(12-27-2017 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Being licensed to carry in Texas does not give you the right to carry in Oklahoma.

Much like being licensed to practice law in Texas (i.e. being a counselor on Texas law) does not give you a license to practice Oklahoma law.

Or having a license to practice orthodontics in Missouri does not automatically grant you that in Texas.

Or a hunting license does not give one the right to hunt in Arkansas.

A state *may* choose to honor each of the above from other states; they are not obligated to do so.

The Full Faith and Credit clause mainly pertains to the effect of legal proceedings. If a court in another jurisdiction finds against you, you cannot relitigate the matter in the state where the judgement is sought to be enforced. That is what 98 per cent of the SCOTUS cases carve out.

In some instances, matters of marriage, adoption, and other aspects of family law have been addressed by SCOTUS under the FFAC clause. But these are known as 'public policy exceptions' to the main body of case law. Further, there are *no* clear lines where the FFAC clause carves these out. Sometimes marriage, adoption, divorce, and protection acts of a state are given 'protection' in a hostile jurisdiction; sometimes they are not.

The application of the FFAC clause simply isnt within the ambit of the SCOTUS body of caselaw for this.

Oklahoma has had reciprocity with Texas since 1998. Other than the liberal bastions who say no soup for you, most of the country has reciprocity with over 40 states. Those liberal states have been deemed to have that right.

And the full faith and credit argument regarding accessory use of rights was already clubbed like a baby seal at the USSC multiple times regarding hunting rights that were deemed constitutional rights for residents but not non-residents. Other examples closer to this issue but since typing on a phone I’ll keep it simple.