This past week, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision that gay marriage was legal, and such a marriage performed in any one state has legal standing in all the other 49. I have no problem with gay marriage – why should we heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?
Now, though, we have some in the 2A community who feel this opens the door to – or may even create – the long-sought national reciprocity for concealed carry. http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/.
This actually makes sense. It has always been anomalous that states would recognize one another’s pilot’s license, heterosexual marriage license, driver’s license, etc., but not one another’s permit to carry concealed and loaded handguns. If heterosexual marriage didn’t set a precedent creating national reciprocity on carry, I’m not clear on how gay marriage somehow will.
Opinions?
My pilot certification was issued by the federal government. How did you get one from a state? 🙂
Has the Supreme Court ruled on, drivers licenses and the rest specifically or, has that been a courtesy offered by the states? Would that be the difference?
Pilot’s licenses in the US are Federal, unless you’re talking about maritime pilotage.
But your point is valid. Only 37 states allowed gay marriage but it was extended to all (under the pursuit of happiness I suppose). However, all 50 states allows concealed carry with various impediments – it’s well past time for reciprocity.
Are there any active challenges that might get taken up by the SCOTUS?
Suffer? Really Mas? We’ll just see about that.
The Evil Princess
To make the argument is to assume that this game is being played in good faith. It isn’t.
Why do I suspect “The Evil Princess” is actually Mrs. Ayoob?
Equal opportunity for married couples and gun owners! Perfect!
RL gets it. All decision shows is courts willingness to overrule its citizens votes to do whatever they want at the momen without legal justification.
The logic is wonderful, but it’s not law and not likely to be law anytime soon. I’ve been watching this meme spread all weekend, and someone is going to take it seriously, not understanding the nuance, and end up in prison in one of the unfree states for a very long time.
Bob Owens presented an argument that could be made in court, and maybe, if one is very lucky, prevail on. But odds are you won’t prevail. The courts will not care that it is not consistent. The courts don’t operate by logic. They operate largely by the preferences of the individual judges. It should not be this way, but it is this way.
In several federal circuits, there is no right to even have a firearm outside the home. In New Jersey, for instance, this is the case. If you get arrested there, you will assert your right in federal court, from prison, I might add, and have the district court reject the argument. Sure, appeal it to the Supreme Court. They will not hear your appeal. If you are very lucky, Thomas and Scalia will give a beautiful dissenting opinion about why your case should be heart. But it will amount to nothing. You will rot in prison.
To be honest, I think Bob Owens was very irresponsible with that post. And that pains me, because I think he’s a great blogger.
^ Evil Pricess: that sounds like a proposal
SCOTUS opened the door and establishes national reciprocity on drivers licenses and now marriages (all kinds). Unless the next fix is played, national CCW reciprocity should be the next logical choice. Hopefully, one of the pending two California cases reach it soon because the Superior Court and Appeals Court in CA can not seem to agree on interpretation of law or undeniable rights afforded by the 2nd amendment. The next immediate obstacle is when will a case be heard? I
Gay marriage is politically correct. Guns aren’t.
I’ll happily weild any cudgel the statists give me to show how moronic these policies are….and yeah, the game is rigged, so play for blood….
It’s wishful to believe this. We now have a supreme court that no longer rules on what the constitution intended, nor what the applicable laws, or precedents direct. They rule on nothing more than personal preference. We have Obamacare, because they want it. We have homosexual marriage, because they want it. And for no other reason. They simply attempt to make an excuse, and find cover in their opinions. If they want universal concealed carry, we will have it, and if they don’t want us to have it, we will not. SCOTUS is in full tyranny mode, the rule of law and the constitution no longer applies.
The republic is dead ladies and gentlemen. The Imperial court has decided it.
Sounds fair, sounds logical – just like the pro-2A arguments we make again and again.
