Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights

[paddymurphy]

So, now you understand it. All day you posted idiotic claims to the contrary.

Ay Paddy mah boy, too much time in the pub, is it? can ya sing a few bars of Danny Boy for us before ya fall off da bar stool?

Not surprising that you would resort to some other bigoted stereotype. Stupid people always do.

I'm not ashamed of my irish heritage, why are you?

Have you no sense of humor? does everything have to be sooooooooooo serious?

Actually, I was especially proud of my Irish Heritage when they voted overwhelmingly for marriage equality.

Taking pride in things you did nothing about is the mark of liberals.

How do you know I did nothing about it? You have some dead asshole racist and his racist flag as your avatar, in some misguided attempt to show pride in your southern heritage. What did you have to do with the war to preserve slavery?

 

[Redfish]

I get all that. What I am saying is that the SC ruling on gay marriage provides a valid legal precedent to do away with those laws as being discriminatory.

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding that simple concept.

So, now you understand it. All day you posted idiotic claims to the contrary.

Ay Paddy mah boy, too much time in the pub, is it? can ya sing a few bars of Danny Boy for us before ya fall off da bar stool?

Not surprising that you would resort to some other bigoted stereotype. Stupid people always do.

I'm not ashamed of my irish heritage, why are you?

Have you no sense of humor? does everything have to be sooooooooooo serious?

Actually, I was especially proud of my Irish Heritage when they voted overwhelmingly for marriage equality.

Great,

 

[hunarcy]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

My constitutional right is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. My choice of life partner is not.

And, if I am licensed to carry in one state, how can another state not recognize that under the full faith and credit clause?

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

 

[hunarcy]

I have a point now.

You think you do but your logic doesn't apply here.

It does.
States cannot refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. when those licenses stem from a right held by the people of said state.

States can refuse to recognize the privileges and immunities granted by licenses issued in other states. A fishing license or nursing license in one state is not necessarily valid in another.

OK... and... what is the difference between one of those, a marriage license, and a license to carry?

There are different requirements of licensing among the states. It is similar to a CDL before there were national standards in the 80's. A marriage license is the most basic among them.

If one state would let a couple who were 17 marry and your state didn't allow marriage until 21, was a couple who was 19 and legally married in one state not married while in yours?

 

[paddymurphy]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

My constitutional right is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. My choice of life partner is not.

And, if I am licensed to carry in one state, how can another state not recognize that under the full faith and credit clause?

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

 

[hunarcy]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

My constitutional right is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. My choice of life partner is not.

And, if I am licensed to carry in one state, how can another state not recognize that under the full faith and credit clause?

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

 

[Freewill]

Sorry friend, you gun does not earn equal protection.

My constitutional right is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. My choice of life partner is not.

And, if I am licensed to carry in one state, how can another state not recognize that under the full faith and credit clause?

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

Congress being the key word.

 

[paddymurphy]

My constitutional right is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. My choice of life partner is not.

And, if I am licensed to carry in one state, how can another state not recognize that under the full faith and credit clause?

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

Congress being the key word.

Sure. And Congress has not passed anything to require nationwide reciprocity.

 

[Freewill]

Ay Paddy mah boy, too much time in the pub, is it? can ya sing a few bars of Danny Boy for us before ya fall off da bar stool?

Not surprising that you would resort to some other bigoted stereotype. Stupid people always do.

I'm not ashamed of my irish heritage, why are you?

Have you no sense of humor? does everything have to be sooooooooooo serious?

Actually, I was especially proud of my Irish Heritage when they voted overwhelmingly for marriage equality.

Taking pride in things you did nothing about is the mark of liberals.

How do you know I did nothing about it? You have some dead asshole racist and his racist flag as your avatar, in some misguided attempt to show pride in your southern heritage. What did you have to do with the war to preserve slavery?

