In light of the gay marriage decision I have a question

a reply to: Aazadan

I lived in Vegas, yes marriage is pretty easy there, but other states recognize a Nevada license, Getting a conceal permit in Nevada used to be a real pain ,( I been out of there a few years I understand that its changed a bit) and very few states recognize the Nevada permit and Nevada used to recognize no permit from other states. Really your constitutional rights should not change when you cross a state line.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

I do think that if constitutional carry came to the SC, this case would get reference, because of equal protection issues.

Once again, how is it different from the 1967 decision? The Court has ruled on a number of gun rights cases since then. They favor state's rights to regulate. You prefer federal regulation?

a reply to: Phage

Once again, how is it different from the 1967 decision?

That is what I am trying to figure out

I prefer no regulation except for background checks when it comes to firearms.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

I prefer no regulation except for background checks when it comes to firearms.

No age requirements? No training (even a pretense)?

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
a reply to: Phage

Once again, how is it different from the 1967 decision?

That is what I am trying to figure out

I prefer no regulation except for background checks when it comes to firearms.

It's different because gun laws in each state aren't discriminatory. Each state has varying restrictions on gun ownership just as each state has different benefits for marriage (or atleast the option to do so). Each state is allowed to weight a law different, but they're not allowed to be discriminatory in applying the law.

Essentially, under the second a person has the right to bear arms but each state can decide what those arms are and what degrees of certification a person needs. They can't however say only gays can't own guns. Just as now a state can define what benefits and costs a marriage entails but they can't say gays can't be married.

a reply to: Phage

18 years old and a citizen, pass background check, you should be able to carry openly. Open carry nationwide should not require a permit.

18 years old and a citizen, pass background check, pay fee for conceal permit you should be able to carry, and every state should be required to recognize the permit.

Training can become a slippery slope as classes cost money and it should not cost you anything to defend yourself, your property or others. I do highly recommend training for anyone who wants to own or carry a firearm as a matter of personal responsibility.

a reply to: Aazadan

I can almost say for certain, no matter what the state law says, it will be much easier for me to get a firearms permit as a white man in a rural area, than as a black or brown man to get that same state permit in a metropolitan area.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

That being the case, it would then be a case of illegal discrimination. But I don't think the state law would specify that so the law itself would not be unconstitutional. Just it's application.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Colorado has made it marijuana legal, should the residents of say Alabama not have the same rights as a resident of Colorado?

I was thinking of c/p the map of "where gay marriage is legal" and wondered how long until the same map could be used for "where marijuana is legal." Can't wait - it's coming!!!

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
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.

no - that's just your interpretation because you don't like the ruling.

The SCOTUS said nothing at all about States being able to have different regulations on eth same subject - and in fact they remain perfectly free to so exactly that, as long as they do not discriminate or act unconstitutionally.

this has already been explained to you but you don't want to acknowledge it.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Which ruling do i not like?

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

This ruling - in that it does not make all states have exactly the same rules and regulations.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Actually I agree with the ruling, I have been in favor of same sex civil unions or marriage for years.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

You didn't read my reply - I know you have said you are in favour of the ruling - what you are not in favour of is that it does not require all states to have exactly the same rules and regulations.