the Driver's License
RW>DR> Compact laws in all the states.
RW>That right I did :(.  DL, along with most other license
RW>issued by the states, are not "public acts, records, or
RW>judicial proceedings" but if you read on you find
RW>"Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in
RW>which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be
RW>proved, and the effect thereof."  From my reading the
RW>Congress could pass a law stating that CCW are records
RW>that are now covered by the FF&C clause (along with all
RW>other state issued licenses.).
DR>    Congress may well try.  But it will be in contravention
DR> to the  federal court edicts on the subject. 
I don't see how.  According to my copy of the
Constitution it would be perfectly legal.  I quote
Article IV, Section 1:
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to
the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every other state. And the Congress may by general laws
prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Therefore if the Congress prescribes by general law
that CCW are public acts that will and must be given
full faith and credit they would have to be.  I don't
see how any court could claim other wise when it is
written right in the Constitution.
DR>    Congress, hopefully, isn't that stupid to once again
DR> trample the  Constitution with the mood the country is in so
DR> I don't see this  happening any time in the near future,
I don't see it happening any time soon either but I
can't see how it could be considered trampling the
Constitution if they did.
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------