AWESOME!!!

[Poper]

New Hampshire resident crossed into Massachusetts w/out MA permit.
Charge is dismissed by judge!

National Right to Carry, anyone?

 

[film495]

interesting. me living in NH about 45 minutes from MA.

 

[Old Dog]

I don't think we should be getting too excited yet. But, it is still one (small) positive step forward.

 

[Speedo66]

Different judge, different set of circumstances, may have different result.

 

[Hartkopf]

Nation wide carry that somehow ends up giving us federal rules and oversight? Antis would help this along.

 

[doubleh]

Nation wide carry that somehow ends up giving us federal rules and oversight? Antis would help this along.

Oh, the feds would do it right. Suuuurrre they would.

 

[Old Dog]

Eh, if nationwide reciprocity came about with no further federal involvement other than simply mandating that all states must recognize valid licenses issued by any other state -- as are driver licenses -- it could work. But we will still have those states that basically render concealed-carry licenses useless with restrictive laws and gun-free zones. You know who you are...

 

[fastbolt]

Eh, if nationwide reciprocity came about with no further federal involvement other than simply mandating that all states must recognize valid licenses issued by any other state -- as are driver licenses -- it could work. But we will still have those states that basically render concealed-carry licenses useless with restrictive laws and gun-free zones. You know who you are...

Except the Drivers License Compact was arrived at by states deciding to get together and agreeing on it. Even so, that took a long time and went through some evolution.

 

[Old Dog]

Except the Drivers License Compact was arrived at by states deciding to get together and agreeing on it. Even so, that took a long time and went through some evolution.

Actually, no. The compact is used by its member states (45) to share driver's license information and traffic violation records with other states for legal purposes. Under the compact, crimes committed by drivers in other states can be treated as if they were committed in their home states.

Driver licensing (and marriage licensing) falls under "full faith and credit."
Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

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.

 

[fastbolt]

Actually, no. The compact is used by its member states (45) to share driver's license information and traffic violation records with other states for legal purposes. Under the compact, crimes committed by drivers in other states can be treated as if they were committed in their home states.

Driver licensing (and marriage licensing) falls under "full faith and credit."
Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

While it's nice to think to read that into the Constitution, that's not how the courts have looked at it. Yes, the DLC, and the DLA, got enough agreement to get most of the states to agree to share traffic offenses, although it isn't unanimous (because of state decisions).

It's still an interstate agreement.

Also, consider that the accepting all marriage licensing ran into some stumbling blocks when it came to same sex marriages at the various mstate levels. The Constitution didn't exactly mandate that marriage only be between opposite sexes, either. It required some further action.

 

[Poper]

The Constitution didn't exactly mandate that marriage only be between opposite sexes, either. It required some further action.

Not really. They just redefined the terms "marry" and marriage.

 

[Poper]

Different judge, different set of circumstances, may have different result.

This judge used the standard set by SCOTUS in the NYSRPA V Bruen decision. And that is the way it is supposed to be according to SCOTUS. A different decision would be overturned.

 

[Ignition Override]

Pure luck that it was in a certain MA jurisdiction?

This title reminds me of the opposite, a popular slogan years ago: "Lock her up!". It was guaranteed....

 

[Speedo66]

This judge used the standard set by SCOTUS in the NYSRPA V Bruen decision. And that is the way it is supposed to be according to SCOTUS. A different decision would be overturned.

And while you sit in prison, waiting for the appeal to be decided…

 

[gwpercle]

Maybe when Pigs sprout Wings and start to Fly ... or when Hell Freezes over ... untill then
Don't Hold your breath
Gary

 

[old lady new shooter]

Except the Drivers License Compact was arrived at by states deciding to get together and agreeing on it. Even so, that took a long time and went through some evolution.

And driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Here's William Kirk 's analysis of the case, perspicacious as always.

 

[rust collector]

I want to hear what these guys are saying, but they are overstating the case because that is how YouTube works. Both post on at least a daily basis, and just like certain "news" organizations they say what their audiences want to hear.

Specifically, the ruling of a district court is not precedent and does not affect anyone's rights other than the defendant's. Even that may change on appeal. That some courts are taking Bruen seriously is a good sign, but there seem to be many more intent on circumvention or distinguishing their cases from otherwise controlling precedent. Judges are lawyers who were well connected and politically appointed. They are human, they are appointed with expectation that they will further the causes of the appointing authority, and each brings her own life experience into the equation. As much as the media would like to make litigation a spectator sport, cheering for our team really isn't all that helpful. Legal analysts add some insight, but when stirring the pot increases the clicks and feeds the algorithm, cha-ching!

It's a long slog and we are not there yet. Take heart from small victories, but stay tuned, because there are many moving parts and the US Supreme Court adopted the phrase "with all deliberate speed" when discussing contentious issues such as racial integration.

 

[Old Dog]

^ thank you @rust collector for injecting some sanity into the mix. On some other forums, folks are acting like this means nationwide reciprocity is a done deal.

We're years away.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I agree with @Old Dog that nationwide reciprocity is not coming tomorrow or the next day. I posted the Washington Gun Law video because William Kirk is an actual LAWYER and generally gives a thorough and accurate legal analysis in his videos.

That said, I do see this ruling as a positive development, particularly since the judge's reasoning is so well-formulated.

I also agree with @Hartkopf that if nationwide reciprocity happens in a way that the federal government gets involved, we might actually be worse off.

