That would not avoid the issue at all. It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon, regardless of the legal mechanism being employed, and would still open the door to a judge ruling that no such right existed.
Keep mind, quite a few states now allow constitutional carry, which directly opens that very question.
It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon
It doesn't because someone without a valid state permit still wouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon.
What it does is raise a full faith and credit issue, which may or may not survive judicial review. But to strike it down a court would only have to say that state X can't be forced to recognize a permit from state Y.
As for constitutional carry, that's a a function of state law and state constitutions. Allowing citizens to carry without any permit is a policy choice that may be informed by the second amendment, but it's not dependent on the existence of the second amendment (because rights don't come from the constitution; they come from god and are merely protected by the constitution).
All of that legal theorizing might sound great, but it's not how any of this would work. If it were, one of the more conservative states would have filed a full faith and credit suit years ago. They haven't, and the stuff I wrote is the reason why.
It's a matter of what's right, vs. what's legal, vs. what can be moved successfully through the courts. None of those three are the same thing.
There's a fundamental difference between what you describe and what I describe.
You describe an individual suing a state to win recognition of an out-of-state permit (the second state has no standing to seek enforcement of its own permits outside of its boundaries). That implicates individual rights.
I describe a state suing to invalidate a federal rule that requires interstate recognition. That doesn't necessarily implicate any individual right.
That would not avoid the issue at all. It still seeks to force states to allow carrying a weapon, regardless of the legal mechanism being employed, and would still open the door to a judge ruling that no such right existed.
Keep mind, quite a few states now allow constitutional carry, which directly opens that very question.
It doesn't because someone without a valid state permit still wouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon.
What it does is raise a full faith and credit issue, which may or may not survive judicial review. But to strike it down a court would only have to say that state X can't be forced to recognize a permit from state Y.
As for constitutional carry, that's a a function of state law and state constitutions. Allowing citizens to carry without any permit is a policy choice that may be informed by the second amendment, but it's not dependent on the existence of the second amendment (because rights don't come from the constitution; they come from god and are merely protected by the constitution).
All of that legal theorizing might sound great, but it's not how any of this would work. If it were, one of the more conservative states would have filed a full faith and credit suit years ago. They haven't, and the stuff I wrote is the reason why.
It's a matter of what's right, vs. what's legal, vs. what can be moved successfully through the courts. None of those three are the same thing.
There's a fundamental difference between what you describe and what I describe.
You describe an individual suing a state to win recognition of an out-of-state permit (the second state has no standing to seek enforcement of its own permits outside of its boundaries). That implicates individual rights.
I describe a state suing to invalidate a federal rule that requires interstate recognition. That doesn't necessarily implicate any individual right.