Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: SCOTUS principle on marriage should apply to CCW recognition

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-06-06
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    2,619

    SCOTUS principle on marriage should apply to CCW recognition

    SCOTUS ruling should open door for nat’l CCW recognition, say activists

    Friday’s landmark 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage should open the door for national concealed carry recognition, some gun rights advocates, including the head of a national Second Amendment group, are saying.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/scot...-say-activists

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-13-10
    Location
    Western SD
    Posts
    483
    That makes sense. The requirements for marriage do vary across the states, particularly in minimum age. Yet if a 15 year old is legally married in his or her home state, that's recognized in all other states.

    So even though states have varying requirements for a concealed permit, by SCOTUS reasoning all permits should be accepted in all 57 states.
    Last edited by sdprof; June 27th, 2015 at 09:45 AM.
    The only common sense gun regulations were written about 227 years ago.

    Ban gangs, not guns!

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-06-06
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    2,619
    Quote Originally Posted by sdprof View Post
    That makes sense. The requirements for marriage do vary across the states, particularly in minimum age. Yet is a 15 year old is legally married in his or her home state, that's recognized in all other states.

    So even though states have varying requirements for a concealed permit, by SCOTUS reasoning all permits should be accepted in all 57 states.
    LMAO. I think your count of the states is off a hair.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-13-10
    Location
    Western SD
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    LMAO. I think your count of the states is off a hair.
    Just using the same count as the anti-gunner in chief.
    The only common sense gun regulations were written about 227 years ago.

    Ban gangs, not guns!

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    Not to defend the indefensible, but adding in all the possessions and protectorates, how close to "57" is that? Maybe that's what the anti-gunner-in-chief meant? Unless he was talking about ketchup.

    I agree that the "full faith and credit" clause should apply to firearms rights. However, some law-types have made a case that "full faith and credit" does not apply to RKBA. That was on another board a while ago, where the lawyer-in-chief offered an involved and convoluted legal argument to that effect. I shall not name names.

    Terry
    "Gun control is not about public safety, crime reduction, or 'the children.' Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they didn't." (An internet poster, not myself.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,796
    Actually, full faith and credit shouldn't apply to carrying arms state to state. The Second Amendment's prohibition on infringements makes it unnecessary. With no state laws infringing upon the right, there would be no need. 'Course, they'll apply that logic but not use it to clear the infringements.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-28-09
    Location
    Just east of St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    1,075

    Unintended Consequences

    http://www.tpnn.com/2015/06/28/unint...ives-cheering/

    This past week the Supreme Court redefined marriage to the delight of liberals and gay activists across the nation.

    Since SCOTUS ruled that the right to marry anyone is now the law of the land in all 50 states, there is an unintended consequence that should make conservatives gleeful.

    As reported by BearingArms.com, “If you’re following any of the various media outlets this morning, you’re probably aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has just extended gay marriage to all 50 states. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.”

    The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads:

    Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The writer goes on to make a brilliant point: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.

    Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“

    As Americans we have a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. SCOTUS doesn’t even need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right already exists.

    Consequently, a concealed carry license should now be valid in all 50 states across the nation!

    Can you imagine the outrage this will spark on the left? Because of their liberal activism, and that of five activist Justices on the Supreme Court, our constitutionally declared right to keep and bear arms MUST be recognized in every state.

    Hey, they opened the can of worms; now they’ll have to eat it. Isn’t that positively delicious? I guess there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!
    Life Member of both NRA and North American Hunting Club
    “Crime is to be expected since humans are never perfect. But the failure of Justice may be more damaging to Society than the crime itself.” - - Clarence Darrow

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    Dave Workman's article pointed out,

    New Jersey dubs itself as the “Garden State,” but in [Shaneen] Allen’s case, it was more like a weed patch. She had the services of a skilled attorney, and she ended up in a program rather than the pen, but Gov. Chris Christie granted her a pardon earlier this year for having committed a crime in New Jersey that is not a crime at all in Pennsylvania.
    I would dearly love to see the wording of both the petition for pardon and the pardon itself. I'll bet there are some aspects of both which would be helpful to our cause.

    You know, "petitioner requests a pardon because..." And "I, the Governor, agree, so the pardon is granted."

    Betcha there's some great RKBA-supporting verbiage in those two documents!

    Does anyone know how they can be accessed?

    Terry, 230RN
    "Gun control is not about public safety, crime reduction, or 'the children.' Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they didn't." (An internet poster, not myself.)

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-13-10
    Location
    Western SD
    Posts
    483
    The pardon: http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/defaul...d%20Pardon.pdf

    The application might not be a public document, I can't find it.
    The only common sense gun regulations were written about 227 years ago.

    Ban gangs, not guns!

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-15-06
    Location
    Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,796

    Activism At The SCOTUS

    Beware of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. It has a nasty pig in its poke. In that ruling, the Court claimed that the Constitution granted a right(Pg. 28). If the Court gets away with this, it can be claimed that the RKBA is granted by the Constitution and then all it would take to eliminate the right would be to eliminate the Second Amendment.

    As it stands right now, the Second Amendment protects the right. If the Second Amendment goes away, we still would have the right regardless of whether it is protected in the Constitution or not. (Note: The Ninth Amendment would still indirectly protect the right.)

    Repeating for effect, if it becomes accepted that the right is granted by the Constitution, the right itself can be considered non-existent in the eyes of the law if the Second Amendment is repealed.

    I hope more people than me have seen this little precedent-setting usurpation. I can't believe this is a synesis or a trope. I believe it is on purpose.

    Woody
    http://oklahomafirearmservices.com/
    If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved.. B.E.Wood

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    ^ Agreed. Them durned antis might sell seize upon that. We'll have to watch that, Constitution Cowboy ! And somewhere I read something about the Bill Of Rights being written to prevent construing the Constitution incorrectly and the dot-gov from abusing its power. Somewhere. Something. I forget now.

    Quote Originally Posted by sdprof View Post
    The pardon: http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/defaul...d%20Pardon.pdf

    The application might not be a public document, I can't find it.
    Rats. The Pardon just says, "Therefore" without any real verbiage referring back to the Petition's content as to why the "therefore."

    I doubt the Petition just said, "Hey, guv! How about pardoning her, hah?"

    But thanks, anyway. I wonder if the Petition itself is available through any FOIA-type request to noo joisey.

    (Good grief, they're still using the term "dum dum" bullets? I hope they defined that adequately, besides "we don't like them.")

    Terry
    "Gun control is not about public safety, crime reduction, or 'the children.' Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they didn't." (An internet poster, not myself.)

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-13-10
    Location
    Western SD
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by 230RN View Post

    (Good grief, they're still using the term "dum dum" bullets? I hope they defined that adequately, besides "we don't like them.")

    Terry
    From the NJ statutes, under 2C:39-3 Prohibited Weapons and Devices


    f.Dum-dum or body armor penetrating bullets. (1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or persons engaged in activities pursuant to subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, who knowingly has in his possession any hollow nose or dum-dum bullet, or (2) any person, other than a collector of firearms or ammunition as curios or relics as defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 921 (a) (13) and has in his possession a valid Collector of Curios and Relics License issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who knowingly has in his possession any body armor breaching or penetrating ammunition, which means: (a) ammunition primarily designed for use in a handgun, and (b) which is comprised of a bullet whose core or jacket, if the jacket is thicker than.025 of an inch, is made of tungsten carbide, or hard bronze, or other material which is harder than a rating of 72 or greater on the Rockwell B. Hardness Scale, and (c) is therefore capable of breaching or penetrating body armor, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. For purposes of this section, a collector may possess not more than three examples of each distinctive variation of the ammunition described above. A distinctive variation includes a different head stamp, composition, design, or color.
    At least their definition of armor piercing ammo is a bit more realistic than ATF's interpretation.
    The only common sense gun regulations were written about 227 years ago.

    Ban gangs, not guns!

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    Oh, I knew they had something about it. Dum-dum bullet was a common term of the time. I remember it still being used in the late forties. But nice job digging that out.
    "Gun control is not about public safety, crime reduction, or 'the children.' Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they didn't." (An internet poster, not myself.)

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-13-10
    Location
    Western SD
    Posts
    483
    Using that term kind of sums up the law it's included in.
    The only common sense gun regulations were written about 227 years ago.

    Ban gangs, not guns!

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    As I recall the term "dum dum" describing bullets comes from the British colonial days when they had a munitions factory in a region or city in India that the British translated poorly as Dumdum. The ammunition produced there was for a rather powerful rifle used to hunt elephant. This created an association between "dum dum" bullets or ammunition being a powerful type regardless of where it was made. I could be wrong though.

    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Can you imagine the outrage this will spark on the left? Because of their liberal activism, and that of five activist Justices on the Supreme Court, our constitutionally declared right to keep and bear arms MUST be recognized in every state.
    What I find particularly delicious about this is why we even have marriage licenses to begin with. Marriage licenses in the USA came about to bar interracial marriages. Prior to that marriage licenses were not issued by a government entity, unless the church was also the state as it is in theocracies. (This distinction is blurry when speaking of English law as the line between church and state was also blurred.) State governments started to issue marriage licenses to bar interracial marriages. The excuse for not issuing a license may not have been stated outright as barring an interracial marriage but everyone knew that was the case.

    Few objected to the state issuance of marriage licenses as it not only prevented interracial marriages where that was considered taboo, but it also put legal force behind other taboos like premarital sex, bigamy, prostitution, and probably others I can't recall. The fact that it brought in revenue to the state helped too.

    I believe the courts ruled correctly, a marriage is a contract between two consenting adults and the state has no place to bar it. There are all kinds of contracts written that are not filed with the state and are yet considered binding in law, marriage should be no different.

    What these "progressive" thinkers should have done is advocate for the abolishing of the marriage license. They should have claimed that the government has no place to define who may enter into a marriage contract. But they didn't take that route because they don't think like libertarians do. They think that the government should define all things that are permitted and anything else is to be barred.

    Now we have a precedent that can come back to haunt them. We also have states considering abolishing the marriage license, which is precisely what they did not want to happen.

    With marriage licenses being law, and same sex marriages being legal, these "progressive" thinkers thought they could force churches to marry same sex couples. These people find religion repulsive, something that needs to be done away with. They want to impose their values on the rest of the world and use the force of law to do it.

    They can't force us to do anything.

    I've said for years that the government should not be issuing marriage licenses. A marriage is a contract between two people. Some will claim a marriage is a match made in Heaven, a blessing from God. If a couple wishes to file some sort of notice with the state on matters such as inheritance, joint ownership of property and what ever else that comes naturally with a marriage then I have no problem with that. It doesn't take a marriage to have joint ownership of property, just a contract.

    That contract wasn't good enough for the "progressives", they had to own the language. They had to redefine what it meant to be married.

    They don't own the language.

    I believe that in time the states will simply get out of the marriage license business. Doing otherwise would mean same sex couples will sue ministers and churches for not allowing them to marry. Freedom of religion will win in the end and marriage licenses will again revert to what they were before, church records outside of state interference.

    Since these people that claim to be forward thinkers were so short sighted we now have a court case on the highest level with which to use against them in defending our rights. After we do away with marriage licenses, and licenses to carry weapons of self defense, then I suggest we do away with licenses to drive.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-28-09
    Location
    Just east of St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    1,075
    Farmboy - barring interracial marriage may have been part of the reason for the government to get involved, but there was also a "health aspect". Many states require a blood test prior to issuance of said license to determine if either were carriers of, or infected with, certain STDs.

    I don't know if they still require the blood test in Illinois as I got married over 30 years ago and it was required then.
    Life Member of both NRA and North American Hunting Club
    “Crime is to be expected since humans are never perfect. But the failure of Justice may be more damaging to Society than the crime itself.” - - Clarence Darrow

  17. #17
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-13-10
    Location
    Western SD
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Farmboy - barring interracial marriage may have been part of the reason for the government to get involved, but there was also a "health aspect". Many states require a blood test prior to issuance of said license to determine if either were carriers of, or infected with, certain STDs.