Your hyperbole is non-productive. The south, as the north were brave men who got caught up in a war in which they had little at stake. In the south the vast majority of those charging into canister fire were brave and I would say heroic men although their cause was flawed. They went to war to protect the rich democrat southern aristocrat's economic interests. I mean no offense to those of the south but that has to be one of the biggest con jobs every played on a people and a heavy price did the poor southerner pay.

That said, my opinion is, that the confederate flag, whether or not the battle flag, should be removed from public display such as the one in SC. Other displays on private land, or museums are up to the private person. Would I display the flag, no because I know for a fact that although the brave men who charged canister did so with the belief they were fighting for their land reality indicates otherwise.

 

[Freewill]

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

Congress being the key word.

Sure. And Congress has not passed anything to require nationwide reciprocity.

correct. And i wonder how the SCOTUS is going to make their decison work? In other words there is no language in most states laws concerning same sex marriage. The ones that I have read mention a man and a woman, not two men or two women. That would seem to indicate that the SCOTUS has invalidated the marriage laws of those states. Meaning there can't be marriages until the law is changed, or that is how things should work.

Same with the ACA ruling. The SCOTUS should have kicked it back to congress for them to fix but instead they wanted to be all in our face and show us who really is boss.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My constitutional right is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. My choice of life partner is not.

And, if I am licensed to carry in one state, how can another state not recognize that under the full faith and credit clause?

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

Congress being the key word.

Congress MAY being the key word

 

[hunarcy]

My constitutional right is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. My choice of life partner is not.

And, if I am licensed to carry in one state, how can another state not recognize that under the full faith and credit clause?

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

Congress being the key word.

No SHALL is the key word. Shall means there is no wiggle room.

Congress can prescribe how such acts, records and proceedings shall be proven, but they can't negate or cause nullification of the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of a state. It amazes me that you don't understand that. You seem to be a product of a substandard education. That's a shame.

 

[hunarcy]

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

Congress being the key word.

Sure. And Congress has not passed anything to require nationwide reciprocity.

When did Congress pass anything that required nationwide reciprocity to same sex marriage? The principle applies in all cases or it's not really a principle.

 

[Freewill]

Your choice of partner is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Your right to make that choice of one of the same gender is protected by the Equal protection clause. The application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to licensing of guns has not been addressed in Court.

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

Congress being the key word.

No SHALL is the key word. Shall means there is no wiggle room.

Congress can prescribe how such acts, records and proceedings shall be proven, but they can't negate or cause nullification of the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of a state. It amazes me that you don't understand that. You seem to be a product of a substandard education. That's a shame.

I think I was agreeing with you, Congress shall not the SCOTUS shall.

 

[OKTexas]

"Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights"

The situation in your OP has nothing to do with 'rights' since there's no government involvement, no effort by the government to regulate, limit, or restrict the rights of gun owners or gay Americans.

With regard to denying services to gay patrons, it would depend on whether or not the business in question is located in a jurisdiction with a public accommodations law that has as one of its provisions sexual orientation, absent such a provision, the business could deny services to gay patrons with impunity.

With regard to a business owner who disallows firearms on his property, again, there are no gun rights violations because the Second Amendment applies only to the relationship between government and those governed, not the relationship between and among private persons or organizations – including private businesses.

So if someone has a drivers license from a State I don't like I can tell them they get no service, right?

 

[hunarcy]

Why must it be "addressed"? The principle is clearly stated and must be applied evenly.

It is not clearly stated. There are legal principles that are applied to determine if the issuance of a CCW permit is the kind of act by a state that must be recognized by another. Right now, states do not do that so, clearly, the states do not think that this principle applies.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.."

Clear. Concise. If you can't understand that, you're not very bright.

Congress being the key word.

No SHALL is the key word. Shall means there is no wiggle room.

Congress can prescribe how such acts, records and proceedings shall be proven, but they can't negate or cause nullification of the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of a state. It amazes me that you don't understand that. You seem to be a product of a substandard education. That's a shame.

I think I was agreeing with you, Congress shall not the SCOTUS shall.

I apologize...that was supposed to be a response to Freewill, but apparently, I mucked that up. What I get for posting so late at night.