First side effect of the gay marriage ruling

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.So for example, my state - Illinois, only recognizes CCL's that they issue themselves and they don't recognize them from other states.If the 14th means that the state of Illinois must recognize other state's marriage licenses, then the same argument could apply to other state's Conceal Carry Licenses and then Illinois would have to recognize those too.

Well sure, not this ruling, but the precedent, as I said.A big portion of this ruling was just determining that marriage was a fundamental right. Then they got into how being a fundamental right meant these things.One of those things was that the justifications for refusing to recognize marriages from other states was undermined by the states being required by the Constitution to issue those licenses in their state.Now, we already know that having guns is a fundamental right.And the SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional for my state to refuse to issue people CCLs.Therefore, if they have to issue this license in this state then that should also undermine their justifications for refusing to recognize licenses from other states.That's one of the precedents that seems to have been set by this ruling. But I could be wrong.

That was a paraphrase of the argument I saw, not the ruling.

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.

---

Yeah, sorry, I was wrong. It wasn't SCOTUS, it was the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals:Moore v. Madigan - WikipediaFor some reason I though that one went to the Supreme Court, but it didn't.

Really? Is that really the argument you want to go with?

What about the Moore v Madigan case that I linked to in Message 20, is that at all relevant?

You didn't show an obvious fallacy.You claimed that because the DC v Heller case didn't explicitly state "concealed" when it said that people have the right to carry arms, then that means that they were not talking about concealed carry.They were just talking about carrying, and whether or not it is concealed is a subset of that so your point was irrelevant.It'd be like you arguing that we don't have free speech online because the first amendment doesn't mention the internet.

There was a part in the opinion that I didn't really notice much before (bold added for emphasis):

quote:

---

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.

---

I was under the impression that they were saying that there was no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize another State's marriage at all.If they're only saying that there's no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize another State's marriage on the ground of its same-sex character, well, that's different. And that pretty much convinces me that the argument I was making is wrong.Thanks for your time.

What do you mean?

Well you've certainly failed to put together a convincing cohesive argument.But thanks for trying, even though your effort was minimal.

If you put as much effort into writing a comprehensible argument as you do into trying to be a dick, then I'd continue to respond to you.But I doubt it, so I'm just going to keep thinking that you're retarded and stop.Good day, sir.

Yup.The fundamental right is to carry. I don't care if its concealed or not.The same argument would have applied to a license for open carry.

As I said, what you were right about was irrelevant to the argument. There is a fundamental right to carry a firearm, period.It doesn't matter if it is open or concealed.The argument was about how licenses to carry should be handled. Whether they're concealed or open is irrelevant.

Yeah, but you're talking to a guy who also wrote this, in Message 253:

quote:

---

with their own guns

​

The wording is "bear arms" not own arms. If they meant personal ownership why did they not state that?

---