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.
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.