> Second, a state court does not have jurisdiction beyond its borders for entities not operating within same.

Where did you come by this information?

Article IV, Section I

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

▲

walrus01 20 hours ago | parent [-]

If this was true in factual implementation, then Washington state's assault weapon ban would apply nationwide, which it decidedly does not. Or some particularly red state laws on abortion bans or abortion medication would apply in the other 49 states, which it does not.

Or the court decision obligating the city and state of New York to issue concealed pistol permits to people who go through a process (even for non residents) would apply in Washington DC or Chicago, which it also does not.

	▲	15155 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If this was true in factual implementation, then Washington state's assault weapon ban would apply nationwide, which it decidedly does not. And when Viramontes v. Cook County is decided within the next year, it won't apply in Washington either. Today, FFLs from other states won't ship these arms into Washington - how is that not "apply[ing] nationwide?" FFLs in Idaho will not sell you an AR-15 with a Washington license despite it being legal to do so federally. > Or the court decision obligating the city and state of New York to issue concealed pistol permits to people who go through a process (even for non residents) would apply in Washington DC or Chicago, which it also does not. This is an active area of debate, and a very poor analogue to use - firearms are a Constitutionally-protected and unique area (as is free speech, but SCOTUS has already effectively found in favor of Texas in this case.) Why does my marriage license or driver's license apply nationwide but not my CCL? Why do I even need a CCL - there's zero historic precedent for it (Bruen)?