The full faith and credit clause does, in fact, apply to marriages in gereneral and as such there has been quite a controversy regarding whether this must be extended to non traditional marriages that are not recognized by most states. IMHO, and IANAL, the defense of marriage act signed by Bill in 96 is blatantly unconstitutional as it was an attempt at a legislative means to bypass part of the constitution. I have my own ideas how to fix this dilemma, but they are far beyond the scope of this thread.thejtrain wrote: Interesting perspective - I wasn't aware of any active or proposed federal legislation in that regard. The part that I could see causing some trouble is in the process to decide, at the federal level, which permits/certificates/licenses issued by states get protected by the full faith & credit clause and which do not (e.g., if the full faith & credit clause applies to CCWs why wouldn't it apply to marriages? Equal protection and all that). Admittedly I have not thought through that whole thing all the way, but that's beside the point of this quote.
What's interesting is the differences between a pro-liberty legislator and an anti-liberty legislator.
Status Quo: CCW issued by State A is not recognized by State B, and license holders from State A MAY NOT carry legally in State B
Pro-liberty: State A's government trusts its citizens to carry, let's use that as a template to legalize carry (by license holders) everywhere.
Anti-liberty: State B's government doesn't trust its citizens to carry, let's use that as a template to actively outlaw carry everywhere.
JT
While I still think the legislation I referenced was the source of the quote, it seems like he does want to ban CCW nationwide: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html
Barring a viable third part candidate (yeah, right) this is not going to be a good election for the 2A.