The best would be if Congress would pass a law stating that all states are required to honor all other states' permits AND specifically stating that no federal agency has any power to regulate concealed carry in any manner whatsoever.

Hey, a girl can dream...

 

[MrShooter]

Nationwide reciprocity is definitely a dream of mine, it thoroughly pisses me off that here in Wisconsin we accept Illinois and Minnesota permits but those liberal hell holes refuse to reciprocate.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Driver licensing (and marriage licensing) falls under "full faith and credit."
Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

Why do you believe this? Have you done some research about the "full faith and credit" clause? Can you cite some legal authority that leads you to your conclusion?

In fact, it's not true --

1. States recognize each others driver's licenses because they have specifically agreed among themselves to do so -- not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
   
   
2. In fact the courts have applied Article IV, Section 1 fairly narrowly.
   
   
   • For example, see this article:
     ​

     ...In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935).....

     
     
   • Or this article:
     ​

     ...The Court first interpreted the clause in the 1813 case Mills v. Duryee [11 U.S. 481]. Currently, the Court has heard numerous cases involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court says that the clause can be used in three different ways. First, the clause can command a state to take jurisdiction, or control, over a claim that started in another state. Second, the clause can determine which state's law should be applied when a case involves more than one state. And lastly, the clause directs states to acknowledge and enforce court judgments from other states. ...

     
     
   • As discussed here, the scope of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been well settled in the courts:
     ​

     ...The Supreme Court has invoked the clause to police state-court proceedings in three contexts: (1) determining when a state must take jurisdiction over claims that arise in other states; (2) limiting the application of local state law over another state's law in multistate disputes; and (3) recognizing and enforcing judgments rendered in sister-state courts....

     
     
   • And here's another interesting commentary on the finer points of the Full Faith and Credit Clause:
     ​

     ...Article IV, Sec. 1, has had its principal operation in relation to judgments. Embraced within the relevant discussions are two principal classes of judgments. First, those in which the judgment involved was offered as a basis of proceedings for its own enforcement outside the State where rendered, as for example, when an action for debt is brought in the courts of State B on a judgment for money damages rendered in State A; second, those in which the judgment involved was offered, in conformance with the principle of res judicata, in defense in a new or collateral proceeding growing out of the same facts as the original suit, as for example, when a decree of divorce granted in State A is offered as barring a suit for divorce by the other party to the marriage in the courts of State B....

     
     
3. Let's look at some applications of Article IV, Sec. 1:
   
   
   • Your State B license to marry means nothing in State A:
     
     
     • It won't allow you to legally contract marriage in State A.
       
       
     • What would matter is that if you legally contracted marriage in State B now State A would recognize you as being married.
       
       
     • But any consequences of being recognized as married by State A will be decided under the laws of State A. For example:
       
       
       • If you and your spouse remain residents of State B but have investments in State A, your liability for State A income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State A.
         
         
       • If after having been married for a while and living in State B (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State A (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State A, even though the marriage was contracted in State B and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State B continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State B.
     
     
   • Similarly:
     
     
     • If you acquired title to a 1997 Ford F-150 by intestate succession under the laws of State B because the decedent was a resident of State B when he died, and under the intestate succession laws of State B you were entitled to that property, State A would recognize you as the owner of that 1997 Ford F-150.
       
       
     • That would be the case even though under the intestate succession laws of State A you would not have been entitled to that truck.
       
       
     • But again, any consequences of your ownership of that truck in State A would be determined in accordance with the laws of State A. So, for example, if the windows of that truck have a dark tint permissible in State B but not in State A, you'll be likely to get a ticket if you drive your truck in State A.
     
     
   • For another example:
     
     
     • You sue Y in State B and win. The court in State B issues a judgement in your favor against Y to the effect that Y must pay you $100,000.
       
       
     • Y splits to State A where he has all his property and bank accounts.
       
       
     • You now take that judgement to a court in State A to get a writ of execution to allow you to attach Y's property and/or bank accounts so you can get paid the money Y owes you.
       
       
     • In general, the court in State A will recognize and accept the State B judgement as conclusively establishing that Y owes you $100,000 (although there are some limited bases upon which Y might try to collaterally attack that judgement).
       
       
     • But even though the court in State A has accepted (given Full Faith and Credit to) that State B judgement, the way you can collect that judgement in State A (e. g., terms of the writ of execution, how it may be served, the interest payable on the unpaid judgement, exemptions of property from levy, limitation on garnishment of wages, etc.) will all be determined under the laws of State A.
   
   
4. However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel.

 

[Ks5shooter]

It will keep going to courts until they get the ruling they want.Look at Bruen and nj governor reaction.Sure you can EDC permit ,have it but barely use it

 

[herrwalther]

I would like nationwide carry. But I do not want to see how the federal government would mandate it for all states to abide by. It is very, very hard to get a carry license in NY, NJ, CA. States like that. I do not want the feds to say those are the standards for every other state. It may never be legal to be an armed out of state resident in NY or NJ. And I am okay with that for now.

 

[gwpercle]

My drivers License was issued in Louisiana ... but I can drive in all 50 states with that license ...
why is that ?

One license - issued in one state ... good to drive in all 50 states ... works for driving and it can work for anything else , say concealed carry , if the government wanted it to ...But they don't !
It doesn't matter what the Constitution says ...the party in power makes the rules .
Gary