That said, this would probably have to be another court case… hopefully sooner rather than later. Between now and Jan 2017, a couple of Supreme Court Justices may leave the bench…
While it came about by legislative action, not judicial fiat, LEOSA (The Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004) addressed the problems faced by active duty and retired law enforcement officers travelling outside their jurisdiction/state. This supposedly eliminated the fear of running afoul of the hodgepodge of carry laws from state to state, city to city, and even county to county. It requires yearly background checks and meeting weapon qualification for your state’s law enforcement certification agency. Could be a model for civilian CC. Note it was passed after much lobbying by police organizations, and probably more importantly, during a national election year.
If enough money is invested in the effort, a civilian version could be passed, followed by years of appeals. Sadly, gun owners will never make a big enough outcry to sway the courts. That, it seems, it what guides the court, not the constitution as written and intended.
On one hand, the point is Friday’s ruling _compels_ states to respect such licensing – as opposed to other licenses which have, by courtesy & convenience, been accepted nationwide as a norm. The hope is for similar compulsion of recognition where “reciprocity” has, by courtesy & convenience, been widely but not universally accepted as a norm.
On the other hand, notice that the dissenting SCOTUS opinions berate the majority for issuing a ruling without any actual legal basis. (One Justice even hints that another was actually bribed for his vote.) If “settled law” is now not based on law, then why would “national CCW” be a given? it wouldn’t.
Some note that pilots’ licenses are federally issued. We can use that precedent to theorize viability of a case where NFA arms _must_ be allowed & respected by all states, because the “Form 4” transfer is functionally identical to a federal license. NY allows some NFA items; perhaps NY is really not in a legal position to pick-and-chose which.
Agree with S. Ramsey, it is too much to expect the Roberts SCOTUS to maintain consistency even with itself. If it were, your argument would at least get a hearing. And while we’re at it, since it is illegal for a business to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding, why should it be legal for businesses to ban me from their premises simply because I’m exercising a right enumerated and protected by my state and federal constitutions?
Despite my own personal policy preferences, I feel this is an area where the laboratory of democracy should be allowed to do it’s work. The Federal government already decides too many issues for the states, it doesn’t need to get any more involved.
Vote with your feet and your dollars, It’s easy enough to avoid New Jersey, New York, and any other state that has bad carry laws.
The ruling in Obergefell that states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states was in many ways the most insignificant part of that ruling. It said, in effect, that since there is a Constitutional right to have a same-sex marriage in all states that no one state can refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another state.
As I described in my long June 9 post in the “Catching Up” comment section (too long to repeat here),
https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2015/06/07/catching-up/#comments
it’s entirely possible that the only thing the Supreme Count will consider unconstitutional in relationship to guns is an absolute prohibition on the possession of guns in the home for self-defense. If that’s true, then having a CCP will be regarded a state-law-based privilege, not a Constitutional right, and the only way for reciprocity to happen will be by reciprocity statutes to be passed by the states.
According to http://www.handgunlaw.us , 41 of the 50 States have either Constitutional Carry or Shall Issue carry laws. The remaining States and D.C. are “May Issue”. So a mechanism for a handgun permit exists in all States. In some cases, this mechanism is more theoretical than real. Spotting a valid and current Concealed Carry (CC) license issued by either Hawaii or D.C. would be like spotting a unicorn!
In contrast, in my home State of Tennessee (a “shall issue” State), a total of 504,384 handgun carry permits are currently valid as of June 2015 according to information on the TN Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security web site. So, a TN handgun carry permit would not be a mythical animal.
Nevertheless, since all 50 States and D.C. do have an issue mechanism (at least in theory), it is really a “no brainer” to say that CC licenses should be honored under the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution. In principle, a CC license should (legally) be no different than any other license (driver’s license, marriage license, etc.) issued by any State Government.
Unfortunately, there is strong philosophical bias against firearms, firearm ownership, concealed carry, use of firearms for defense, etc. inherent in the left-wing political mindset. The left-wing leaning members of the Supreme Court are all subject to this strong bias.
If these members are able to divorce their legal opinion from this bias and view CC licenses properly (as just another type of legal license that is issued by States) then they will have to find that the “full faith and credit” clause mandates reciprocity between all States just as it does for driving and for marriage.
