First side effect of the gay marriage ruling

No. Because the ruling was about marriage, not guns. Your OP is stunning in its ridiculousness. There was nothing in the court case and nothing in the ruling about the second amendment. Most people were able to figure that out, cuz, it was about marriage.

Like the fact you need a license to get married.Maybe you should stop while you are behind.

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.

That is a very offensive comment. I know you don't care about how you offend people, but the term "retarded" is now considered by many people as extremely offensive and demeaning. People don't choose to be developmentally disabled, to use the term as an insult is extremely demeaning.Its too bad that your debating skills have reverted back to where they were when you started to post here.

Maybe he can provide cites for this fundamental right to carry.

Well others would think differently. Does the 2nd amendment allow for open carry in any public place? Where should people be allowed to open carry? Home? Hunting? Walmart?
It is not black and white no matter what you and Cat Sci may think. Where is the cite showing people should be able to open carry everywhere they want?

You need to quit being such an ass and make your statements clear so people understand you. You are not impressing anyone with your cryptic responses. No it isn't that simple. And yes your response was black and white, as shown by you saying "It really is that simple"
It seems many states do not consider carry a fundamental right. These states either do not allow open carry or there is some sort of restriction or licensing, CA, CO(Denver), CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, MA, MD, MN, NE, NJ, NY, ND, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, UT, VA.So as you can see many states do not equate "right to bear arms" with a fundamental right to carry.

Concealed carry is not a recognized fundamental right.
Marc gave us a link that actually destroys his and CS's arguments.http://www.ijreview.com/...nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-inHere are some opinions by legal experts

quote:

---

In particular, the Supreme Court has not ruled that having a concealed carry permit is a personal choice central to individual dignity and autonomy. It hasn’t even (so far) ruled that the right to conceal-carry (as opposed to the right to mere possession of arms in the home) is protected by the Second Amendment. The portion of the majority opinion that deals with state recognition of same-sex marriages performed out of state is based on the notion that: If States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined.

​

But, in the case of concealed carry permits, the Court has never ruled that states are required to issue them to their own citizens.

---

quote:

---

No. The Obergefell Court applied the Due Process Clause to certain personal choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. I doubt that the Court would interpret that phrase to encompass a federal constitutional right to concealed carry. Nor would the Court rule that any right enforceable under the laws of, say, 36 states must therefore be extended to the remaining states.

---

Simply put concealed carry and marriage rights are fundamentally different things. Maybe the Supreme Court will some day say concealed carry or any carry is a fundamental right, but as of now that has not happened.

quote:

---

his is silly, and it represents not even a cursory understanding of either the Constitution or the judicial process. If proponents want to bring a case on concealed carry and cite the Obergefell opinion, they are free to, and judges will be equally free to reject their arguments. In no way does the gay marriage automatically convey a right to concealed carry in 50 states.

​

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.

---

These are not opinions from some wide eyed liberals. These are from the Cato institute, a libertarian think tank.

Boy you have changed the argument completely haven't you. As some states don't allow carry at all would seem to defeat your argument. Then again morphing arguments seems to be your hallmark.So is carrying a weapon a fundamental right? Can you provide any sort of court rulings?