SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Walter Choroszewski Stock Connection Worldwide/Newscom

According to a Supreme Court ruling, gay marriage has been extended to all 50 states. The vote, 5-4 had Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito voting against and writing dissents to document their decisions. Right or wrong in your eyes, depending upon which side of the political spectrum you fall under, they ruled;

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.

The full ruling can be read here, but the gist of the ruling, and the loophole that creates a window of opportunity, hinges upon one small paragraph;

It seems the Justices who voted in favor of the ruling, used Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to define and justify their actions;

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.

The justices used the Constitution in such a manner, arguing that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices that are central to individual dignity and autonomy”, to be accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice of same-sex marriage.

With all that being said, a large portion of the states are “shall issue” on the matter of concealed carry permits, enjoying reciprocity with many of the other states.

For example the State of Texas there are at least 27 states that provide reciprocity for concealed handgun permits, and in many others, such as North Carolina there are up to 36 states. There are many states who do not recognize concealed carry permits, but it seems that today they must.

By using the same thought processing, argument and eventual ruling by the Supreme Court for same-sex marriages, the “due process clause” can just as easily be applied to the issuance and reciprocity of concealed carry permits. Essentially making it legal to carry in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Although I am not saying to run over to one of your neighboring states that have not given you reciprocity and try this theory out tomorrow, eventually it will be challenged and heard at the Supreme Court level, forcing the Justices to rule in favor, based on their previous decisions.

So no matter how you fall on the same-sex marriage issue, there can always be a silver lining to every storm cloud, you just have to look for it.

source 

 

 

 

Patrick James
Patrick James has worked as a firefighter/EMT for several services throughout the years, as well as a custom metal fabricator, certified personal trainer and chef.

Growing up in the rural suburbs of Detroit, it was during his frequent trips to Northern Michigan where he learned of his love for hunting and fishing. Spending several of his adult years in upstate South Carolina, his love of extreme sports took root in the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains as he learned to rock climb and kayak.

“Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and vanish into air.” ~ John Quincy Adams

About the Author

Patrick James
Patrick James
Patrick James has worked as a firefighter/EMT for several services throughout the years, as well as a custom metal fabricator, certified personal trainer and chef. Growing up in the rural suburbs of Detroit, it was during his frequent trips to Northern Michigan where he learned of his love for hunting and fishing. Spending several of his adult years in upstate South Carolina, his love of extreme sports took root in the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains as he learned to rock climb and kayak. "Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and vanish into air." ~ John Quincy Adams

6 Comments on "SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity"

  1. Bahahahahaha!… the idea that the Supremes will follow through with consistent reasoning is now laughable. They simply follow the prevailing political and social trends and throw out any adherence to law, Constitutionality, or reason. Lemme know how that reciprocity of concealed carry thing works out…

  2. Does this mean, that because 2 states do not REQUIRE a license to carry for open or concealed, that NO license is now required in ANY state?

  3. It does not mean that no license is need in any state to carry a concealed weapon. It means that if you have a license from one state it would be valid in all 50 states. It would be similar to the rules of possessing a drivers license. If you move from one state to another you would have a certain time period to switch to a carry permit from the new state.

  4. No. The logic in this article is flawed. The supreme court didn’t say that all states had to allow gay marriage because some states do, or the converse that no state could ban gay marriage because some states did, but rather that ALL states grant marriages to some citizens but not all.

    If some ALL states allowed heterosexuals to own hand guns but some banned LGBT from owning hand guns, then this ruling would apply to firearms.

    Bad logic = bad article.

  5. No. The logic in this article is flawed. The supreme court didn’t say that all states had to allow gay marriage because some states do, or the converse that no state could ban gay marriage because some states did, but rather that ALL states grant marriages to some citizens but not all and that is discrimination which is unconstitutional.

    If ALL states allowed heterosexual citizens to own hand guns but some states banned LGBT citizens from owning hand guns, then this ruling would apply to firearms.

    Bad logic = bad article.

  6. Robert Glawe | July 1, 2015 at 1:00 pm |

    Abolish the Supreme Court? Establish Judicial Term Limits? I think it is time for term limits. I recently found this right up and I agree 100 percent

    Abolish the Supreme Court?

    Is it time to abolish the United States Supreme Court? We’ll talk about it, on today’s edition of The Public Square.

    Yes, it sounds pretty radical – abolishing the U.S. Supreme Court. The framers of the Constitution took such great care to balance our federal government between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Abolishing one branch seems rather extreme, but think about it.

    Nine judges appointed, not elected…appointed for life, accountable to absolutely no one on this earth. In recent years, they’ve acted as judge, jury, and executioner over the process of public policy at every level in America.

    The people want term limits and worked to pass laws in 24 states. “Too bad,” says the Court.

    Abortion divides the soul of the Nation. States desire to draft laws to protect innocent human life. “Tough luck,” says the Court.

    The citizens of Colorado go to the polls. They pass a law to protect themselves from granting special rights based on sexual preference. “No way,” says the Court.

    People want to pray in school. “Too bad,” says the Court.

    Nine people appointed for life, accountable to no one on earth…with the power to make every law stand or fall as they choose? Is this what the framers of the Constitution had in mind?

    If abolishing the Court sounds too extreme – and it really is – what about limiting their terms of office? What about limiting the terms of all federal judges? Should any federal judge be permitted, unelected, to sit in office for life?

Comments are closed.

Facebook