• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gay Marriage=National Reciprocity?

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The courts have a bad history of not applying principles equally even the ones they invent like this case.

Remember they have already left themselves wiggle room in Heller and other decisions, of "sensitive area" and other "safety" loopholes.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
The courts have a bad history of not applying principles equally even the ones they invent like this case.

Remember they have already left themselves wiggle room in Heller and other decisions, of "sensitive area" and other "safety" loopholes.

Oh I'm sure they would figure out a way to pretzel themselves into it magically not applying to gun permits. But it is still a pretty interesting thought train and I'm curious if anyone will actually pursue this.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The courts have a bad history of not applying principles equally even the ones they invent like this case.

Remember they have already left themselves wiggle room in Heller and other decisions, of "sensitive area" and other "safety" loopholes.

Exactly, do not expect any gain for gun rights based on gay rights. In the eyes of our courts they are separate issues.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Ill be watching how this ruling applies to gun permit holders from outside this anti state.. I see many lawsuits in the future for NJ... My .02

Regards

CCJ
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
Exactly, do not expect any gain for gun rights based on gay rights. In the eyes of our courts they are separate issues.

how exactly are they separate issues? you just allowed benefits to be distributed based on marital relations to hundreds of thousands more people, thereby increasing federal fiscal strain through welfare programs. and in doing so, ALSO squashed state sovereignty. so why not do so for a much more proper cause considering what is required to get a CCW.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
how exactly are they separate issues? you just allowed benefits to be distributed based on marital relations to hundreds of thousands more people, thereby increasing federal fiscal strain through welfare programs. and in doing so, ALSO squashed state sovereignty. so why not do so for a much more proper cause considering what is required to get a CCW.
H

He said in the eyes of the courts.....

They are hypocrites.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
how exactly are they separate issues? you just allowed benefits to be distributed based on marital relations to hundreds of thousands more people, thereby increasing federal fiscal strain through welfare programs. and in doing so, ALSO squashed state sovereignty. so why not do so for a much more proper cause considering what is required to get a CCW.

whoa there pardner.. rewind and take a moment to explain that bolded and underlined comment for this bloke...how on earth did you get to welfare programs from the s-s marriage ruling?

a confused but hoping to be wiser...

ipse
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Didn't HR 218 end up helping us all get national reciprocity?

I could swear that's what all the cops and LEO apologists said it would do.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/

Is rather interesting to think how this ruling can mean that weapons permits now must be honored in all states.

That article was written by Bob Owens an inveterate opponent of Open Carry who, despite longstanding legal precedents, thinks he has a right to carry concealed and that government has the right to ban Open Carry. The headline alone should have told you that Owens hasn't a clue but if it didn't, reading his article should have left no doubt.

The Obergefell decision was certainly an interesting one but it relied on the premise that marriage is a fundamental right. No Federal court has ever held that concealed carry is a right, fundamental or otherwise (not even the vacated 2-1 Peruta decision) and certainly not Moore v. Madigan.

Absent a fundamental right or a law which is suspect because it involves a classification (such as race) which requires heightened scrutiny by the courts, rational review applies which almost invariably entails that the challenged law survives. Notwithstanding the Federal circuits which assumed that concealed carry implicates the Second Amendment but upheld the laws under intermediate scrutiny which seems to have become the new rational basis review (at least when the Second Amendment is at issue).

Read the Obergefell decision and then try to rewrite it as if the decision were about concealed carry. What are the prior precedents you would use to shoehorn concealed carry into the Second Amendment right to bear arms? There aren't any.

This leaves one with a very weak 14th Amendment argument to make in support of concealed carry absent any proof that there was any impermissible motive (such as race) for enacting the concealed carry law, you lose. That 14th Amendment argument would have to be independent of the Second Amendment or the courts will simply construe your 14th Amendment argument to be a Second Amendment argument in disguise which also means you lose.

NRA Suckers.jpg
NRASAFBrainTrust.jpg

"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282.

"In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right...Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

"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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
...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...
I continue to be amazed that robed bureaucrats continue to regurgitate this pap. Who, specifically, has argued before them that they have a right to "carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose?"

It would be nice if these robed bureaucrats would simply state that carrying a rifle or pistol, openly, shall not be infringed.

This would then clear the way for the assessing of criminal charges on state agents who do infringe upon our OC right.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
whoa there pardner.. rewind and take a moment to explain that bolded and underlined comment for this bloke...how on earth did you get to welfare programs from the s-s marriage ruling?

a confused but hoping to be wiser...

ipse

I has been mentioned in several articles throughout this debacle that they want to be legally represented as a married couple to be applicable for "benefits" granted to married couples.

I am mostly assuming the reason for this is welfare based benefits, cause I don't see any other actual benefit applying to this.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I has been mentioned in several articles throughout this debacle that they want to be legally represented as a married couple to be applicable for "benefits" granted to married couples.

I am mostly assuming the reason for this is welfare based benefits, cause I don't see any other actual benefit applying to this.

The benefits they seek are mostly insurance, but there are others, like a spouse in a hospital where only family are allowed. The gay community is in the higher income brackets, so it is very unlikely they would be as a group expecting welfare.

If you consider social security welfare then why would it be anymore acceptable for heterosexuals to receive social security?
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I has been mentioned in several articles throughout this debacle that they want to be legally represented as a married couple to be applicable for "benefits" granted to married couples.

I am mostly assuming the reason for this is welfare based benefits, cause I don't see any other actual benefit applying to this.

Here are a few. None of them have anything to do with welfare.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/06/marriedperks.asp
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The benefits they seek are mostly insurance, but there are others, like a spouse in a hospital where only family are allowed. The gay community is in the higher income brackets, so it is very unlikely they would be as a group expecting welfare.

If you consider social security welfare then why would it be anymore acceptable for heterosexuals to receive social security?
SS is anti-liberty. As is any other entitlement.

Unmarried couples have always had to take extra measures to enjoy the benefits that married folk do. Have been long before gay marriage became a hot topic. Notably unmarried Hollywood folks...Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, what, 35+ years and never married. Russell raised her kids?

“A lasting relationship isn’t about marriage," she said. "It’s about compatibility and communication. And you both need to want it to work. If one person does not want it to work, it isn’t going to work. Intention is the key. It’s also about not losing yourself in each other. Being together, two pillars holding up the house and the roof, and being different, not having to agree on everything, learning how to deal with not agreeing. Everything’s a choice.” - Goldie Hawn

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/goldie-hawn-married-kurt-russell/story?id=31481548
Sounds reasonable to me.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
SS is anti-liberty. As is any other entitlement.

Unmarried couples have always had to take extra measures to enjoy the benefits that married folk do. Have been long before gay marriage became a hot topic. Notably unmarried Hollywood folks...Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, what, 35+ years and never married. Russell raised her kids?

Sounds reasonable to me.

While I agree that it is socialism, there is no reason that one group should not be treated like the rest of the country. What has unmarried folks have to do with it? The fact that they wish to be legally married is the issue.

Again you are making same blanket claims that hoplophobes do.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
While I agree that it is socialism, there is no reason that one group should not be treated like the rest of the country. What has unmarried folks have to do with it? The fact that they wish to be legally married is the issue.

Again you are making same blanket claims that hoplophobes do.

If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.

Furthermore, since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.

Furthermore, since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?

well, now, everyone of them there groups you mentioned in your first paragraph can marry, now s-s couples can too...as for you being asexual, might wish to see the medical group to get tested and get ya some testosterone see if that helps...

as for the bestiality portion of your post i shall await possible censure of it before commenting...

ipse
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.

Furthermore, since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?

Here are two gay prisoners, serving life sentences, who are getting married. Yay freedom, in the UK http://www.theguardian.com/society/...e-sentences-marry-prison-marriage-full-sutton
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
If we treated them like the rest of the country, then they should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is not a fundamental right. I can name several groups that are not allowed to marry; children, mentally insane, prisoners with life sentences, close familial relations, people that are already married, just to name some.

Furthermore , since when do we bestow rights based on a person's sexuality? What rights are bestowed on me based on my being heterosexual or asexual for that matter? And what rights do we need to bestow on our farm boys who like to make a midnight run to the chicken coop or sheep pen?

Furthermore http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/11/can-you-get-married-in-jail-prison.html It can happen in America too. Life sentences do not necessarily bar marriage.
 
Top