Silver Lining to the Rainbow Victory?

 

Illinoisreview.typepad.comPointing out that the Supreme Court found the right to gay marriage in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, Bob Owens of Baring Arms seems to have found a silver lining in last Friday’s Obergefell decision. The Court wrote:

“The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs…Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”

There are currently 36 states with “shall issue” firearm license schemes; i.e., one where anyone who meets certain objective criteria must be issued a license. By using the same rationale as the Court used on Friday, those holding valid concealed carry permits must be granted the same protection in places like D.C., Maryland, New Jersey and New York. After all, while the Court had to strain to find its rationale to overthrow 6,000 years of human history, the Second Amendment is right out there for all to see.

In his blog, Allen West says:

“So here is the call to action: since we are coming up on our 239th Independence Day celebration, let’s all call the White House and inform them that we CCL owners are going to be traveling for the Independence Day holiday and we plan on carrying our weapons wherever the heck we please. And if anyone decides to stop an American citizen and challenge his or her Second Amendment right, then let’s discuss the violation of federalism by the SCOTUS mandating same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact, we expect the ATF to start issuing NATIONAL CCL cards to all of us who are current holders of valid CCLs — heck, we know the DHS is planning on printing ID cards for illegal immigrants.

Therefore, celebrate your 4th of July knowing that the SCOTUS just solidified our right to keep and bear arms — and that no state has the “right” to infringe upon our Second Amendment right. If the violation of federalism works ok for LGBTs — then it works well for gun owners!”

Let’s see if anyone participating in today’s Pride Parade in Chicago straps on a weapon. After all, why not celebrate all of your rights?

h/t: Illinois Review

There are 13 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    How I wish this silver lining would prove to be real.

    • #1
  2. Jason Rudert Member
    Jason Rudert
    @JasonRudert

    iWe
    How I wish this silver lining would prove to be real.

    *****

    Exactly. They will have devolution when it suits their aims and centralism when it suits their aims. There is no principle operating behind any of this–just their aims.

    • #2
  3. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Yeah,  like this silver lining will actually allowed to happen.

    You are under the mistaken impression that stuff like logic and law applies anymore.  That is over and last weeks opinions proved it.  Now all that matters is the whim of those in power.

    • #3
  4. user_348483 Coolidge
    user_348483
    @EHerring

    #CCPEquity

    • #4
  5. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @Manny

    Yeah, they can claim that SSM is based on a right to dignity and yet they have no problem in considering it undignified to force someone to purchase health insurance they don’t want.

    • #5
  6. Fricosis Guy Listener
    Fricosis Guy
    @FricosisGuy

    The 2nd Amendment doesn’t have electrolytes… so no.

    • #6
  7. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Nope. Doesn’t matter that their ruling set a precedent. They’ll ignore that precedent whenever they like. The judges are our Constitution now.

    • #7
  8. Pony Convertible Member
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    Douglas:Nope. Doesn’t matter that their ruling set a precedent. They’ll ignore that precedent whenever they like. The judges are our Constitution now.

    Exactly correct.

    • #8
  9. Julia PA Member
    Julia PA
    @JulesPA

    pardon my ignorance, but does the SCOTUS Rainbow Ruling force States to issue SSM marriage licenses?

    Or does it just demand that States acknowledge the legality of marriages from those who acquired said license in another state?

    If the logic and law (or lack thereof) that created the Rainbow Victory is flawed, why would anyone want to entangle our guaranteed 2nd amendment right with a flawed ruling?

    would it not be better for 2nd amendment promoters to get STATES, (meaning each and all of the 50) to recognize the concealed carry license of other states…

    Do we really want to demand that the federal government overrule the States, yet again?

    • #9
  10. Pony Convertible Member
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    Jules PA:pardon my ignorance, but does the SCOTUS Rainbow Ruling force States to issue SSM marriage licenses?

    Or does it just demand that States acknowledge the legality of marriages from those who acquired said license in another state?

    If the logic and law (or lack thereof) that created the Rainbow Victory is flawed, why would anyone want to entangle our guaranteed 2nd amendment right with a flawed ruling?

    would it not be better for 2nd amendment promoters to get STATES, (meaning each and all of the 50) to recognize the concealed carry license of other states…

    Do we really want to demand that the federal government overrule the States, yet again?

    No we don’t.  However, I can argue that the 2nd Amendment is my Federal carry permit and I don’t need permission from any State. So they are not exactly the same.

    • #10
  11. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    I would use Justice Kennedy’s decision to go after divorce.  He did have a lot to say about the permanence that marriage offered…..

    Did Kennedy just make divorce unconstitutional?

    • #11
  12. user_494971 Contributor
    user_494971
    @HankRhody

    Hi there!

    Just wondering how you square this with the 14th amendment argument you, Mr. Rattlesnake and I had at the Chicago meetup. If I understood correctly you were willing to acknowledge that the gains in economic freedom that Mr. Rattler was discussing were good in of themselves, but that by the process of using federal courts to overturn state law we were losing out on federalism.

    Is concealed carry more important than freedom of contract? Are you less worried about federalism when state laws abridge an explicitly stated constitutional right?

    Your broader point is an interesting one, and I have hopes that it might prove effective. Unfortunately I share much of the skepticism expressed elsewhere in this thread.

    • #12
  13. Illiniguy Member
    Illiniguy
    @Illiniguy

    Hank Rhody:Just wondering how you square this with the 14th amendment argument you, Mr. Rattlesnake and I had at the Chicago meetup. If I understood correctly you were willing to acknowledge that the gains in economic freedom that Mr. Rattler was discussing were good in of themselves,

    My point was that the 14th Amendment was irrelevant to the issue of economic success or failure, and that to ascribe economic success to economic opportunity that arises solely as a result of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. The 14th Amendment was intended for one purpose, and that was to grant the benefits of the law to freed slaves. Had I been on the drafting committee, I’d have suggested that it be self-limiting, applying only to anyone born prior to its enactment who had been a slave. After all, the rest of the Constitution provides the basic framework of liberty for the rest of us.

    but that by the process of using federal courts to overturn state law we were losing out on federalism.

    After last week’s bloodbath in the Supreme Court, I don’t need to say anything more.

    Is concealed carry more important than freedom of contract? Are you less worried about federalism when state laws abridge an explicitly stated constitutional right?

    They’re 2 different things, but both are fundamental to liberty. In my world, rights explicitly stated in the Constitution cannot be abridged by state laws.

    • #13

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.