Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First side effect of the gay marriage ruling
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 98 (761211)
06-29-2015 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
06-29-2015 4:02 PM


As I understand it, the argument goes that if State Y has to recognize State X's marriage license, because of section 1 of the 14th amendment, then that same precedent also applies to State X's conceal carry licenses and State Y has to recognize it as well.
You understand the ruling exactly as poorly as does Marc9000.
That was a paraphrase of the argument I saw, not the ruling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 06-29-2015 4:02 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 98 (761212)
06-29-2015 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2015 3:53 PM


No.
First, so far as I can tell the reasoning in the ruling determining recognition by other states is different. That just refers to the problems of not recognising marriages performed in other states.
Second, concealed carry is distinct from gun ownership. If you want to claim that concealed carry is a fundamental right, you need better reasoning than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2015 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2015 4:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 18 of 98 (761213)
06-29-2015 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2015 3:53 PM


And the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for my state to refuse to issue people CCLs.
I've been trying to find out what case you're referring to, but can't. A Missouri court ruled this year that a state law forbidding convicted felons to carry loaded firearms in their vehcles was in violation of Missouri's constitution, but I can't find anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Are you mixed up or I am not looking hard enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2015 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2015 4:25 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 98 (761214)
06-29-2015 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
06-29-2015 4:05 PM


Second, concealed carry is distinct from gun ownership. If you want to claim that concealed carry is a fundamental right, you need better reasoning than that.
From DC v Heller:
quote:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry."
...
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2015 4:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2015 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 98 (761216)
06-29-2015 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by caffeine
06-29-2015 4:19 PM


I've been trying to find out what case you're referring to, but can't.
Yeah, sorry, I was wrong. It wasn't SCOTUS, it was the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Moore v. Madigan - Wikipedia
For some reason I though that one went to the Supreme Court, but it didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by caffeine, posted 06-29-2015 4:19 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 98 (761218)
06-29-2015 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2015 4:22 PM


I guess that you didn't notice the "concealed" in "concealed carry".
Your citation doesn't address that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2015 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 10:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 98 (761226)
06-29-2015 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2015 1:27 PM


As I understand it, the argument goes that if State Y has to recognize State X's marriage license, because of section 1 of the 14th amendment, then that same precedent also applies to State X's conceal carry licenses and State Y has to recognize it as well.
But this decision was presented by the court as a corollary to the Fourteenth Amendment right to marry:
As counsel for the respondents acknowledged at argument, if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 44. The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must holdand it now does holdthat there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
So for the same argument to apply to (for example) concealed-carry licenses, you would first need (for example) a ruling that any state must issue a concealed-carry license to anyone who wants one. At that point, it would become possible to point to the precedent of Obergefell v. Hodges and say that in that case the states must recognize each others' concealed-carry licenses.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2015 1:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 06-29-2015 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2015 10:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 23 of 98 (761244)
06-29-2015 8:28 PM


I was just wondering what the first knee-jerk reactions would be from the far left - I got my answers!
This has been spreading around over the weekend, this evening I found this on FB;
http://www.ijreview.com/...nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in
Looks like it will take some time if it gets anywhere, will probably take a lot of time and money. But it will be interesting to see how some other things are held up against this ruling, I've been hearing about "right to work" laws possibly gaining some strength from it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 06-29-2015 8:31 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2015 8:31 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 26 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2015 8:53 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 06-29-2015 9:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 98 (761246)
06-29-2015 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by marc9000
06-29-2015 8:28 PM


not from the far left but from a life long conservative.
I'm sorry but you seem totally clueless (as is most of the modern fascists that claim to be conservatives) what a conservative is. If you would like I will try to educate you.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 8:28 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 9:17 PM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 98 (761247)
06-29-2015 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by marc9000
06-29-2015 8:28 PM


I was just wondering what the first knee-jerk reactions would be from the far left - I got my answers!
By "the far left" you mean anyone who's not a complete moron, yes?
This has been spreading around over the weekend, this evening I found this on FB;
http://www.ijreview.com/...nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in
The money quote:
This is silly, and it represents not even a cursory understanding of either the Constitution or the judicial process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 8:28 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 9:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 26 of 98 (761249)
06-29-2015 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by marc9000
06-29-2015 8:28 PM


Maybe you don't understand how it works. You should be posting arguments that support your stance.
You are in violation of forum rules by posting a bare link. That being said the link you posted does not support your argument.
quote:
Moreover, by using these spurious arguments, advocates like this harm the overall movement for gun rights. Bad arguments can create bad precedents that could impair the expansion of the right to self defense.
This is from a fellow at the Cato Institute, which is as libertarian as think tanks get.
I advised you to quite while you are behind, but seems you want to keep on digging.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 8:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 98 (761250)
06-29-2015 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
06-29-2015 2:24 PM


As long as a State issues licenses to drive or get married or own a gun or carry a gun and treats men and women, white and black, Latino and Asian or straight and gay the same then this ruling would have no effect.
That's the whole point.
The ruling just says that as long as states are issuing marriage licenses, they can't discriminate who they issue them to on the basis of sexuality.
If a state stopped issuing marriage licenses, all together, then it wouldn't be obligated to issue licenses to anyone.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 06-29-2015 2:24 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 98 (761251)
06-29-2015 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by marc9000
06-29-2015 8:28 PM


Looks like it will take some time if it gets anywhere, will probably take a lot of time and money.
So apparently you've learned that the ruling falls well short of what you want.
, I've been hearing about "right to work" laws possibly gaining some strength from it.
I wonder if you've simply fallen for some more empty rhetoric on yet another wing-nut web site. Do you really think there is a nation wide 'right to work' law on the horizon?
Seriously, marc9000, you should have been able to sort this one out on your own.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by marc9000, posted 06-29-2015 8:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 29 of 98 (761253)
06-29-2015 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2015 8:31 PM


The money quote:
This is silly, and it represents not even a cursory understanding of either the Constitution or the judicial process.
Yes, he looks like the gay one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2015 8:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2015 9:17 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 30 of 98 (761254)
06-29-2015 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
06-29-2015 8:31 PM


Re: not from the far left but from a life long conservative.
I'm sorry but you seem totally clueless (as is most of the modern fascists that claim to be conservatives) what a conservative is. If you would like I will try to educate you.
Yes, you're a gun owner who loves gun control, a Christian who hates Christians, it figures you'd claim conservatism too. You're a good kind of phony, most everyone sees right through you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 06-29-2015 8:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 06-29-2015 9:33 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 06-29-2015 10:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024