Should the NRA now seek to...

[75center]

Scalia has written that gun ownership can be constitutionally restricted. Has any justice written similar about marriage equality?

 

Please answer the question.

[Cardinals2745]

Don't start with me. I'm on your side of the argument but your hyperbole puts even me to shame. That and at one point in your plethora of recent posts you seemed to give your approval to the nutbars at Westboro Baptist. If you give even tacit approval to those loons you lose me.

 

Uh, 39 nut jobs from Kansas who believe they know how to rule the world.

 

Forget that.

 

Many of you have already labeled me yet you fail to understand the message.

 

Jesus is there for you. You do not need to turn to Man.

[Twotoplace]

Please answer the question.

All Tell's proposition is worthy of discussion. As for precedent, one would need to use the high court's recent decision on marriage equality as a starting point, not an end-all. I would suspect that firearms laws by individual states have been on the books longer than the history of our nation.

[LIPTON BASH]

I'm a big believer in state rights and my statement in the other thread was my position that I think Gay marriage should be legal.

 

My only hesitation was the precedent for state rights.

 

I'm no legal scholar but I do believe after the ruling it does set the stage for second ammendment believers.

 

I'm a strong second ammendment supporter and want zero new restrictions. But again while I would like the decision it would scare me for state rights.

 

I honestly don't know if states have any power anymore and if it not what is the point in states ?

[John Anthony]

I'm a big believer in state rights and my statement in the other thread was my position that I think Gay marriage should be legal. My only hesitation was the precedent for state rights. I'm no legal scholar but I do believe after the ruling it does set the stage for second ammendment believers. I'm a strong second ammendment supporter and want zero new restrictions. But again while I would like the decision it would scare me for state rights. I honestly don't know if states have any power anymore and if it not what is the point in states ?

 

States such as CA, NY, IL still have plenty of power and the ruling class makes it almost impossible for the peasants to exercise gun rights without the Kings permission.

[Trinity alum]

No it wouldn't be following the precedent. The court did not eliminate the ability of states to regulate marriage. One state may require a waiting period for issuing a license, another may not. I'm sure there are many other state regulations. Those were not affected by the ruling. It eliminated the ability of the states to regulate marriage in a discriminatory manner. There is a significant difference.

[LIPTON BASH]

No it wouldn't be following the precedent. The court did not eliminate the ability of states to regulate marriage. One state may require a waiting period for issuing a license, another may not. I'm sure there are many other state regulations. Those were not affected by the ruling. It eliminated the ability of the states to regulate marriage in a discriminatory manner. There is a significant difference.

 

I agree with this ruling. My point is some state gun restrictions could be labeled discriminatory based on laws other citizens are put to in other states. Some of these laws have already been put down by the supreme court only to see those same cities ignore the courts ruling.

 

It all comes down to reasonable restrictions and I believe some cities restrictions are not reasonable when we look at case law.

 

For starters why wouldn't conceal carry license carry across state lines.

[75center]

No it wouldn't be following the precedent. The court did not eliminate the ability of states to regulate marriage. One state may require a waiting period for issuing a license, another may not. I'm sure there are many other state regulations. Those were not affected by the ruling. It eliminated the ability of the states to regulate marriage in a discriminatory manner. There is a significant difference.

 

On a widespread basis but it did not eliminate all. That's one of it's weaknesses that will leave it open to attack. If I want multiple wives or to marry my sister I cannot even if we're all consenting adults.

 

The precedent is in assuring that all states will now recognize licenses of another state for something that is not mentioned in the constitution while not granting the same protection for a right that is mentioned. This is going to be an avenue that the NRA will use to attack gun restrictions across states.

[Jumper_Dad]

I wonder what the constitution says about states rights...hmmm

 

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

I wonder sometimes if anyone in Washington even realizes this is in the Bill of Rights...:bag:

[Habib]

On a widespread basis but it did not eliminate all. That's one of it's weaknesses that will leave it open to attack. If I want multiple wives or to marry my sister I cannot even if we're all consenting adults.

 

The precedent is in assuring that all states will now recognize licenses of another state for something that is not mentioned in the constitution while not granting the same protection for a right that is mentioned. This is going to be an avenue that the NRA will use to attack gun restrictions across states.

 

The ruling on gay marriage largely shared the logic of the ruling overturning laws against interracial marriage. The gist is that you can't deny to one group of people what's freely given to another group of people. At this point in our history, the acceptance of gay people as "normal" has passed the tipping point. So, it stands to reason they shouldn't be denied what's granted to other groups.

 

There's no reason to believe there's a group of citizens who can claim protection due to their identity as incestuous (and there are plenty of legitimate reasons it's made illegal that don't apply to interracial relationships or same-sex relationships, like the issues over consent and the genetic effect on children).

 

As to polygamy, there's nothing being granted under the law to one group of people that isn't granted to another (e.g. Mormons can legally marry as many people as they want and no one else can). Allowing interracial marriage was no more likely to lead to polygamy being legal than same-sex marriage is.

 

In short, and so as to not distract from the thread topic, this case doesn't provide any use to gun owners. The Court has only recently held that the Second Amendment protects a right for owning a firearm, but they've left regulations beyond that up to the states ("Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."). You'd have to first hope for a ruling that restrictions on concealed carry are unconstitutional (like it or not, this is exceedingly unlikely, even with a conservative court), then make a press through the Full Faith and Credit Clause to allow one state's concealed carry license to transfer to another state.

[Clyde]

No it wouldn't be following the precedent. The court did not eliminate the ability of states to regulate marriage. One state may require a waiting period for issuing a license, another may not. I'm sure there are many other state regulations. Those were not affected by the ruling. It eliminated the ability of the states to regulate marriage in a discriminatory manner. There is a significant difference.

 

 

I read where there is a county in either Georgia or Alabama that simply stopped issuing ANY marriage licenses so that they could avoid issuing same-sex marriage licenses. I assume that's legal. Just out of the business altogether.

[hoops_fan]

States such as CA, NY, IL still have plenty of power and the ruling class makes it almost impossible for the peasants to exercise gun rights without the Kings permission.

 

Is it coincidence that all 3 states you list are very democratic?

[All Tell]

No it wouldn't be following the precedent. The court did not eliminate the ability of states to regulate marriage. One state may require a waiting period for issuing a license, another may not. I'm sure there are many other state regulations. Those were not affected by the ruling. It eliminated the ability of the states to regulate marriage in a discriminatory manner. There is a significant difference.

 

Didn't it also say that states had to recognize licenses issued by other states? By that precedent set shouldn't a concealed carry license issued in Texas be valid in Chicago? Residenct shouldn't be a factor. It's not for a marriage license.