|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: First side effect of the gay marriage ruling | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
No.
First, so far as I can tell the reasoning in the ruling determining recognition by other states is different. That just refers to the problems of not recognising marriages performed in other states. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
And the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for my state to refuse to issue people CCLs. I've been trying to find out what case you're referring to, but can't. A Missouri court ruled this year that a state law forbidding convicted felons to carry loaded firearms in their vehcles was in violation of Missouri's constitution, but I can't find anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Are you mixed up or I am not looking hard enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I guess that you didn't notice the "concealed" in "concealed carry".
Your citation doesn't address that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. But this decision was presented by the court as a corollary to the Fourteenth Amendment right to marry:
As counsel for the respondents acknowledged at argument, if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 44. The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must holdand it now does holdthat there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. 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. At that point, it would become possible to point to the precedent of Obergefell v. Hodges and say that in that case the states must recognize each others' concealed-carry licenses. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I was just wondering what the first knee-jerk reactions would be from the far left - I got my answers!
This has been spreading around over the weekend, this evening I found this on FB; http://www.ijreview.com/...nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in Looks like it will take some time if it gets anywhere, will probably take a lot of time and money. But it will be interesting to see how some other things are held up against this ruling, I've been hearing about "right to work" laws possibly gaining some strength from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm sorry but you seem totally clueless (as is most of the modern fascists that claim to be conservatives) what a conservative is. If you would like I will try to educate you.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I was just wondering what the first knee-jerk reactions would be from the far left - I got my answers! By "the far left" you mean anyone who's not a complete moron, yes?
This has been spreading around over the weekend, this evening I found this on FB; http://www.ijreview.com/...nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in The money quote:
This is silly, and it represents not even a cursory understanding of either the Constitution or the judicial process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Maybe you don't understand how it works. You should be posting arguments that support your stance.
You are in violation of forum rules by posting a bare link. That being said the link you posted does not support your argument. quote: This is from a fellow at the Cato Institute, which is as libertarian as think tanks get. I advised you to quite while you are behind, but seems you want to keep on digging.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As long as a State issues licenses to drive or get married or own a gun or carry a gun and treats men and women, white and black, Latino and Asian or straight and gay the same then this ruling would have no effect. That's the whole point. The ruling just says that as long as states are issuing marriage licenses, they can't discriminate who they issue them to on the basis of sexuality. If a state stopped issuing marriage licenses, all together, then it wouldn't be obligated to issue licenses to anyone.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Looks like it will take some time if it gets anywhere, will probably take a lot of time and money. So apparently you've learned that the ruling falls well short of what you want.
, I've been hearing about "right to work" laws possibly gaining some strength from it. I wonder if you've simply fallen for some more empty rhetoric on yet another wing-nut web site. Do you really think there is a nation wide 'right to work' law on the horizon? Seriously, marc9000, you should have been able to sort this one out on your own. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
The money quote: This is silly, and it represents not even a cursory understanding of either the Constitution or the judicial process. Yes, he looks like the gay one!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I'm sorry but you seem totally clueless (as is most of the modern fascists that claim to be conservatives) what a conservative is. If you would like I will try to educate you. Yes, you're a gun owner who loves gun control, a Christian who hates Christians, it figures you'd claim conservatism too. You're a good kind of phony, most everyone sees right through you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024