In light of the gay marriage decision I have a question

Now that the supreme court has decided that the equal protection clause clause applies to same sex marriage.( I agree with that by the way )
Should this also mean that equal protection should apply to the right to bear arms, for example a resident of Arizona is not required to have a permit to carry a firearm either openly or concealed, using the reasoning for same sex marriage , should a resident of any other state say California for example have the same right to carry as a resident of Arizona. Colorado has made it marijuana legal, should the residents of say Alabama not have the same rights as a resident of Colorado?

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Absolutely it should, but that wouldn't fit in with the 'Progressive' plan.

Equal rights only apply to gays...not lawful gun owners or those 'delusional' religious people.

Here is a decent little article that touches on what you're getting at in your op:

OverpassesForAmerica

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states.

Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.

The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.

You can peruse the full ruling here, but the meat of the activist Court’s over-long decision hinges on a single paragraph.

SCOTUS RULING

The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify their 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.

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.

My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday.
clint eastwood gun control
Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

I’ll be driving through the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in several weeks, places that until yesterday I did not have a legal right to concealed carry.

As of today, with this decision, it would seem that these states and the District must honor my concealed carry permit, or violate my constitutional rights under the 14th and Second Amendment.

God Bless America.

a reply to: Metallicus No, equal rights apply to all. Way to overgeneralize the sarcasm there.

So as a United States citizen, we should all have the same rights no matter what state we are a resident of , most people do not realize you are not a citizen of the state you live in anymore but a United States citizen only, unfortunate byproduct of the US Civil war.

If I do not need a permit in Arizona, the I should not need a permit anywhere, Constitutional carry should be the law of the land if the SC is consistent.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Well, the 14th amendment is cited to prevent discrimination. States can regulate things like guns and drugs (and marriage), as long as they aren't discriminating against a certain group. In other words, their laws have to apply equally to everyone. Now, if they said that only white people could own guns, but not blacks - THAT would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Same with marriage licenses and denying them to gays but allowing straights to get a license. Applying a law equally across the board within a state is not discrimination.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Absolutely it should, but that wouldn't fit in with the 'Progressive' plan.

Equal rights only apply to gays...not lawful gun owners or those 'delusional' religious people.

I am not sure. I don't see anything about 'concealed carry' in the 2nd amendment. If using the 14th amendment, a huge amount of local ordinances would have to change. I am not sure that being able to conceal a handgun rises to the occasion.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Well if a state required everyone to have an ID to vote that is not discrimination then even if they charge a fee for the ID as long as the fee is the same for everyone?

I dig your logic and totally agree. Let absurdity reign.

a reply to: reldra

Open or Constitutional carry is what i am more interested in, if as a US citizen I can open carry in say 36 states, why cant I open carry in the other 14, why cant I buy a firearm in any state ( provided I pass a background check ).

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Absolutely it should, but that wouldn't fit in with the 'Progressive' plan.

Equal rights only apply to gays...not lawful gun owners or those 'delusional' religious people.

I am not sure. I don't see anything about 'concealed carry' in the 2nd amendment. If using the 14th amendment, a huge amount of local ordinances would have to change. I am not sure that being able to conceal a handgun rises to the occasion.

Since the SC has used the Constitution as a valid legal premise, it should matter not and the Constitution would be the legal basis for owning or carrying a handgun in any state. The second amendment was ratified by the legally required number of states (possibly with the exception of the 16th amendment).

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
a reply to: kaylaluv

Well if a state required everyone to have an ID to vote that is not discrimination then even if they charge a fee for the ID as long as the fee is the same for everyone?

What does that have to do with guns? Voter ID laws vary within states. As far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of voter ID laws - have they?

gasoline is legal everywhere.

gasoline is extremely poisonous.

gasoline can be used to destroy property and kill people.

possession and use of gasoline is not illegal and may not even be regulated.



guns .......

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Nope. The SC said that no state can use their laws to deny something to one group that they allow to everyone else - i.e. discrimination. States must apply their laws equally to everyone. Their gun laws just have to apply equally to everyone within that state to be constitutional - unless the SC rules that a certain gun law infringes on the 2nd amendment (which has happened in the past).

a reply to: kaylaluv

The point here is the SC has decided that no matter what the popular vote is in a state or what legislature says in a state vis a vi marriage, the 14th amendment applies. So any right that any State legislates on, in this example Arizona has constitutional carry, other states must recognize no matter what their State or local laws they have. In other words someone from who is a resident of Arizona who can openly or concealed carry in Arizona should protected if he wants to travel to say California and enjoy the same same rights and protection vis a vi the second amendment he enjoys in Arizona. Also since a resident of Arizona enjoys Constitutional carry residents of all states should enjoy Constitutional carry, Because 14th and equal protection for all citizens.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
a reply to: kaylaluv

Well if a state required everyone to have an ID to vote that is not discrimination then even if they charge a fee for the ID as long as the fee is the same for everyone?

What does that have to do with guns? Voter ID laws vary within states. As far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of voter ID laws - have they?

You are right thats another debate, and doesnt belong in here. My Bad

However based on the reasoning for the same sex marrige ruling voter ID would have to be the same in every state.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

You are not hearing me. States have jurisdiction on how they will legislate certain things. That's in the Constitution.They get to decide how they will set up their laws within their state. You know, state's rights? The only time the Supreme Court gets involved is if the state's laws are shown to be unconstitutional. In the case of same-sex marriage, the laws banning it were found to be discriminatory against a group of people in that state. Using the 14th amendment, the SC said that no state could use their laws to deny gays marriage licenses while allowing straights to get marriage licenses. We are not talking between states. We are talking within states.

You are using the wrong argument if you want to use the 14th amendment. Now if you want to try to use the 2nd amendment to make all states allow you to open carry across the country, that's different.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You can not deny the resident of one state the rights enjoyed by the residents of another state.

If I can use marijuana in Colorado I should be able to enjoy that right in any other state.

States according to this ruling have no power to regulate firearms, because if all states do not have the same regulations it is a violation of equal protection.

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
Now that the supreme court has decided that the equal protection clause clause applies to same sex marriage.( I agree with that by the way )
Should this also mean that equal protection should apply to the right to bear arms, for example a resident of Arizona is not required to have a permit to carry a firearm either openly or concealed, using the reasoning for same sex marriage , should a resident of any other state say California for example have the same right to carry as a resident of Arizona. Colorado has made it marijuana legal, should the residents of say Alabama not have the same rights as a resident of Colorado?

If the law stated that only homosexuals in Arizona didn't need a permit, then you might have an argument.

The SCOTUS decision pertains to discrimination and is quite specific. It says that it is not legal for states to discriminate against a group (gays) when it comes to a singular right. Further, the decision applies only to marriage. There still are, after all, states where it is not illegal to discriminate against gays in matters of housing and employment.

If I can use marijuana in Colorado I should be able to enjoy that right in any other state.

Not without breaking federal law.

States according to this ruling have no power to regulate firearms, because if all states do not have the same regulations it is a violation of equal protection.

No, just no. If that were the case why do we need state laws on anything at all?