will SCOTUS gay rulings affect gun rights?

[gunsmith]

I'm thinking the next course of action will be the gay rights folks cruising ( oops, crusading ) for marriage reciprocity.
Can gunnies, uh, insert language in a bill like that for national ccw reciprocity?

Any other way these rulings can effect gun rights?

[Balog]

As I understand it, the DOMA decision was a silly appeal to the Fifth not a strong statement on the Tenth so I don't think it'll help.

[AZRedhawk44]

Last thing I want is feds doing anything with CCW or gun ownership involving new law.

The only thing I'll endorse is the "full faith and credit" clause of COTUS being applied.  No new USC, no new verbiage anywhere.  Adding law always creates sideways repercussions.

[Perd Hapley]

If leftists approve of these rulings, do we basically have them admitting that states' rights is not an automatically racist point of view?

Since the Court apparently finds that states can define or redefine things willy-nilly, what can we expect for gun rights? Has not Illinois the right to define an assault weapon as, say, a repeating firearm? To define open carry as brandishing?

It seems the lesson we learn is that the best constitution in the world is of no use once the people adopt unreason as their creed.

[AZRedhawk44]

It seems the lesson we learn is that the best constitution in the world is of no use once the people adopt unreason as their creed.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.  --Lysander Spooner

[Perd Hapley]

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.  --Lysander Spooner

We are all, by now, familiar with your favorite little quip. I would care about Mr. Spooner's opinion if he had something superior in mind. Does he?

[makattak]

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.  --Lysander Spooner

Evil men in office cannot be stopped. They can only be slowed.

I'd say the Constitution did wonderfully well for some time. Unfortunately:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

[AZRedhawk44]

We are all, by now, familiar with your favorite little quip. I would care about Mr. Spooner's opinion if he had something superior in mind. Does he?

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/4

Read some Spooner and you're realize he's one of the prototype minarchist voluntaryists.  

The notion of an inherited contract (i.e. birthright compulsory citizenship, that a nation could "claim" a person born free into this world) was abhorrent to him.  As such, the Constitution might or might not have been valid for the handful of men who drafted and agreed upon the thing in the 18th century, but not valid for the millions that did not draft or agree upon it in that time and certainly not for those not yet born to be compelled by it.

He was not about to go and dictate that you, fistful, should adhere to his particular form of government he idealized.  He also would suggest that you not dictate to him that he must adhere to your particular form of government which you idealize.

However his demonstration of the combined impotence and ineffectiveness of the COTUS to restrain its own government is none the less potent, despite lacking a proposal for an alternate statist governmental structure as you request.  You manifested the very same notion in very similar words.


I would add from my own perspective... using the COTUS as a shield to defend your God given and naturally derived rights is a logical fallacy.  It is not one that our founders made when asserting those rights (obviously... since COTUS didn't exist back then).  Enshrining COTUS as some sort of mystical symbol just grants your enemies clergy-like power over you when they abscond with that symbol and its mantle of authority.

[wmenorr67]

I have been pondering this thought all day since I saw the ruling.  Thing is so far SCOTUS hasn't said that State B has to recognize a gay marriage performed and recognized in State A.  If it ever comes to that then I would say it opens up all sorts of licenses that will have to be recognized.

As it stands it is going to cause a nightmare for the military and as some have already pointed out immigration issues. 

[Matthew Carberry]

I think this forestalls a Federal attempt to set a nationwide "definition" of carry for states, as carry within a state is a traditional province of the state police power and does not in any way have a Federal intersection (beyond purchase and possession laws).

Kennedy talks about the traditional right of the states to make their own determination as long as their laws don't violate equal protection or due process.  In effect if carry is found to be part of the right and thus subject to DP and EP the Feds might be justified in setting a floor, but not a ceiling.

The ruling on the Civil Rights Act is more interesting, it says a right like voting cannot be interfered with by the Feds based on, effectively, outdated data.

Since the latest data continue to show relaxed gun laws have no negative effect on violent crime, any Federal (or state per McDonald) attempt relying on older data when newer is available should be challengable if not facially invalid.

Haven't really processed the thoughts, I apologize for how disjointed they are.

[Perd Hapley]

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/4

Read some Spooner and you're realize he's one of the prototype minarchist voluntaryists.  

The notion of an inherited contract (i.e. birthright compulsory citizenship, that a nation could "claim" a person born free into this world) was abhorrent to him.  As such, the Constitution might or might not have been valid for the handful of men who drafted and agreed upon the thing in the 18th century, but not valid for the millions that did not draft or agree upon it in that time and certainly not for those not yet born to be compelled by it.

He was not about to go and dictate that you, fistful, should adhere to his particular form of government he idealized.  He also would suggest that you not dictate to him that he must adhere to your particular form of government which you idealize.

However his demonstration of the combined impotence and ineffectiveness of the COTUS to restrain its own government is none the less potent, despite lacking a proposal for an alternate statist governmental structure as you request.  You manifested the very same notion in very similar words.


I would add from my own perspective... using the COTUS as a shield to defend your God given and naturally derived rights is a logical fallacy.  It is not one that our founders made when asserting those rights (obviously... since COTUS didn't exist back then).  Enshrining COTUS as some sort of mystical symbol just grants your enemies clergy-like power over you when they abscond with that symbol and its mantle of authority.

So the answer is no. I'll keep Spooner in mind to check out some time. Thanks for the recommendation.