What do you all think?

[The Annoyed Man]

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-th ... s-explode/

[...referring to the gay marriage decision and speaking of concealed carry nationally...]

....The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now here is the kicker, as the writer articulately brings to light: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.

What do you all think?

[RPBrown]

It sounds reasonable but that's the problem. We all know lawmakers know nothing about being reasonable. Therefore I would think if caught, it would be a long expensive battle

[C-dub]

I also saw that and it was the basis for posing this question on FB.

The problem, as I see it is that they have seen so many firearm cases in recent years and already ruled on the ability to regulate them that they won't want to even take up another case where they might be forced to invalidate any of their previous rulings. So, I think they will probably just ignore this and hope it goes away. Or, in the unlikely event they did take a case they would find some massively stupid reason to uphold their previous rulings.

[anygunanywhere]

The Constitution and BOR is not for protecting actual rights. It protects make believe rights.

[jmra]

I also saw that and it was the basis for posing this question on FB.

The problem, as I see it is that they have seen so many firearm cases in recent years and already ruled on the ability to regulate them that they won't want to even take up another case where they might be forced to invalidate any of their previous rulings. So, I think they will probably just ignore this and hope it goes away. Or, in the unlikely event they did take a case they would find some massively stupid reason to uphold their previous rulings.

I think the way this argument would sink or swim is in the lower courts. I believe the high court would refuse to revisit the gun issue and let a lower court decision stand.

[F350-6]

Gay marriage passed because a majority of the court believed it was the right thing to do.

Reciprocity will be looked at based on the old supreme court standard of being based on laws and the constitution, not personal opinions.

[SkipB]

I've only had one cup of coffee this morning so I'm still confused.