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

[usmarine0352_2005]

What do you think?





http://www.guns.com/2015/06/27/supr...arriage-may-pave-way-for-expanded-gun-rights/

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.”

 

[Sam1911]

There is already one closed thread on this --

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=783035

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.

 

[hso]

Already under discussion http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=783004&highlight=14th

 

[Frank Ettin]

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.