    I don't know if they still require the blood test in Illinois as I got married over 30 years ago and it was required then.
    Only three states and DC appear to still require blood testing, and two of those are only for subsets of applicants.

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ood-29019.html

    So it appears most states have gotten out of the "public safety" aspect of pre-marital processing. Maybe they realized the horse was already out of the barn in most cases.
    The only common sense gun regulations were written about 227 years ago.

    Ban gangs, not guns!

  18. #18
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Farmboy - barring interracial marriage may have been part of the reason for the government to get involved, but there was also a "health aspect". Many states require a blood test prior to issuance of said license to determine if either were carriers of, or infected with, certain STDs.

    I don't know if they still require the blood test in Illinois as I got married over 30 years ago and it was required then.
    Doing a web search on the racist origins of the marriage license I came up with a few good articles on the matter.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html
    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken135.html
    http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_hi...-licenses.html
    http://www.salon.com/2001/03/08/sollors/

    These articles do bring up other reasons why marriage licenses were issued but for the most part marriage licenses prior to the Civil War were not issued by the state. What was common before then was that the license was written by the officiant and filed with the state for reasons of legal inheritance and such. The state didn't issue them, they were volunteered to the state to make other legal matters more convenient. Married couples that failed to file a marriage license with the state still had legal protections through common law, as in cohabitation was sufficient evidence of marriage.

    After the Civil War marriage licenses were often only required of interracial couples, cohabitation of an interracial couple was illegal unless permission was granted by the state.

    The need for a marriage license to prevent things like people marrying their cousin, or marrying too young, or doing so while drunk, existed prior to the civil marriage. The state merely codified existing religious and social taboos but added the force of law to them as well as adding the interracial aspect.

    There are other mechanisms to allow for things like inheritance, hospital visitation rights, and power of attorney besides marriage licenses. Also, not being married does not relieve a parent of the legal obligations to their children. These same sex couples that claim a lack of rights due to law that bars same sex marriage is completely false. Legal mechanisms existed to give them everything they want except the ability to call that contract a "marriage".

    When these "progressive" thinkers cried up and down about lacking rights when "civil union" laws were passed were only crying about their inability to redefine the language. They want more than just legal protections on par with a marriage, they want everyone else to accept their beliefs as they do. The problem they have is that changing the law does not change people's minds.

    These people may be successful in redefining the word "marriage" but people will merely shift the language again. I have already seen wedding invites change because of this. People aren't invited to a "marriage" any more, they will be invited to a "blessed union" or some other wording to differentiate it from a civil marriage.

    I believe the more these "progressives" push the issue the more likely states will cease to issue marriage licenses. If that happens then we will simply revert to how things were done before, as in officiants issue the marriage license and the married couple may choose to file that with the state.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  19. #19
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-28-09
    Location
    Just east of St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    1,075
    As I don't know about "Lew Rockwell" or "eHow", I'll not concern myself with them.

    BUT really? The NYT and Salon?? Give me a break! They are as trustworthy as BHO!!
    Life Member of both NRA and North American Hunting Club
    “Crime is to be expected since humans are never perfect. But the failure of Justice may be more damaging to Society than the crime itself.” - - Clarence Darrow

  20. #20
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    How about hearing this from Bill Whittle?



    The video goes through how the Democrat fought to keep Blacks as slaves before the Civil War and enacted laws to keep them virtual slaves after the war.

    If you don't believe that marriage licenses were enacted then I ask you to do two things for me. As Bill Whittle says, look it up, don't take his or my word. The other thing I'd like to see skeptics do is explain why marriage licenses were created, that is assuming that it was not done to criminalize interracial marriages.

    The video spends only a brief moment discussing the racist origins of marriage licenses but he also spends time going through the racist origins of gun control.

    We can thank the racist Democrats for alcohol prohibition too. Can't have those ni**ers getting drunk and raping our women.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •