Why? They are not for drivers licenses. Those requirements and laws vary from state to state but someone with a license (from Florida for example) is free to drive within any of the other 49 states. They don't standardize requirements, but do require the license-holder to comply with the driving laws of the state that they are in. If the state even tries to not allow or restrict citizens from other states "because their standards are not as stringent as ours", that is overridden by the federal authority, and the "equal protection under the law" points of the 14th.

There is still rather similar education requirements for a drivers license across all 50 states. So a base line of drivers education is implied.

So then states who currently don't have any concealed carry licensure would be obligated to establish it and recognize the licenses from other states? And each state could establish their own criteria for licensure, (many already do) and accept that if another state has more strict or less strict requirements, they will still have to honor the licensure from any of the other 49 states? For example, Vermont (Bernie's home state) has no requirements other than being a law-abiding adult and that "level of requirement" would need to be respected whenever a Vermont resident visits New York state and/or NYC? I could see this as potentially pre-empting any local/municipal statutes such as those in NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, or DC. The principle is (at least from my limited understanding) similar and reasonably comparable in that the SCOTUS can decide that "certain basic rights are not to be infringed or regulated into disallowing the freedom of the people to exercise those rights". Maybe I am missing something. But the umbrella effect of the recent decision (which I am not against) appears to open the door to allow many other rights to be freely exercised across the nation, despite local or state laws that would reduce or prevent such exercises of those rights.