|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: First side effect of the gay marriage ruling | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As a gun owner I don't see anyway the ruling could be construed to mean that. As I understand it, the argument goes that if State Y has to recognize State X's marriage license, because of section 1 of the 14th amendment, then that same precedent also applies to State X's conceal carry licenses and State Y has to recognize it as well. So for example, my state - Illinois, only recognizes CCL's that they issue themselves and they don't recognize them from other states. If the 14th means that the state of Illinois must recognize other state's marriage licenses, then the same argument could apply to other state's Conceal Carry Licenses and then Illinois would have to recognize those too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That may be the argument they try to use but it is not what the ruling says. Well sure, not this ruling, but the precedent, as I said. A big portion of this ruling was just determining that marriage was a fundamental right. Then they got into how being a fundamental right meant these things. One of those things was that the justifications for refusing to recognize marriages from other states was undermined by the states being required by the Constitution to issue those licenses in their state. Now, we already know that having guns is a fundamental right. And the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for my state to refuse to issue people CCLs. Therefore, if they have to issue this license in this state then that should also undermine their justifications for refusing to recognize licenses from other states. That's one of the precedents that seems to have been set by this ruling. But I could be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As I understand it, the argument goes that if State Y has to recognize State X's marriage license, because of section 1 of the 14th amendment, then that same precedent also applies to State X's conceal carry licenses and State Y has to recognize it as well. You understand the ruling exactly as poorly as does Marc9000. That was a paraphrase of the argument I saw, not the ruling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Second, concealed carry is distinct from gun ownership. If you want to claim that concealed carry is a fundamental right, you need better reasoning than that. From DC v Heller:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I've been trying to find out what case you're referring to, but can't. Yeah, sorry, I was wrong. It wasn't SCOTUS, it was the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: Moore v. Madigan - Wikipedia For some reason I though that one went to the Supreme Court, but it didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I guess that you didn't notice the "concealed" in "concealed carry". Your citation doesn't address that. Really? Is that really the argument you want to go with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So for the same argument to apply to (for example) concealed-carry licenses, you would first need (for example) a ruling that any state must issue a concealed-carry license to anyone who wants one. What about the Moore v Madigan case that I linked to in Message 20, is that at all relevant?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If showing an obvious fallacy in your argument is not enough, what is ? You didn't show an obvious fallacy. You claimed that because the DC v Heller case didn't explicitly state "concealed" when it said that people have the right to carry arms, then that means that they were not talking about concealed carry. They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that so your point was irrelevant. It'd be like you arguing that we don't have free speech online because the first amendment doesn't mention the internet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There was a part in the opinion that I didn't really notice much before (bold added for emphasis):
quote: I was under the impression that they were saying that there was no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize another State's marriage at all. If they're only saying that there's no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize another State's marriage on the ground of its same-sex character, well, that's different. And that pretty much convinces me that the argument I was making is wrong. Thanks for your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It means that they were not restricting themselves to concealed carry. What do you mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well you've certainly failed to put together a convincing cohesive argument.
But thanks for trying, even though your effort was minimal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you put as much effort into writing a comprehensible argument as you do into trying to be a dick, then I'd continue to respond to you.
But I doubt it, so I'm just going to keep thinking that you're retarded and stop. Good day, sir.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you are allowed to openly carry a gun you are allowed to carry a gun. Even if you are NOT allowed to carry a concealed gun. Understand that? Yup. The fundamental right is to carry. I don't care if its concealed or not. The same argument would have applied to a license for open carry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was right all along. There is no fundamental right to concealed carry. As I said, what you were right about was irrelevant to the argument.
There is no fundamental right to carry a firearm openly, There is a fundamental right to carry a firearm, period. It doesn't matter if it is open or concealed. The argument was about how licenses to carry should be handled. Whether they're concealed or open is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I would think that the term "keep and bear" would mean carry. It really is that simple. Yeah, but you're talking to a guy who also wrote this, in Message 253:
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024