First side effect of the gay marriage ruling

Message 19 seems pretty clear. If you wished to argue for a different "fundamental right" you should have said so. You didn't.

No where have I ever said " people should be able to open carry everywhere they want" so I guess you need to learn to read.Nor have I ever said that the question is "Black and white" so again, please learn to read what I have said.The folk that wrote the US Constitution though did seem to think that the issue was as far as they were concerned clear and closed.My personal position though is that I would prefer to see a society in the US where Open Carry is legal almost everywhere period and that concealed carry is illegal almost everywhere.I do favor controls on ownership, possession and carry of firearms in the US that is at least as strict and encompassing as the far greater threat from allowing people to drive. I would be in favor of annual proficiency test for both driving and owning/possession/carrying a firearm even though the threat from firearms is so much lower than the threat from other drivers.

Sure I did, in Message 40, in Message 50, and again in Message 59.If you don't get it after 3 times then I'm simply unable to communicate with you.But I should've know, since acting like a dick is a higher priority for you than making understandable arguments.This is the last response you'll get from me here. You can have the last word.

The fundamental right is to keep and bear arms. You have the right to own and carry a gun.I don't care if that's concealed or open carry. The argument was about how states treat licenses.My state only has a license for concealed carry, so that's what I was talking about in particular.I never wrote that you have a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm, nor did I intend to imply that.You have the right to carry. Concealed carry fulfills that right. Open carry fulfills that right. That doesn't mean that you have the right to either concealed or open carry specifically.That's why I was saying that concealed carry is just a subset of carrying. It doesn't matter if your state allows for open or concealed, but they do have to allow for some kind of carrying.Not allowing for any kind of carry was ruled unconstitutional.

It means that you can't have different gun laws for different sexes. That is the extent of its impact.

quote:

---

Sure I did, in Message 40, in Message 50, and again in Message 59.

---

And you're lying about two of those. As anyone who bothers to check will see.The fact that you didn't mention what you now claim to be arguing for before conceding my point is bad enough. That you try to pretend that you said so earlier, hardly encourages me to Believe that you made an honest mistake.

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.

So I went and checked. I think you made a mistake.CS's summary of the argument is best summarized in Message 12:

quote:

---

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.

---

He expands in Message 14:

quote:

---

A big portion of this ruling was just determining that marriage was a fundamental right...Now, we already know that having guns is a fundamental right.

---

If I am issued a marriage certificate in State X, is State Y obligated to recognize this marriage?
If so, then
If State X issues a CCL is State Y obligated to recognize this licence?Let us say that Open Carry is heterosexual marriage and is the norm for licences in the USA. But one state decides one should be able to Concealed Carry, against the notions of the other States. This is a queer carry method. If Marriage has to be recognized whether it is straight or gay, can we apply the same reasoning to the different forms of firearm licence?Catholic Scientist has been fairly consistent in arguing this. However, Message 19 seems almost designed to confuse you, but may have been Catholic Scientist's assumptions about what you understood about his argument fooling him into thinking it was sufficient to clear things up.What do you make of that particular argument, incidentally?

Except that Cat Sci has already acknowledge his error in making this argument. And as has been pointed out, in order to make the argument he wants based on the actually holding, which is that states are obligated to recognize gay marriages given that they recognize all other marriages, a ruling that concealed carry is a fundamental right is needed to close the loop.

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.

quote:

---

So I went and checked. I think you made a mistake.

---

I checked and I didn't.

quote:

---

He expands in Message 14:

​

quote:

---

A big portion of this ruling was just determining that marriage was a fundamental right...Now, we already know that having guns is a fundamental right.

---

---

And I replied in Message 17And that is where the discussion started.So it was already clear at that point that "having guns" was not the issue - concealed carry was.

quote:

---

Let us say that Open Carry is heterosexual marriage and is the norm for licences in the USA. But one state decides one should be able to Concealed Carry, against the notions of the other States. This is a queer carry method. If Marriage has to be recognized whether it is straight or gay, can we apply the same reasoning to the different forms of firearm licence?

---

The most important part of the reasoning of the Court's decision is based on the fact that all States are required to allow gays to marry. Thus you would have to assume that all States permitted both concealed and open carry licenses to have a truly analagous situation. The question you pose is simply not answerable on the basis of the Court's decision because of this.The decision also references the problems of States not recognising a marriage made in another State, but this is neither put forward as a decisive principle nor is it clearly applicable either.Finally, going back to the OP, my little researches revealed that States ARE permitted to have differing marriage rules and not recognise marriages which violate those rules. By this analogy, since there is no requirement to recognise all out-of-State marriages there should not be a requirement to recognise all out-of-State gun licenses.

In that case, it seems that you don't have an argument that any of us need care about. Your argument fails because the right to bear arms does not include an unfettered right to carry a concealed weapon.

Thankfully, you make the mistake clearer in this very post. No, discussion started earlier. The context of the discussion was set in the earlier part of the discussion. You are still looking at the discussion too narrowly. The discussion was about how 'having guns' might equate to 'concealed carry universality' in the context of the marriage ruling. It's not my argument, and I'm not sure its Catholic Scientist's argument either. This is just Cat Sci's understanding of the argument from the OP. Meta-arguments are fun, right?In any case, the point of the argument in the OP is that the reason all States have to recognize the gay marriages should apply to all States having to recognize CCLs. So your argument might have legs against it, but I imagine it would take some lifting to achieve that. It's not my question, it's the question of debate/discussion we're supposed to be having in this thread. Which is the correct reason the OP is nonsense. Hurray. A lot less fun than meta-arguing but at least we're agreeing.

Exactly, I didn't/don't think the concealed part really matters to the argument that I was making. And I hastily replied with Message 19 without really thinking much about it because the message I replied to didn't have any quotes and it didn't make much sense.

quote:

---

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.

---

Than what, exactly? The entirety of Message 14?The argument isn't claiming that concealed carry is a fundamental right. It's about how states can treat other states' licenses.And it's all about the bearing part of "having" arms. The distinction from ownership is implicit.So I threw down the fact that SCOTUS ruled that the bearing part of having arms means that the people get to carry them to see what angle the poster was coming from.When I got back a simple: "neener-neener, that didn't say concealed", then I realized that I was wasting my time.Since I've seen the ambiguity that Message 14 contains, I suppose I could clear it up a bit. But the whole argument is moot anyways, because its got a fatal premise:

quote:

---

... the justification 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.

---

They didn't justify undermining simply the refusal to recognize marriages, but specifically the refusal to recognize marriages because they were same-sex.If it actually was the first way, then I figured that it might mean that, for instance, my state's refusal to recognize other states' licenses to carry guns was also unconstitutional.If this ruling had been saying that a state couldn't refuse another state's marriage license at all, because the 14th makes it unconstitutional, then that would have been a pretty big precedent. The argument concludes that would mean that, for instance, Illinois' refusal to accept licenses for bearing arms from other states was also unconstitutional.I don't think that requires justifying concealed carry, specifically, as being the fundamental right.As it went, Illinois was the last state to not have a way for us to carry our guns. Their laws against it were ruled unconstitutional and now they have to issue a Concealed Carry License to everyone who passes the test and forks over the money, and they only recognize their own license. That sufficed constitutional scrutiny, I suppose, but to me it means that the fundamental part is the right to carry, and their CCL that they passed was the least they could do.Them getting away with it doesn't draw the line on where the fundamental right really stands.

Whoops, submitted twice.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.