moonbattery logo

Jun 29 2015

Silver Lining to SCOTUS Homosexual Marriage Outrage

Let’s just play along for a moment with the idea that the Supremes interpret the Constitution, rather than issuing arbitrary decrees that are then wrapped in the Constitution for window dressing so we don’t rebel. That would mean that the homosexual marriage edict was good news for those who exercise their Second Amendment liberties by carrying concealed:

With the high court’s latest ruling on same-sex marriages, some contend the decision could lead to increased gun rights, specifically national CCW reciprocity, by using the same argument.

Friday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize those sanctioned by other states.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the landmark decision that arguably made same sex marriage a reality in the 13 remaining states that continued to ban the practice.

With similar logic applied, gun rights advocates argue that the nation’s patchwork of firearms laws governing the concealed carry of handguns are now circumspect under the same guidelines. In short, they reason if marriage equality is guaranteed from state to state, then so should concealed carry rights.

“To paraphrase what Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said about same-sex marriage,” noted Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a statement Friday, “no right is more profound than the right of self-preservation, and under the Constitution, all citizens should be able to exercise the right of self-defense anywhere in the country. It disparages their ability to do so, and diminishes their personhood to deny the right to bear arms they have in their home states when they are visiting other states.”

Even if some of them apparently couldn’t care less what is written in the Constitution, the Supremes could be wondering if they have overstepped to the point of generating popular resistance, and be in a mood to make themselves look more legitimate. This might be a good time to ask why the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply in repressive states like New York when it comes to guns, regarding not only concealed carry but also other unconstitutional restrictions.

Unfortunately, rather than sensibly apply their ruling to guns, they may repeal the Second Amendment altogether, just as the homosexual marriage decree effectively repeals the free exercise of religion clause in the First. Then we will find out whether they need to worry about whether we think they have overstepped.

2A-gun-permit

On tips from Troy, DinaRehn, and Dragon’s Lair.



15 Responses to “Silver Lining to SCOTUS Homosexual Marriage Outrage”

  1. bruce says:

    Its over homophobes. Move to turkey biggots.

  2. bruce says:

    Its over homophobes. Move to turkey biggots.

  3. ramrodd says:

    A Trojan horse for institutionalizing licenses, permits, national ID
    cards, etc.

    And the end game of all those licenses, permits, national ID
    cards and such is eventual confiscation of all arms.

    And after that extermination.

    Here is the 2014 edition: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1908/text

    Also, the federal government has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws
    dictating who may and who may not carry arms; or under what circumstances people may and may not carry arms across State borders! Arms control of the people is not an enumerated power!

    video on arms, here it is: https://vimeo.com/60944105

    State concealed carry laws which require a “permit” is an idea crafted in the pits of hell. The real purpose is to register gun owners! People think it is so cool
    to have a permit for concealed carry – they don’t understand that it is like the
    free sample of heroin.

  4. ramrodd says:

    The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is a Trojan horse for institutionalizing licenses, permits, national ID cards, etc.

    And the end game of all those licenses, permits, national ID cards and such is eventual confiscation of all arms.

    And after that extermination. Here is the 2014 edition: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1908/text

    Also, the federal government has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws
    dictating who may and who may not carry arms; or under what circumstances people may and may not carry arms across State borders! Arms control of the people is not an enumerated power!

    video on arms, here it is: https://vimeo.com/60944105

    State concealed carry laws which require a “permit” is an idea crafted in the pits of hell. The real purpose is to register gun owners! People think it is so cool
    to have a permit for concealed carry – they don’t understand that it is like the
    free sample of heroin.

  5. Bob says:

    Thats one reason not to get a permit. Once it starts get out quick.

  6. Bob says:

    Thats one reason not to get a permit. Once it starts get out quick.

  7. 762x51 says:

    Not over by a long shot, sperm breath. You scum haven’t seen bad yet, but it’s coming.

    I will not obey your laws
    I will not recognize your authority
    I will not surrender.

    Now what are you going to do about it, fascist?

    See you on the battlefield dick licker.

  8. 762x51 says:

    Not over by a long shot, sperm breath. You scum haven’t seen bad yet, but it’s coming.

    I will not obey your laws
    I will not recognize your authority
    I will not surrender.

    Now what are you going to do about it, fascist?

    See you on the battlefield dick licker.

  9. 762x51 says:

    Alinsky Rule #4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

    Bend the swine over and make them wish they had never started this.

    Everyone ever arrested in a commie state for a legally owned gun from another state should now go back and sue over it. At least get your record expunged.

    MAKE THEM PAY!!

  10. 762x51 says:

    Alinsky Rule #4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

    Bend the swine over and make them wish they had never started this.

    Everyone ever arrested in a commie state for a legally owned gun from another state should now go back and sue over it. At least get your record expunged.

    MAKE THEM PAY!!

  11. 762x51 says:

    You don’t need a permit, you have the 2nd Amendment. Concealed Carry Permit requirements are unconstitutional.

  12. 762x51 says:

    You don’t need a permit, you have the 2nd Amendment. Concealed Carry Permit requirements are unconstitutional.

  13. Callawyn says:

    1) So, federalism is dead then? The federal government forcing all states to recognize what is done in any other state is a good thing?? And you think this is a victory?

    2) You’d have to be completely out of your mind to believe that this SCOTUS will consistently apply its own precedents where they apply to anything other than the case at hand. They fail, completely, to consider that far-reaching consequences of the decisions they make to advance a particular political policy. They “rule” in complete contradiction to the clear text of the Constitution. They “rule” that the plain language of federal law means the precise opposite of what it says. So, why would they go against their preferred policy preferences based solely on one of their own precedents?

    We are no longer a nation of laws. Nothing good can come of that.

  14. Callawyn says:

    1) So, federalism is dead then? The federal government forcing all states to recognize what is done in any other state is a good thing?? And you think this is a victory?

    2) You’d have to be completely out of your mind to believe that this SCOTUS will consistently apply its own precedents where they apply to anything other than the case at hand. They fail, completely, to consider that far-reaching consequences of the decisions they make to advance a particular political policy. They “rule” in complete contradiction to the clear text of the Constitution. They “rule” that the plain language of federal law means the precise opposite of what it says. So, why would they go against their preferred policy preferences based solely on one of their own precedents?

    We are no longer a nation of laws. Nothing good can come of that.


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy