Article: Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights - THR

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Old June 29, 2015, 02:24 PM   #1
Join Date: October 21, 2005
Posts: 2,685
Article: Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights

What do you think?


Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights

6/27/15 | by Chris Eger

With the high court’s latest ruling on same-sex marriages, some contend the decision could lead to increased gun rights, specifically national CCW reciprocity, by using the same argument.“To paraphrase what Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said about same-sex marriage,” noted Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a statement Friday, “no right is more profound than the right of self-preservation, and under the Constitution, all citizens should be able to exercise the right of self-defense anywhere in the country. It disparages their ability to do so, and diminishes their personhood to deny the right to bear arms they have in their home states when they are visiting other states.”

While every state has a framework to issue concealed carry permits, they are under no obligation to recognize those issued by other states and territories. For example, Illinois and Hawaii only recognize permits issued by their respective jurisdictions. In contrast, Ohio recognizes licenses from any other state regardless of whether Ohio has entered into a reciprocity agreement.

Other groups agreed, arguing that the stakes could be even bigger than carry reciprocity. “Did the Supreme Court rule today that all gun laws are unconstitutional?,” noted Open Carry Texas on their social media account. “If states can’t infringe upon ‘marriage equality’ then they also can’t infringe upon civil gun rights. That is the essence of their rulings over the past 48 hours. If we have a right to health care and marriage, we have a right to guns.”
usmarine0352_2005 is offline  
Old June 29, 2015, 03:13 PM   #2
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 30,345
There is already one closed thread on this --


Frank ended it with this:
It looks like no one has actually read the SCOTUS opinion and is basing discussion on the article linked to in the OP.

As I've pointed out before, it is a waste of time to discuss court opinions without having actually read and understood them. So there's no point to continuing this.
So this time, folks might try to stick to reading and understanding the actual decision and this could live longer.

In other words, "What do you think?" is not a wide-open question. If you want to share what you think, make sure what you think is an educated opinion worth others' time to read.
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
For Sale
Sam1911 is offline  
Old June 29, 2015, 03:41 PM   #3
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 42,366
Already under discussion http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...highlight=14th
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.
hso is offline  
Old June 29, 2015, 03:42 PM   #4
Frank Ettin
Join Date: April 29, 2006
Location: California - San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 8,435
I also posted this here:
...let me now ask, how many people here who are taking that view have actually read the Supreme Court opinion in Obergefell? Would someone who has actually read the opinion like to explain to us exactly how that opinion makes a federal national carry reciprocity law more likely or attractive?

If anyone wants to take up this challenge, base your arguments solely on the exact language of the SCOTUS majority opinion, and not on secondary sources.
I've had no takers, neither here nor on TFL where I made a similar challenge.

If a cogent, rigorous argument could be made, I'm sure we'd all be interested. But so far it looks like all the opinions along the lines of the article linked to in the OP here are simply not based on a solid reading of the Obergefell opinion.
"Though boys throw stones at frogs in sport, the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest." Bion (Greek poet, ca. 100 BCE)
Frank Ettin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.