The House recently passed a law saying that any States' issued permit to carry a concealed handgun would be effective in all 50 States. Apparent from the obvious hypocrisy of right wing States Righters passing a law that overrules dozens of State laws in an area traditionally left to the States (whodey alert), the bill faces serious Constitutional objections as an overreach of Federal power. An article discussing it (though not very clearly) is here: https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/concealed-carry-reciprocity-constitutional-challenges/
My own opinion is that the bill should fail due to the precedents of United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison, both cases where Congress used the pretext of the Commerce Clause to attempt to regulate unrelated matters (the first regarding guns near schools, the second giving a federal cause of action in domestic violence cases). As explained in the Morrison wiki article:
With regard to the Commerce Clause, the majority said that the result was controlled by United States v. Lopez (1995), which had held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. There as in Morrison, the Court stressed "enumerated powers" that limit federal power in order to maintain "a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." Lopez therefore limited the scope of the Commerce Clause to exclude activity that was not directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences.
Some right wingers have thrown a Hail Mary and said the law would be sustainable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution:
Article IV, 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.
But it seems pretty clear that that provision was meant merely to make judgments and other legal findings effective in other States and not grant Congress an extraordinary power to make laws in certain States override the laws of other States nationally where the laws were concerned with matters beyond Federal power i.e. those enumerated and those which fall under the "Necessary and Proper" Clause. Thus, to read into FFCC such a Congressional power is an ironic assertion for right wing legal scholars like Randy Barnett, to make.
I realize the issue is a bit technical but hey I thought a thread that had (not yet) been polluted by the ongoing flame war ruining this Forum might be useful, informative and/or interesting.