However, if their political bias overwhelms their legal fairness and their duty to the Constitution (as expressed by their Oath of Office), then they will put forth a convoluted legal justification as to why a CC license is an “exception” to the “full faith and credit” clause.
I’m also afraid that RL is right. Too many laws are already unconstitutional and yet nothing is ever done about it. Think about that Obamacare farce, for example. Challenge the opposition and they’ll make things drag in all the courts they can find until you lose steam. We’ve seen this in Cali where people have been suing for the right to carry since the ’70s, and where today’s similar challenges are still being delayed by endless appeals.
LarryArnold said it: it’s about agendas. The Constitution is simply ignored when convenient and championed when advantageous to politicians. It and the myriad of laws derived from it are clearly for us peons, not the so-called elites, to obey.
Then again, one can dream and I hope that some more resourceful and persistent souls than me will give it a shot.
Damn you, Steve Ramsey, you beat me to it! Our current system is a sham.
Pilot’s licenses are issued only by the Federal Aviation Administration, not by any state.
Regarding gay, so-called marriage, there is no such thing in fact. Marriage is not a right, it is a state issued, paid for license, unique to every state, and under state jurisdiction.
SCOTUS’ decision to override states’ ban on same sex marriage was based on the same reasoning as the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision. Basically what this ruling establishes is that sexual preference isn’t based on choice and is as fundamental as race and as such falls under 14th amendment protection. While applying this to 2nd Amendment protection might be a case that SCOTUS can argue, they really are unrelated as the right to bear arms IS a choice and will remain an uphill battle until we can re-establish firearm acceptance, education and a healthy dose of common sense as mainstream.
The logic is inescapable: Equal protection in all states. Of course, the “New” states (York and Jersey) would bawl like branded calves about the untrained, unwashed masses from flyover country being able to carry in their consecrated conclaves.
The main argument against recognizing out-of-state permits is that other states require little or no training prior to issue. The same could be said for drivers’ licenses, where rural driving in the wilds of Montana can hardly be said to prepare a driver for the urban nightmare of driving in New York City, Washington DC/Northern Virginia, or Los Angeles. In fact, I would postulate that there is less need for additional training to carry a concealed firearm in urban areas than there is to drive in said environs.
Moreover, the denizens of said states would be likely to demand equally unencumbered carry rights, and the state officialdom more inclined to loosen their restrictions, since armed yokels from Utah or similar environs with no training whatsoever are now wandering freely about without causing mayhem.
The story refers to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I think they forgetting Article IV Section 1, which may apply as well.
Much as I would like to say this makes a difference, this is not the right analogy. Marriage was already recognized across state lines. Just some states did not allow gay marriage. I can’t see a situation where gay marriage is or was allowed, but extra-state gay marriage was not recognized without re-permitting. I would love to see reciprocity pass democratically actually. I dislike the idea of “ends justify means” judicial activism in any circumstance.
Thanks for the catch on the pilot’s license, folks.
The 14A/Equal Protection argument proceeds from the assumption that a person should be required to ask for permission before engaging in the activity. In the case of a license to marry or to drive a motor vehicle, the government is granting a privilege that carries particular benefits provided by the government, principally economic. “Shall not be infringed” means the government can’t tell me no, so there’s no point to asking for permission. So, based on a fallacious premise, the 14A argument is unpersuasive.
I prefer Zimmerman’s argument in , hinging on “Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote”.
We all enjoy our fantasy life to some extent. The Swedish Bikini Team washing my car comes to mind (old TV commercial). That’s what this is; wishful thinking.
“Evil Princess Says:
June 28th, 2015
Suffer? Really Mas? We’ll just see about that.
The Evil Princess”
Oh Mas, I feel for you. And it’s not just empathy, but rather, sympathy, for I have an Evil Princess, too. Hang in there!
I don’t see a reciprocity implication at all. That might have been derived from the WIndsor decision that gutted DOMA, because it invoked state sovereignty against Federal authority, i.e., federalism.
In contrast, this decision denies state authority, asserting an overriding Federal constitution right, i.e. no federalism.
