The 14th Amendment Comes Into Its Own

What if SCOTUS decides it needs to rule on guns seperatley because of the precedent this sets? I wouldn't hold my breath for any freedom expanding rulings.

It's 2015

Social issues > personal rights/ freedom.

gun_with_a_view said:

LOL, has SCOTUS inadvertently established precedent here regarding the constitutional obligation of the states to recognize personal rights like packing guns across state lines? OMG, the Left didn't figure on this outcome out of a gay marriage case. Once the cheap thrills are gone, it's wake up time Left of the Mason-Dixon line...

http://constitutionalrightspac.com/...ndates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity

Click to expand...

Maybe some of us support the result in both the marriage context AND the firearm context. No need to take such a partisan tone; the 14th Amendment is a good thing in all sorts of different contexts.

They'll just change the meaning of some key words in either their interpretation or the 2nd Amendment.

"the 14th Amendment is a good thing in all sorts of different contexts."
I'm quite certain that the only thing we know for sure about the 14th is that it has resulted in the most unintentional consequences of any constitutional passage. "Equality under the law" is rapidly being reinterpreted as "equality by law," and by people who believe gunowners should be equalized to their disarmed peers by --wait for it-- disarmament.

On the up side, I'm fairly sure I can make a case for marrying Tim Cook and the Apple Corporation after this last ruling

TCB

Yep. I support personal freedom in all areas, not just 2A. I'd prefer we stick to firearms issues here.

If I marry my 1911...

in order to take advantage of the SCOTUS example this week of definition shopping, and cross-border respect of other than standard unions - will I be a polygamist as relates to my current wife?


Crazy times we live in and that ain't entertaining!


Todd.

The problem is that SCOTUS seems to be ruling according to their personal prejudices, then faking up the legal reasoning. It's not one case, this has been going on since about 1960.

Two years ago, in overturning the Defense of Marriage act, SCOTUS said that the definition of marriage was the purvue of the states.

Today, in Obergefell v Hodges, they either reversed that decision or said, It may be the purvue of the states to define but this is the definition they will use.

I'm not so much concerned for reciprocity, as I am concerned about the possible precedent that state laws must be uniform or perhaps must be uniform in result. If this is the case, what need is there for state legislatures or state constitutions? All we really need is one legislative body (USCongress) to pass one set of laws for the governors of all states to execute...equally.

It's been going on since the beginning (or at least since Dred Scott). Seriously; look up the background and consequences of the Scott decision, and it has eerie parallels to Burwell. Especially to folks who are convinced the Executive would not ever meddle in the deliberations of justices making important decisions with lots of political fallout. In trying to placate a conflict and 'solve' a political problem legally, SCOTUS basically brought about the end of faith in federal arbitration that lead directly to the Civil War.

"Two years ago, in overturning the Defense of Marriage act, SCOTUS said that the definition of marriage was the purvue of the states."
Haven't you heard? They actually meant the purview of the federal government when the majority wrote that

TCB

"Two years ago, in overturning the Defense of Marriage act, SCOTUS said that the definition of marriage was the purvue of the states."
Haven't you heard? They actually meant the purview of the federal government when the majority wrote that

Click to expand...

Trying to reconcile that is giving me an even worse headache.

JRH6856 said:

Two years ago, in overturning the Defense of Marriage act, SCOTUS said that the definition of marriage was the purvue of the states.

Today, in Obergefell v Hodges, they either reversed that decision or said, It may be the purvue of the states to define but this is the definition they will use.

I'm not so much concerned for reciprocity, as I am concerned about the possible precedent that state laws must be uniform or perhaps must be uniform in result. If this is the case, what need is there for state legislatures or state constitutions? All we really need is one legislative body (USCongress) to pass one set of laws for the governors of all states to execute...equally.

Click to expand...

Why would states even need governors? The single, central government would be enough. Remove borders, and become one state, no longer a group of states united. It's a logical step if the end goal is Globalism, one world government and economy.

The end result is complete abolition of power belonging to the states and uninhibited, arbitrary government by the federal. The Constitution clearly states that all powers not expressly granted to the federal are reserved to the states (10th amendment). We are seeing a complete trampling of this.

Agree with the decision or disagree with it, that's immaterial. It is a state issue to decide, not federal. When we begin discussing precedent, this is exactly where we will eventually find ourselves with ALL our rights, including 2nd amendment rights. We will be allowed permission to exercise them solely at the discretion and whim of the federal, with the SCOTUS massaging the Constitution to fit the political winds.

USAF Vet said:

Why would states even need governors? The single, central government would be enough. Remove borders, and become one state, no longer a group of states united. It's a logical step if the end goal is Globalism, one world government and economy.

Click to expand...

I assume there would probably be a need for regional administration at least. If not states, perhaps regions conforming to the circuit court jurisdictions. Or perhaps not.

Nyet. Central Planning Committee will take care of all that, Comrade. We cannot have the proletariat too close to governing bodies.

Maybe because I live just north of the California border, and California doesn't give reciprocity, but I would LOVE to see some more national consistency. I'm sure everyone who has ever gotten into legal trouble when crossing state lines, despite the best of intentions and the lack of any criminal intent, would see some benefit to more uniformity.

Federal governments can be good or bad; state governments can be good or bad. I don't see one as inherently better than the other. I do think for certain things, there is real practicality in national uniformity--and I think carry licensing and other firearms laws are one area where national uniformity would do firearm owners some real good. If the 14th Amendment and the court system is a way to get there, great.

Just my opinion of course.

good joke OP

over the next decade we'll be lucky to keep the 2nd amendment on the books, much less expand gun rights.

ApacheCoTodd said:

in order to take advantage of the SCOTUS example this week of definition shopping, and cross-border respect of other than standard unions - will I be a polygamist as relates to my current wife?


Crazy times we live in and that ain't entertaining!


Todd.

Click to expand...

Marry two guns. Then you will be a polygunist.