Now I can carry my gun in all states...thanks gay marriage ruling.....

[there4eyeM]

Why are knives controlled (switch blades, for example)? They are 'arms'.

 

[Maxx]

Recognise the 2A or recognise what you think the 2A is?

I understand what the 2A is. It's not about hunting privileges.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well.....one of those unintended consequences.......if gay marriage is constitutional in all 50 states due to the constitution...then now so is carrying a concealed gun......thanks gay marriage, a silver lining to your gay cloud....

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms


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.

A good day for gun rights....

you should probably try reading the decision... with comprehension. because you clearly don't have a clue what it says or why.

the ruling has nothing to do with gun rights and in no way can be compared with a ruling on gun rights.

Absolutely right

Considering the fact that Roberts said the decision had nothing to do with the Constitution

you lack understanding. what roberts said is BS. and he knows it....

let me speak more slowly so you understand, darlin'

loving v Virginia ----- marriage is a fundamental right which can only be abridged if there is a substantial governmental interest.

if what Roberts said was true, then loving wouldn't have a constitutional basis either... which is a bunch of hooey...

I hope that helps.

and, luckily, what Roberts said is just a dissent with no effect in law.

it wasn't even as amusing as Scalia's insane meltdown.

Of course, this goes to the fact that Roberts and the other conservative ideologues comprehensively reject the 14th Amendment jurisprudence upon which Loving and Obergefell were decided, the doctrine of substantive due process, and the intent of the 14th Amendment to safeguard citizens inalienable, fundamental rights from attack by state and local governments.

Consequently, Obergefell had everything to do with the Constitution, where Roberts, as a fact of settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, is wrong.

Like Roberts, the OP is also wrong, as the ruling has nothing whatsoever to do with concealed carry permits.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Recognise the 2A or recognise what you think the 2A is?

I understand what the 2A is. It's not about hunting privileges.

Well that remains to be seen. Many people claim to know what it is, and then don't.

 

[2aguy]

Marriage can be a 'right' without being a legal institution.

Self defense is a right.....wether you gun grabbing nuts want it to be or not....

Self defence is a right, however you don't NEED a gun to be able to defend yourself. I could defend myself with lots of things. Like a TV, for example. So, what? Are TVs protected by the 2A because you could defend yourself with one?

Really...you aren't very wise are you....

 

[2aguy]

Well.....one of those unintended consequences.......if gay marriage is constitutional in all 50 states due to the constitution...then now so is carrying a concealed gun......thanks gay marriage, a silver lining to your gay cloud....

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms


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.

A good day for gun rights....

So your argument is that if one thing that is protected by the constitution is allowed in all states, then something else which isn't protected by the constitution should also be allowed in all states.

Do you not see the irrationality of such a statement.

Presser said carrying arms was not a right. The Heller case reaffirmed the Presser case ruling. Go figure.

Bear arms means the right to be in the militia.

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

In the House Mr Gerry said:
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was in reference to:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

If bear arms were to carry arms, then it seems a little strange that the House would be trying to compel people to walk around carrying a gun.

Then Mr Gerry said:
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Clearly Mr Gerry was using "bear arms" to mean "militia duty".

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, again, we have "bear arms" meaning "render military service" as well as "militia duty".

There's plenty of other evidence that supports the same thing.

There is no right to carry arms. Even the NRA has supported Carry and Conceal permits, which if there were a right to carry arms, would be unconstitutional. So why does the NRA support them then?

the right to gay marriage made up out if the imaginations of the justices.......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed specifically stated in the constitution and you guys say it doesn't exist....

You guys really do have cognitive problems...it isn't your fault...it must be a rare form of dyslexia...you see what isn't there......amd are unable to see what is plainly written.....

And we have to deal with it.........

 

[2aguy]

Well.....one of those unintended consequences.......if gay marriage is constitutional in all 50 states due to the constitution...then now so is carrying a concealed gun......thanks gay marriage, a silver lining to your gay cloud....

