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.
I was going to write about the same subject, but Bob does a rather nice job.
No, reciprocity will not be upheld by this decision… There are significant differences between marriage licenses and marriages, and those differences are important in relation to CCW licenses. The marriage license is a grant to enter into the legally recognized marriage contract. A divorce does not nullify the license, it nullifies the contract. Most marriage licenses expire after 30-90 days. That’s because they aren’t the portable entity, the marriage itself is, as determined by the contract. The contract is implied based on law and case law , and not a thing unto itself. The marriage certificate is the entity that proves the contract is in force.
Even if Terraformer is correct, the way the issue has been framed beats the heck out of the previous calls for a National Concealed Carry Permit. I am not opposed to “our side” using the ruling as a scare tactic to get universal recognition (not reciprocity) legislated.
Many states are in fact moving towards recognition of any permit. Some are insisting that there be a background check associated with the permit, or that there be a 24/7 method of determining if the permit is valid, and a very few still insist they will only recognize permits that have training requirements as rigid as for their permit.
What folks seem to forget too easily is that a concealed carry permit/license is an allowance by the state to violate a law. A slowly growing number of states are recognizing that any law against any method of bearing arms is wrong; they properly are focusing on what the individual’s behavior is while doing all that keeping and bearing stuff.
stay safe.
The media rushed to hold up the new scouts ruling high in the air, carved in granit the tablets are the rule by which the universe moves. They hold scotus infalable but, lurking in the dark shadows in the McDonald ruling which they have chosen to ignore. Just ask any of the millions of new “gun felons” in NY, CT, MD or NJ created by new laws in violation of McDonald. The left now picks and chooses which scotus ruling it will allow to be incorporated into society there by turning the court into nothing more than a political football. A PC court of fools who’s credibility is sinking with the rest of the federal government as intended, it can not be replaced until it is completely worthless.
This ruling does not allow that all laws or licenses in one state must be upheld by every other state. It’s not tossing out the entire concept of Federalism. Marriage was already practiced in all 50 states. Furthermore, marriages have always been recognized across state lines so nothing here breaks any new ground in that respect. If you’re straight your marriage would already have been as valid in OH as it was in AL. The only real difference here is that now the law is the same for gay people as it already was for straight folks. Again, no new ground here. Marriage was already recognized across state lines. Otherwise we all would have had to get remarried every time we moved from one state to another. Obviously, that has never been the case. The constitutional issue at hand was equal protection under the law, which provides that there isn’t one set of rules for certain people and a lesser set for others. Read George Orwell sometime for clarity. This was all covered perfectly in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 when exactly the same arguments were made to block interracial unions. The world didn’t end in 1967 and the sky also isn’t falling now. Conceal carry isn’t an “Equal Protection” issue because it applies to all citizens equally. You may find it a pain in the ass to have to re-apply for a carry permit in each state, but you aren’t prohibited from following the same procedures as everybody else (unless you’ve had your rights stripped, but that’s an entirely different discussion). Think of it this way, if you were allowed to conceal carry in DC because you were pretty, yet the guy next to you was denied because he was ugly that would not be “Equal” protection. Rest assured though, ugly guys are not barred from participation. Sure, you might have to meet more stringent standards to qualify for a C.C.P. in DC than in Texas but so will everyone else. Level playing field = no conflict with the Equal Protection Clause.
Try it in New Jersey, let us know how the jail food is.
14th amendment speaks of “privileges”, not rights. 2A is a right. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need permission to carry anywhere, anytime, any way we choose.
Sigh. America; was nice while it lasted.
I think Article IV Section 2 Clause 1, and Article VI Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution has something to say about this issue of some States recognizing the U.S. Constitution and some not:
A.IVS2.C1: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
AVI.C2 (in pertinent part): This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATES SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.” (emphasis ADDED.)
Good luck getting the Supreme Court to recognize the U.S. Constitution as long as Obama-blackmailed John Roberts is Chief Justice.
Not that I read the whole decission, but his is what I get:
Given:
A != B
Prove:
A + B = A + A = B + B
Proof:
SCOTUS says so, that’s why. QED
Totally arbitrary and capricious. THAT is the precedent.
SCOTUS is our new Congress.
Don’t uphold the rights we DO have, add in ones that don’t exist.
Throw states rights out the window.
What words do we redefine next?!
This was a major misstep in the Democrat political scheme, but only if we don’t do what they expect us to do.
It’s a well-known fact(of course) that the Democrat leadership are parasites to the Democrat voters. You are valuable to the Democrat party as a voter if you have a problem that they can promise to solve for you, but actually solving that problem? They can’t do that. That would mean that you don’t have any problems any more. They can’t convince you to elect them if they can’t promise to solve your problems.
Yesterday, they solved a problem.
Now, this was a calculated tactical ploy. They’re counting on pro-gay voters to continue voting Democrat because otherwise, the Republicans will come in and take away their marriage rights.
But what if we didn’t?
Maybe we could stall their political machine long enough to undo the damage that was done.
Not the damage that was done yesterday. That was pretty minor, really. The damage that was done over the past 30 years that made anyone think that yesterday was actually a solution to anything.