Steve Ramsey is right. The Supreme Court and the several federal courts rule against the will of the people and without regard for what falls under the letter of the Constitution.
If we had a Congress of brave souls we’d begin seeing impeachment of judges.
What a person choses to do with their sex organs is or should be their business and not IN YOU FACE social news. Homosexual marriage is an attack on Christianity.
Our Constitution makes clear our RIGHT to be armed.
The fact such deference and hand wringing is still offered up to a body which creates from whole cloth previously “invisible” Constitutional rights may just be a clue as to how the Left continues to get away with these absurdities.
To paraphrase the poet/philosopher Katt Williams, conservatives are too nice. The Second Amendment guarantee is definitive and we need to stop tolerating their silly parlor games to the contrary.
With the renegade decision of this court regarding so-called same-sex marriage, if our culture continues to descend into the sewer, concealed carry reciprocity will be the least of our concerns. Unfortunately Mas, though I greatly respect your firearms credentials and experience, I must strongly disagree with your laissez-faire attitude about this decision, which continues the rot of the foundation of our society. I’ll stick with Justice Scalia’s dissent and think Kennedy should be impeached for the damage he’s done to the Constitution and our form of governance.
I’d say unlikely. All this, and the Obamacare decision say about the Supreme Court is that they’ll ignore the rule of law and re-interpret things to define them however they feel like, instead of according to specific laws or rules.
All this proves is we should have no confidence in the current Supreme Court to be any more help to the RKBA.
Wishing for national reciprocity based on the gay marriage ruling is likely a total waste of time. My first fear is that now SCOTUS has given barky 2 victories in a row, he will taste blood and go hard and quickly to push for more gun ownership restrictions, either by legislation or imperial decree. He has 18 months to continue to dictate to us lowly serfs, and he won’t miss a chance.
Lordy Mas, the Evil Princess has spoken. (shudder)
Any state that requires an American citizen to be “licensed” in order to exercise their 2A right guaranteed by the United States Constitution to carry a firearm any way and in any manner they saw fit is violating the law. Carry laws are ILLEGAL, people. Why are we so willing to succumb to that illegality, and why hasn’t the NRA sued every state requiring a license?
As many of y’all have noted, it makes perfect sense to treat CC licenses like drivers licenses.
But what does perfect sense have to do with the Supreme Court?
When we have justices on the Court who care as much about preserving the 2nd Amendment as they do about furthering gay marriage, then the very logical idea of nationwide CC reciprocity may stand a chance.
I believe the comment from The Evil Princess is more likely a promise than a proposal. She’s such a PREditor 😉
Back on topic:
Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the “Full Faith and Credit Clause”, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
I believe that being enforced for CCW is as likely as Mas taking another helicopter ride.
The way things are going, POTUS will declare martial law while Congress is out of session and at home, the legislature never to return.
I think the advice to avoid the Anti Gun States and travel and spend your money in a friendly place where going armed is your choice.
I was a long term resident of Massachusetts before moving to Nevada almost 20 years ago. I have little hope that fighting the anti gun political and media machine anything less than the 100 years war. Unless there is an awakening event that causes people in those states collectively wake up and realize they are one their own need to defend themselves until the police arrive. Then the political machine will get all 2nd amendment and pass gun rights for political survival.
Imagine, having used your weapon and then have an anti gun or politically aspiring prosecutor charge the out of State gun nut with murder. We don’t want to go there and carry even if we could.
Work hard locally it can work. Nevada just passed significant pro gun legislation. We already had open carry and CCW but passed laws which required recognition of other States CCW’s and a prohibition on local area restrictions on gun rights (Las Vegas). We were blocked at the committee level by on committee chairman from on the elimination of gun free school zones, even though there were the votes to pass it. The next election will have a pro gun rights candidate with State wide pro gun support to oppose him in his district.
States Rights on this issue is our strength!