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms


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.

A good day for gun rights....

So your argument is that if one thing that is protected by the constitution is allowed in all states, then something else which isn't protected by the constitution should also be allowed in all states.

Do you not see the irrationality of such a statement.

Presser said carrying arms was not a right. The Heller case reaffirmed the Presser case ruling. Go figure.

Bear arms means the right to be in the militia.

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

In the House Mr Gerry said:
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was in reference to:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

If bear arms were to carry arms, then it seems a little strange that the House would be trying to compel people to walk around carrying a gun.

Then Mr Gerry said:
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Clearly Mr Gerry was using "bear arms" to mean "militia duty".

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, again, we have "bear arms" meaning "render military service" as well as "militia duty".

There's plenty of other evidence that supports the same thing.

There is no right to carry arms. Even the NRA has supported Carry and Conceal permits, which if there were a right to carry arms, would be unconstitutional. So why does the NRA support them then?

Soory it doesn't say the right of the peope to bear arms as members of a militia.........it says the right of the people to bear arms.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Marriage can be a 'right' without being a legal institution.

Self defense is a right.....wether you gun grabbing nuts want it to be or not....

Self defence is a right, however you don't NEED a gun to be able to defend yourself. I could defend myself with lots of things. Like a TV, for example. So, what? Are TVs protected by the 2A because you could defend yourself with one?

Really...you aren't very wise are you....

Why's that exactly? I mean, you're talking about a right to self defence which DOESN'T come from the 2A. I agree it exists as a right, but not from the 2A.

And self defence is not just with guns... so.... what's your point? What is "very wise" for you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Soory it doesn't say the right of the peope to bear arms as members of a militia.........it says the right of the people to bear arms.....

I'm sorry. Where did I say that people have the right to bear arms as members of the militia?

What gets me is you're fighting a ghost. You think you know what I'm saying without actually reading what I'm saying.

I'm not one of these Democrats who is opposed to the 2A without understanding anything. I'm not a Democrat, and I do understand the 2A.

So..... stop fighting other people's arguments, you're replying to ME and I would appreciate it if you could have the sense to read what I write and respond to WHAT I ACTUALLY WRITE.

Okay?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well.....one of those unintended consequences.......if gay marriage is constitutional in all 50 states due to the constitution...then now so is carrying a concealed gun......thanks gay marriage, a silver lining to your gay cloud....

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms


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.

A good day for gun rights....

So your argument is that if one thing that is protected by the constitution is allowed in all states, then something else which isn't protected by the constitution should also be allowed in all states.

Do you not see the irrationality of such a statement.

Presser said carrying arms was not a right. The Heller case reaffirmed the Presser case ruling. Go figure.

Bear arms means the right to be in the militia.

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

In the House Mr Gerry said:
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was in reference to:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

If bear arms were to carry arms, then it seems a little strange that the House would be trying to compel people to walk around carrying a gun.

Then Mr Gerry said:
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Clearly Mr Gerry was using "bear arms" to mean "militia duty".

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, again, we have "bear arms" meaning "render military service" as well as "militia duty".

There's plenty of other evidence that supports the same thing.

There is no right to carry arms. Even the NRA has supported Carry and Conceal permits, which if there were a right to carry arms, would be unconstitutional. So why does the NRA support them then?

the right to gay marriage made up out if the imaginations of the justices.......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed specifically stated in the constitution and you guys say it doesn't exist....

You guys really do have cognitive problems...it isn't your fault...it must be a rare form of dyslexia...you see what isn't there......amd are unable to see what is plainly written.....

And we have to deal with it.........

Never read the 14th Amendment then? Equality of the law?

" 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."

It's not a right to gay marriage. It's a right to be equal under the law.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Well.....one of those unintended consequences.......if gay marriage is constitutional in all 50 states due to the constitution...then now so is carrying a concealed gun......thanks gay marriage, a silver lining to your gay cloud....

