In light of the gay marriage decision I have a question

a reply to: Phage

I would argue that any "State" regulation of arms is a violation of the 2nd, we are no longer "State" citizens there is only federal citizenship now.

I know this decision only applies to marriage but if the court is going to be consistent with this decision in the future....

I am talking about constitutional protected rights we have as citizens,

the issuance of permits to carry is not only discriminatory interstate it is also discriminatory intrastate of that there can be no doubt processes vary from towns to cities and from counties to states.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

I would argue that any "State" regulation of arms is a violation of the 2nd, we are no longer "State" citizens there is only federal citizenship now.

Your argument has been lost in many and various courts.

I know this decision only applies to marriage but if the court is going to be consistent with this decision in the future....

You mean decisions on discrimination? Yes, I agree. The Court will have to address discrimination on housing and employment before very long.

the issuance of permits to carry is not only discriminatory interstate it is also discriminatory intrastate of that there can be no doubt processes vary from towns to cities and from counties to states.

Nope. Not unless permits are denied based on factors such as color, gender, or such like. The permit laws apply to everyone in the state, equally.

a reply to: Phage

I would say the requirement for any fee to carry is discriminatory, it unfairly burdens the poor, which tend to be minority in alot of case.

I think yesterdays decision is going to affect more than marriage, unintended consequences.

its been a few years since I been on ATS, glad to see your still around Phage

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

I would say the requirement for any fee to carry is discriminatory, it unfairly burdens the poor, which tend to be minority in alot of case.

What? I guess I'm discriminated against because I can't afford to buy a Tesla.

I think yesterdays decision is going to affect more than marriage, unintended consequences.

Maybe. But it's not the first time a SCOTUS decision has limited state's "rights" to discriminate. There were states in which it was illegal for gays to marry. The SCOTUS said, "Nope. Can't have that sort of law." Like they said in 1967.
en.wikipedia.org...

Valid point! Otherwise, those states are discriminating against their citizens. If behavior means a group that needs protection, then so does state of residence. Open and concealed carry everywhere, for all, with no permit or registration required!

a reply to: Metallicus

But if they let that happen, than Pedophiles will get Guns, and Animals will get Guns.. and....

Everybody forgets Washington State, we have legal weed and July 1st, Oregon will too. And I think all states should have it.

a reply to: Hidinout
Everybody forgets (short term memory loss) that the feds can bust you for weed anytime they see fit.

Not really a pertinent comparison.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Equal freedoms, rights and laws guaranteed without discrimination under the laws (Us and everywhere else).

No. Right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment, right to gay marriage is protected by the first.

You're not being discriminated against based on race, gender, sexual orientation or age if you're being told you can't open carry.

a reply to: babybunnies

if a resident of one state can open carry and a resident of another can not, then someone is being discriminated against based on thier state of residence.

This is just a question I am not concerned for myself personally , I lost all off my guns in a rafting accident years ago.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

if a resident of one state can open carry and a resident of another can not, then someone is being discriminated against based on thier state of residence.

So. You are not in favor of states' rights? All laws should be the same in all places?

In any case, once again, your example is not a case of discrimination.

a reply to: Phage

When it comes to the rights in the Constitution, there is a thought...

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

You're right, of course, but the pro-slavery crowd will fight you tooth and nail on that one. They don't mind if gays choose to marry or someone chooses to have an abortion. But when it comes to owning a gun, choosing whether or not you want to buy insurance, or choosing what drugs are pumped into your body, you're just another piece of government property. The government will tell you what rights you have.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

The Constitution is all about rights.

As has been pointed out. The idea that permit requirements are unconstitutional does not seem to be the case. Unless you can come up with a legal precedent which says otherwise.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

The government will tell you what rights you have.

Actually, they will tell you what rights you don't have. That pretty much entails any rights that you think you have which will infringe on mine. Like driving on the wrong side of the road. That infringes on my rights.

But they are getting better at saying there can't be laws which infringe on the rights of a particular group.

I am not sure there is a such thing as states rights anymore, why should one need a permit to carry arms at all?

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Because, for one reason. They can be deadly.
So can a car.

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
I am not sure there is a such thing as states rights anymore, why should one need a permit to carry arms at all?

Marriage doesn't harm anyone. A car, a firearm, or medicine can, and as such they get regulated. States are allowed to place their own regulations on these objects, so long as they aren't more permissive than the federal laws.

In the case of medicine, it's expensive and the states are largely content to let the feds handle it because no one wants to pass the tax increases necessary.

In the case of a car, traffic laws vary from state to state as does the price of a license, the license itself, and the test to obtain that license.

In the case of firearms, certain states have tried with varying degrees of success to only allow more stable individuals to have weapons. As far as I'm aware the Supreme Court hasn't heard a case on the constitutionality of this, but several have made the argument that it's discriminatory to deny firearms on the basis of mental health for example. The counter argument tends to be "do you really want us to give weapons to people that have no concept of murder being wrong?".

a reply to: Aazadan

I really have no issue with permits, I do believe that if you have a permit in one state all other states should honor , just like a drivers license, I am more interested in what happens for the folks, like Arizona for example that dont require permits.