@Mark Whatley: You said, “Carry laws are ILLEGAL, people. Why are we so willing to succumb to that illegality, and why hasn’t the NRA sued every state requiring a license?” I can’t speak to “every state,” but the laws requiring licenses and issuing them only “for cause” have been challenged in court in at least New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey as being unconstitutional, but have been upheld in each instance. All four of those decisions were appealed to the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the cases, letting the lower court decisions upholding the licensing schemes stand. Carry laws are, according to the courts (and not just the Supreme Court), legal and constitutional.
The Supreme Court has also declined to take appeals of at least two cases (from Maryland and one involving US National Park gun regulations) which held that there is no constitutional right to possess guns outside the home. Most recently the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a decision upholding against constitutional challenge a law (in San Francisco) which says that even within the home you must at all times either have guns securely locked up in a container or with a trigger lock or have them on your body, again allowing that law to stand.
See my (much longer) post on this subject that I’ve linked to, above.
i herd this was going to be the case now if someone only can get this approved. I read congress has made this bill nation wide carry number one passing. I thinks it’s going to become reality soon.
Here’s a personal story, In anticipation to travel through NY State next week I contacted the local state police barracks where I am staying to just make sure they are ok with my HR218 police exemption with retired police ID card. The NY State Trooper who answered the phone never herd of HR218 The Law Enforcement Safety Act and said no you cannot have a pistol in New York State as a retired law enforcement officer, I attemted to explain I have a current HR218 card plus my Retired Police ID which exempts me in all 50 states. The trooper said NY has some really tuff gun laws and definitely not.
I then called NY GUN hot line number and just as I knew the man said YES YOU CAN CARRY IN NY STATE per the your law enforcement excemption of my HR218. The point of all this you could be pulled over by an unsuspecting Trooper in one of these states not aware of gun laws look how fast you might wind up in jail WRONGLY even as a retired law enforcement officer and what about the ordinary citizens their doomed. WE MUST have reciritory concealed carry laws nation wide.
Mark,
It is nowhere as simple as that! Despite the McDonald Decision which should, in theory, extend the 2A to the States, the current SCOTUS seems very unwilling to take a case to clarify concealed carry. That often leaves it up to the individual States. The Constitution of the State of Tennessee clearly says:
“Sec. 26. Right to bear arms — Regulations.
That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”
Sounds like, in Tennessee anyway, the legislature has some justification to set up a system to regulate and issue handgun carry permits!
We have concentrated on changing laws. That means influencing politicians, judges and lawyers. There may be another way. Maybe we need to influence individual police officers.
Remember the situation after Hurricane Katrina in 2005? The NRA and others told police officers and military members not to confiscate guns during emergencies. In other words, they were told to disobey unconstitutional, unlawful orders.
Maybe we could reach individual police officers and tell them to recognize CCW licenses from other states, and not to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of their own states’ citizens. As you know, police officers have discretion when it comes to applying the law.
Frankly, I don’t hear much about people getting in trouble for carrying firearms anywhere. The worst I heard was about Shaneen Allen. I believe she spent 40 days in jail, and a year and a half in court. What happens when people get caught carrying without a license in those nine states? Do they get told not to do it again? Do they pay a fine? If they go to prison, I would think we would know their names and try to support them. My guess is that people get caught by enlightened police officers, who look the other way, or else citizens don’t carry, or else they carry without being caught, or else they carry, and get in trouble, but I don’t hear about it. Maybe they just get fined.
Anyway, I am sure that the situation Jack describes is very common. Cops have different understandings of what the law says, and they act accordingly. Yikes!!! That is why laws should be simple.
Suffer…hmmm… the mystery of sacrifice. We do need reciprocity nationwide for concealed carry for sure. I travel a lot for work late at night and out of state. I have found it hard keeping up to date with the various differences between states being new at all this. In Texas I was on a 6 month project back and forth recently. I had nice chat with an Officer who was saying to me he had never seen an out of state carry permit, took a look at mine, and more or less said well…if it was not expired he would probably accept it not knowing the reciprocity rules. I took some instruction for Texas CHL afterwards to make extra sure of myself and my take away on all that reinforced do Mas’ 4th and 5th Commandments…
Comments are closed.