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms


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.

A good day for gun rights....

Hey, I double dog dare you to travel this great country of ours, visiting every state in the Union brandishing your prized gun in my neck of the woods? I can personally guarantee you, having it shoved up your ass won't be pleasant!!

Says a retarded commie shithead.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In a perfect world, the same Constitutional standard would apply to gun rights, but it ain't gonna happen.

Even if such a court case ever made it's way that far up the judicial ladder (very improbable IMO), the SCOTUS is far too political to force restrictive states like New York and California to recognize the 2A.

We will see how long the ban on SSM is working in the uncivilized states now that SSM is legal nationwide. Nullification never ends well for those who fight the law.

Universal CC is insane; anyone who advocates such an insanity is totally reality challenged.

 

[2aguy]

Marriage can be a 'right' without being a legal institution.

Self defense is a right.....wether you gun grabbing nuts want it to be or not....

Self defence is a right, however you don't NEED a gun to be able to defend yourself. I could defend myself with lots of things. Like a TV, for example. So, what? Are TVs protected by the 2A because you could defend yourself with one?

Really...you aren't very wise are you....

Why's that exactly? I mean, you're talking about a right to self defence which DOESN'T come from the 2A. I agree it exists as a right, but not from the 2A.

And self defence is not just with guns... so.... what's your point? What is "very wise" for you?

Not everyone is you.....the small, the weak, the old, the injured, someone outnumbered, facing armed attackers......krav maga, and brazilian jujutsu will mean nothing against real predators for those people.....they always accuse us of living in a fantasy world.....and yet here you are..."I don't need a gun...I am a he man macho guy and I don't need me no gun to put whoop ass on no dudes....." Guns are the most effective way to defend yourself in a violent encounter regardless of size, age, or physical ability....and even if you are attacked by multiple armed attackers, a gun in your hand levels the ability to inflict damage to the point you can drive them off. I have seen the research, read the stories.......

Denying peaceful, law abiding citizens the tool that is the most effective for saving their lives from predatory, violent criminals is wrong and immoral......

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not everyone is you.....the small, the weak, the old, the injured, someone outnumbered, facing armed attackers......krav maga, and brazilian jujutsu will mean nothing against real predators for those people.....they always accuse us of living in a fantasy world.....and yet here you are..."I don't need a gun...I am a he man macho guy and I don't need me no gun to put whoop ass on no dudes....." Guns are the most effective way to defend yourself in a violent encounter regardless of size, age, or physical ability....and even if you are attacked by multiple armed attackers, a gun in your hand levels the ability to inflict damage to the point you can drive them off. I have seen the research, read the stories.......

Denying peaceful, law abiding citizens the tool that is the most effective for saving their lives from predatory, violent criminals is wrong and immoral......

You're missing my point. The point isn't whether someone needs a gun for self defence or not. The point is that you're trying to equate the 2A with self defence when there's no link with self defence and the 2A.

The 2A protects the right to keep arms so that the militia has a ready supply of arms.

Just because someone can then use the gun that they own, that is protected from govt interference by the 2A, for self defence is neither here nor there for the 2A. You're talking about something COMPLETELY different.

You seem to be saying that if someone can be used for self defence it's protected by the 2A. This is CLEARLY not the case, as this would then protect all items that could potentially be used.

Also, I've not made any statement about whether to deny people the use of guns or not.

Again, it's like fighting a ghost. You're not responding to what I write, but to what you're comfortable in saying. PLEASE respond to WHAT I WRITE.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well.....one of those unintended consequences.......if gay marriage is constitutional in all 50 states due to the constitution...then now so is carrying a concealed gun......thanks gay marriage, a silver lining to your gay cloud....

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms


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.

A good day for gun rights....

So your argument is that if one thing that is protected by the constitution is allowed in all states, then something else which isn't protected by the constitution should also be allowed in all states.

Do you not see the irrationality of such a statement.

Presser said carrying arms was not a right. The Heller case reaffirmed the Presser case ruling. Go figure.

Bear arms means the right to be in the militia.

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

In the House Mr Gerry said:
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was in reference to:

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

If bear arms were to carry arms, then it seems a little strange that the House would be trying to compel people to walk around carrying a gun.

Then Mr Gerry said:
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Clearly Mr Gerry was using "bear arms" to mean "militia duty".

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, again, we have "bear arms" meaning "render military service" as well as "militia duty".

There's plenty of other evidence that supports the same thing.

There is no right to carry arms. Even the NRA has supported Carry and Conceal permits, which if there were a right to carry arms, would be unconstitutional. So why does the NRA support them then?

the right to gay marriage made up out if the imaginations of the justices.......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed specifically stated in the constitution and you guys say it doesn't exist....

You guys really do have cognitive problems...it isn't your fault...it must be a rare form of dyslexia...you see what isn't there......amd are unable to see what is plainly written.....

And we have to deal with it.........

Never read the 14th Amendment then? Equality of the law?

" 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."

It's not a right to gay marriage. It's a right to be equal under the law.

In context the liberty interest of a gay couple is abridged when denied a marriage license by a county clerk because the issue has been decided by the highest court in the land. A County Clerk has a duty to enforce the law equally, and the harm done to the abridged couple may be difficult to assess, but there is no doubt it will be costly. If gross negligence is defined as a violation of law, then the Clerk will be assessed punitive damages too.

Such is the price of principles, it will be fun to see how many principles get tossed away when the Clerks pocket book is threatened.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Marriage can be a 'right' without being a legal institution.

Self defense is a right.....wether you gun grabbing nuts want it to be or not....

Self defence is a right, however you don't NEED a gun to be able to defend yourself. I could defend myself with lots of things. Like a TV, for example. So, what? Are TVs protected by the 2A because you could defend yourself with one?

Really...you aren't very wise are you....

Why's that exactly? I mean, you're talking about a right to self defence which DOESN'T come from the 2A. I agree it exists as a right, but not from the 2A.

And self defence is not just with guns... so.... what's your point? What is "very wise" for you?

Not everyone is you.....the small, the weak, the old, the injured, someone outnumbered, facing armed attackers......krav maga, and brazilian jujutsu will mean nothing against real predators for those people.....they always accuse us of living in a fantasy world.....and yet here you are..."I don't need a gun...I am a he man macho guy and I don't need me no gun to put whoop ass on no dudes....." Guns are the most effective way to defend yourself in a violent encounter regardless of size, age, or physical ability....and even if you are attacked by multiple armed attackers, a gun in your hand levels the ability to inflict damage to the point you can drive them off. I have seen the research, read the stories.......

Denying peaceful, law abiding citizens the tool that is the most effective for saving their lives from predatory, violent criminals is wrong and immoral......

....and yet ... universal CC provides the "real predictors" the same rights of "law abiding citizens". Unless of course LE is given probable cause to search everyone for a gun, and if they have a gun the right to run a record check.

Do you gun nuts have any common sense?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Universal CC is insane...

Given that all states have some form of CCW, you understand that it is impossible for you to support your assertion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

....and yet ... universal CC provides the "real predictors" the same rights of "law abiding citizens". Unless of course LE is given probable cause to search everyone for a gun, and if they have a gun the right to run a record check.

This makes no sense. You need to add or subtract a few words.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Universal CC is insane...

Given that all states have some form of CCW, you understand that it is impossible for you to support your assertion.

You read what you want to read, try to comprehend, I know that's difficult for you put focus on the words, in this case the word UNIVERSAL.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Universal CC is insane...

Given that all states have some form of CCW, you understand that it is impossible for you to support your assertion.

You read what you want to read, try to comprehend, I know that's difficult for you put focus on the words, in this case the word UNIVERSAL.

Please explain why you think the use of that word is more meaningful than it actually is.