Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights

[PratchettFan]

OK, lets go slow. All states have to accept other states gay marriage licenses, but all states do not have to accept other states CC permits?

and you don't see the contradiction there?

States have to accept other states gay marriage licenses because they are accepting their straight marriage licenses. It would be similar to one state accepting CC licenses from black people from one state but not the white people from the same state. Critical thinking is hard.

no, you are spinning. States have to accept ALL marriage licenses issued by another state, they have to accept drivers licenses issued by another state. It is only logical that they should also have to accept CC permits issued by another state.

This is easy, its not complicated. You are wrong, admit it and move on.

You are an idiot. Admit it and move on. "States" have to accept marriage licenses; people don't. And states can enact any restriction on weapons that does not violate the Second Amendment. The conservatives on this Supreme Court made it clear that laws regulating the concealed carrying of firearms are constitutional. There is no requirement that there be uniformity in such laws. You write as if the Supreme Court has not already ruled on the ability of the states to regulate firearms when they have.

contradictory rulings by the SC are nothing new. Sometimes they correct them, sometimes they don't.

You are talking out of your ass on this because you have a problem with equal rights when they apply to gun owners. you, like most liberals, are a hypocrite.

You cannot even name one Supreme Court case that addresses the ability of the states to regulate firearms. And there are not "conflicting Supreme Court decisions" on that issue. They only recently held that the Second Amendment even applies to state regulations. What is not equal about a business banning anyone from bringing a gun onto their property?

I think that is the point. There are no SCOTUS cases regarding this. I'm not sure how they would approach it, or even if they would hear it, but that does not mean it isn't a valid argument. I'm not talking about businesses banning guns, a business can ban people without shoes they can certainly say no guns. But the idea that a permit issued in one state not being honored in another... that may be an entirely different kettle of fish. Of course, it would probably have to arise from an arrest to get started. It would be interesting to see.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are an idiot. Admit it and move on. "States" have to accept marriage licenses; people don't. And states can enact any restriction on weapons that does not violate the Second Amendment. The conservatives on this Supreme Court made it clear that laws regulating the concealed carrying of firearms are constitutional. There is no requirement that there be uniformity in such laws. You write as if the Supreme Court has not already ruled on the ability of the states to regulate firearms when they have.

contradictory rulings by the SC are nothing new. Sometimes they correct them, sometimes they don't.

You are talking out of your ass on this because you have a problem with equal rights when they apply to gun owners. you, like most liberals, are a hypocrite.

You cannot even name one Supreme Court case that addresses the ability of the states to regulate firearms. And there are not "conflicting Supreme Court decisions" on that issue. They only recently held that the Second Amendment even applies to state regulations. What is not equal about a business banning anyone from bringing a gun onto their property?

If its legal to post a "no guns allowed" sign, then it should also be legal to post a "no gays allowed" sign or a "no honkies allowed" sign. As a case in point, there are many bars in the lower ninth ward of NOLA where no whites are "allowed". It you think thats illegal, I suggest you try to go in one and buy a beer.

Some people can recognize the difference between allowing a guy to walk into a bank carrying an AR15 and a gay walking into a bank carrying his paycheck.

Apparently you can't.

thats just plain stupid, if you have nothing of value to add, just stay quiet.

It's stupid what? To think that a bank shouldn't be able to ban open guns?

So you concede that on a case by case basis any place with a reasonably good reason should be able to ban guns from that premises.

Now explain that to the other you who doesn't think so.

 

[paddymurphy]

They do not. There is a big difference between a marriage license and a conceal carry permit.

No, they are both licenses issued by a state to a resident/residents of that state. Legally they are exactly the same as a drivers license issued by one state that is accepted in every other state.

Except they aren't the same. The court has ruled on this previously.

the court is wrong on that. the gay marriage ruling presents a valid precedent to challenge the previous gun rulings. We will see if anyone decides to take that on.

No one with a law degree will advance that idiotic proposition. And what "previous gun rulings" are you referring to? The ones I was referring to were decided by this Supreme Court in opinions written by Scalia joined by the conservatives. They held that while the second amendment applies to state and local regulations, it does not prohibit any regulation. They specifically held that it was permissible for states to ban firearms from certain places, like courts and schools and government buildings.

apples and oranges. banning guns in courtrooms does not equate to interstate acceptance of CC permits.

nice try, but you are way off topic.

No, asshat, the topic is the Supreme

No, they are both licenses issued by a state to a resident/residents of that state. Legally they are exactly the same as a drivers license issued by one state that is accepted in every other state.

As a matter of settled law, that is not true. But, go ahead and keep posting claims you really know nothing about.

More importantly, a "marriage license" from one state is not recognized in another state, only the marriage is. You get a Marriage license and then have the marriage ceremony where the officiant signs the license, signifying that you are married. You cannot obtain a marriage license in Pennsylvania and then take it to Ohio and have an Ohio officiant perform the ceremony.

no, but you can take a Penn drivers license to Ohio and drive legally. Its the same legal argument. Based on the SC ruling on gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason why a couple could not get a license in one state and be married in another state.

You fail to understand the Supreme Court opinion. Hell, you never even read it, did you? It says that any law that bans same sex marriage is unconstitutional And it says that states have to recognize "marriages" performed in other states. The ruling has no effect on the ability of a state to require that you obtain a marriage license in that state if you want the ceremony held there. Can you get a learners' permit and PA and then take that into Ohio for the driver's test?

actually you probably can.

Do you often make statements on issues you have no fucking clue about? You cannot take a PA leaner's permit to Ohio and take the test. First of all, you have to be a RESIDENT of a state to have a license issued there. Second... wait, there is no second. You cannot use a Pa learners permit to take an Ohio test; you cannot use a marriage license issued in Pa and then get married in Ohio; you cannot use a Pa Concealed Carry permit to carry in Ohio. Of course, the states clearly have the right to pass laws that do allow that. They can enter into reciprocity agreements with other states that recognizes permits issued in other states. Some have already done that. That, of course, has nothing to do with the right of a business to ban guns.

 

[paddymurphy]

You are an idiot. Admit it and move on. "States" have to accept marriage licenses; people don't. And states can enact any restriction on weapons that does not violate the Second Amendment. The conservatives on this Supreme Court made it clear that laws regulating the concealed carrying of firearms are constitutional. There is no requirement that there be uniformity in such laws. You write as if the Supreme Court has not already ruled on the ability of the states to regulate firearms when they have.

contradictory rulings by the SC are nothing new. Sometimes they correct them, sometimes they don't.

You are talking out of your ass on this because you have a problem with equal rights when they apply to gun owners. you, like most liberals, are a hypocrite.

You cannot even name one Supreme Court case that addresses the ability of the states to regulate firearms. And there are not "conflicting Supreme Court decisions" on that issue. They only recently held that the Second Amendment even applies to state regulations. What is not equal about a business banning anyone from bringing a gun onto their property?

If its legal to post a "no guns allowed" sign, then it should also be legal to post a "no gays allowed" sign or a "no honkies allowed" sign. As a case in point, there are many bars in the lower ninth ward of NOLA where no whites are "allowed". It you think thats illegal, I suggest you try to go in one and buy a beer.

Some people can recognize the difference between allowing a guy to walk into a bank carrying an AR15 and a gay walking into a bank carrying his paycheck.

Apparently you can't.

thats just plain stupid, if you have nothing of value to add, just stay quiet.

So, that is your response when you have no logical retort? You think that someone walking into a Bank carrying an AR-15 would not attract attention?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, they are both licenses issued by a state to a resident/residents of that state. Legally they are exactly the same as a drivers license issued by one state that is accepted in every other state.

As a matter of settled law, that is not true. But, go ahead and keep posting claims you really know nothing about.

More importantly, a "marriage license" from one state is not recognized in another state, only the marriage is. You get a Marriage license and then have the marriage ceremony where the officiant signs the license, signifying that you are married. You cannot obtain a marriage license in Pennsylvania and then take it to Ohio and have an Ohio officiant perform the ceremony.

no, but you can take a Penn drivers license to Ohio and drive legally. Its the same legal argument. Based on the SC ruling on gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason why a couple could not get a license in one state and be married in another state.

I can't hunt or fish in PA legally with my NY licenses. Why is that?

But you can drive, why is that? Some states to have reciprocity on hunting and fishing licenses. Louisiana and Mississippi used to, but the state treasurers realized that was costing them money so they stopped it.

So why again does a state have to let out of staters play by their gun rules if they can't even fish by their own rules?

 

[paddymurphy]

You are an idiot. Admit it and move on. "States" have to accept marriage licenses; people don't. And states can enact any restriction on weapons that does not violate the Second Amendment. The conservatives on this Supreme Court made it clear that laws regulating the concealed carrying of firearms are constitutional. There is no requirement that there be uniformity in such laws. You write as if the Supreme Court has not already ruled on the ability of the states to regulate firearms when they have.

contradictory rulings by the SC are nothing new. Sometimes they correct them, sometimes they don't.

You are talking out of your ass on this because you have a problem with equal rights when they apply to gun owners. you, like most liberals, are a hypocrite.

You cannot even name one Supreme Court case that addresses the ability of the states to regulate firearms. And there are not "conflicting Supreme Court decisions" on that issue. They only recently held that the Second Amendment even applies to state regulations. What is not equal about a business banning anyone from bringing a gun onto their property?

If its legal to post a "no guns allowed" sign, then it should also be legal to post a "no gays allowed" sign or a "no honkies allowed" sign. As a case in point, there are many bars in the lower ninth ward of NOLA where no whites are "allowed". It you think that is illegal, I suggest you try to go in one and buy a beer.

Should be, but is not. It is perfectly legal anywhere for a private business to ban guns. It is also legal most places to discriminate against gays, though that is changing. It is not legal to ban any particular race. The fact that bars in the lower ninth ward have the sense to make fools like you unwelcome, has nothing to do with whether that is legal.

LOL, fools like you would also be unwelcome.

Why would I not be welcome in such bars?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Equal protection means the law can't select a certain group to discriminate against. As long as everyone is prohibited from carrying in a school there is no equal protection issue.

If I took my gun and Louisiana CC permit into New Jersey or New York, I would be discriminated against because they would not honor it.

You guys opened the box, now you have deal with its contents.

They don't have to honor it because their gun regulations are constitutional.

and state marriage regulations aren't?

Not bans on gay marriage. Not now.

OK, lets go slow. All states have to accept other states gay marriage licenses, but all states do not have to accept other states CC permits?

and you don't see the contradiction there?

Now that you've conceded that people with guns can't do anything they please anywhere they please I think you've answered your own questions.

 

[Redfish]

No, they are both licenses issued by a state to a resident/residents of that state. Legally they are exactly the same as a drivers license issued by one state that is accepted in every other state.

Except they aren't the same. The court has ruled on this previously.

the court is wrong on that. the gay marriage ruling presents a valid precedent to challenge the previous gun rulings. We will see if anyone decides to take that on.

No one with a law degree will advance that idiotic proposition. And what "previous gun rulings" are you referring to? The ones I was referring to were decided by this Supreme Court in opinions written by Scalia joined by the conservatives. They held that while the second amendment applies to state and local regulations, it does not prohibit any regulation. They specifically held that it was permissible for states to ban firearms from certain places, like courts and schools and government buildings.

apples and oranges. banning guns in courtrooms does not equate to interstate acceptance of CC permits.

nice try, but you are way off topic.

No, asshat, the topic is the Supreme

As a matter of settled law, that is not true. But, go ahead and keep posting claims you really know nothing about.

More importantly, a "marriage license" from one state is not recognized in another state, only the marriage is. You get a Marriage license and then have the marriage ceremony where the officiant signs the license, signifying that you are married. You cannot obtain a marriage license in Pennsylvania and then take it to Ohio and have an Ohio officiant perform the ceremony.

no, but you can take a Penn drivers license to Ohio and drive legally. Its the same legal argument. Based on the SC ruling on gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason why a couple could not get a license in one state and be married in another state.

You fail to understand the Supreme Court opinion. Hell, you never even read it, did you? It says that any law that bans same sex marriage is unconstitutional And it says that states have to recognize "marriages" performed in other states. The ruling has no effect on the ability of a state to require that you obtain a marriage license in that state if you want the ceremony held there. Can you get a learners' permit and PA and then take that into Ohio for the driver's test?

actually you probably can.

Do you often make statements on issues you have no fucking clue about? You cannot take a PA leaner's permit to Ohio and take the test. First of all, you have to be a RESIDENT of a state to have a license issued there. Second... wait, there is no second. You cannot use a Pa learners permit to take an Ohio test; you cannot use a marriage license issued in Pa and then get married in Ohio; you cannot use a Pa Concealed Carry permit to carry in Ohio. Of course, the states clearly have the right to pass laws that do allow that. They can enter into reciprocity agreements with other states that recognizes permits issued in other states. Some have already done that. That, of course, has nothing to do with the right of a business to ban guns.

OK here ya go. a family lives in Pa, their 14 year old gets a Pa learners permit. two years later the family moves to Ohio, the 16 year old goes to the DMV to get a drivers license. he shows his Pa permit to prove that he had one.

Why is that liberals cannot think logically?

 

[Redfish]

If I took my gun and Louisiana CC permit into New Jersey or New York, I would be discriminated against because they would not honor it.

You guys opened the box, now you have deal with its contents.

They don't have to honor it because their gun regulations are constitutional.

and state marriage regulations aren't?

Not bans on gay marriage. Not now.

OK, lets go slow. All states have to accept other states gay marriage licenses, but all states do not have to accept other states CC permits?

and you don't see the contradiction there?

Now that you've conceded that people with guns can't do anything they please anywhere they please I think you've answered your own questions.

I never claimed that they could. Are you on drugs?

 

[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?

 

[Redfish]

contradictory rulings by the SC are nothing new. Sometimes they correct them, sometimes they don't.

You are talking out of your ass on this because you have a problem with equal rights when they apply to gun owners. you, like most liberals, are a hypocrite.

You cannot even name one Supreme Court case that addresses the ability of the states to regulate firearms. And there are not "conflicting Supreme Court decisions" on that issue. They only recently held that the Second Amendment even applies to state regulations. What is not equal about a business banning anyone from bringing a gun onto their property?

If its legal to post a "no guns allowed" sign, then it should also be legal to post a "no gays allowed" sign or a "no honkies allowed" sign. As a case in point, there are many bars in the lower ninth ward of NOLA where no whites are "allowed". It you think that is illegal, I suggest you try to go in one and buy a beer.

Should be, but is not. It is perfectly legal anywhere for a private business to ban guns. It is also legal most places to discriminate against gays, though that is changing. It is not legal to ban any particular race. The fact that bars in the lower ninth ward have the sense to make fools like you unwelcome, has nothing to do with whether that is legal.

LOL, fools like you would also be unwelcome.

Why would I not be welcome in such bars?

are you black? if yes, you might be welcomed. if white or asian, probably not. If you are an arrogant in-your-face black you would probably be kicked to the curb.

 

[paddymurphy]

Except they aren't the same. The court has ruled on this previously.

the court is wrong on that. the gay marriage ruling presents a valid precedent to challenge the previous gun rulings. We will see if anyone decides to take that on.

No one with a law degree will advance that idiotic proposition. And what "previous gun rulings" are you referring to? The ones I was referring to were decided by this Supreme Court in opinions written by Scalia joined by the conservatives. They held that while the second amendment applies to state and local regulations, it does not prohibit any regulation. They specifically held that it was permissible for states to ban firearms from certain places, like courts and schools and government buildings.

apples and oranges. banning guns in courtrooms does not equate to interstate acceptance of CC permits.

nice try, but you are way off topic.

No, asshat, the topic is the Supreme

More importantly, a "marriage license" from one state is not recognized in another state, only the marriage is. You get a Marriage license and then have the marriage ceremony where the officiant signs the license, signifying that you are married. You cannot obtain a marriage license in Pennsylvania and then take it to Ohio and have an Ohio officiant perform the ceremony.

no, but you can take a Penn drivers license to Ohio and drive legally. Its the same legal argument. Based on the SC ruling on gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason why a couple could not get a license in one state and be married in another state.

You fail to understand the Supreme Court opinion. Hell, you never even read it, did you? It says that any law that bans same sex marriage is unconstitutional And it says that states have to recognize "marriages" performed in other states. The ruling has no effect on the ability of a state to require that you obtain a marriage license in that state if you want the ceremony held there. Can you get a learners' permit and PA and then take that into Ohio for the driver's test?

actually you probably can.

Do you often make statements on issues you have no fucking clue about? You cannot take a PA leaner's permit to Ohio and take the test. First of all, you have to be a RESIDENT of a state to have a license issued there. Second... wait, there is no second. You cannot use a Pa learners permit to take an Ohio test; you cannot use a marriage license issued in Pa and then get married in Ohio; you cannot use a Pa Concealed Carry permit to carry in Ohio. Of course, the states clearly have the right to pass laws that do allow that. They can enter into reciprocity agreements with other states that recognizes permits issued in other states. Some have already done that. That, of course, has nothing to do with the right of a business to ban guns.

OK here ya go. a family lives in Pa, their 14 year old gets a Pa learners permit. two years later the family moves to Ohio, the 16 year old goes to the DMV to get a drivers license. he shows his Pa permit to prove that he had one.

Why is that liberals cannot think logically?

They moved there, you fucking moron. They became residents of Ohio. Only Ohio could issue him a license. That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about residents on one state having their "licenses' recognized in other states. Try to keep up..

 

[Redfish]

As a matter of settled law, that is not true. But, go ahead and keep posting claims you really know nothing about.

More importantly, a "marriage license" from one state is not recognized in another state, only the marriage is. You get a Marriage license and then have the marriage ceremony where the officiant signs the license, signifying that you are married. You cannot obtain a marriage license in Pennsylvania and then take it to Ohio and have an Ohio officiant perform the ceremony.

no, but you can take a Penn drivers license to Ohio and drive legally. Its the same legal argument. Based on the SC ruling on gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason why a couple could not get a license in one state and be married in another state.

I can't hunt or fish in PA legally with my NY licenses. Why is that?

But you can drive, why is that? Some states to have reciprocity on hunting and fishing licenses. Louisiana and Mississippi used to, but the state treasurers realized that was costing them money so they stopped it.

So why again does a state have to let out of staters play by their gun rules if they can't even fish by their own rules?

fishing licenses are a source or revenue, nothing more.

 

[Redfish]

the court is wrong on that. the gay marriage ruling presents a valid precedent to challenge the previous gun rulings. We will see if anyone decides to take that on.

No one with a law degree will advance that idiotic proposition. And what "previous gun rulings" are you referring to? The ones I was referring to were decided by this Supreme Court in opinions written by Scalia joined by the conservatives. They held that while the second amendment applies to state and local regulations, it does not prohibit any regulation. They specifically held that it was permissible for states to ban firearms from certain places, like courts and schools and government buildings.

apples and oranges. banning guns in courtrooms does not equate to interstate acceptance of CC permits.

nice try, but you are way off topic.

No, asshat, the topic is the Supreme

no, but you can take a Penn drivers license to Ohio and drive legally. Its the same legal argument. Based on the SC ruling on gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason why a couple could not get a license in one state and be married in another state.

You fail to understand the Supreme Court opinion. Hell, you never even read it, did you? It says that any law that bans same sex marriage is unconstitutional And it says that states have to recognize "marriages" performed in other states. The ruling has no effect on the ability of a state to require that you obtain a marriage license in that state if you want the ceremony held there. Can you get a learners' permit and PA and then take that into Ohio for the driver's test?

actually you probably can.

Do you often make statements on issues you have no fucking clue about? You cannot take a PA leaner's permit to Ohio and take the test. First of all, you have to be a RESIDENT of a state to have a license issued there. Second... wait, there is no second. You cannot use a Pa learners permit to take an Ohio test; you cannot use a marriage license issued in Pa and then get married in Ohio; you cannot use a Pa Concealed Carry permit to carry in Ohio. Of course, the states clearly have the right to pass laws that do allow that. They can enter into reciprocity agreements with other states that recognizes permits issued in other states. Some have already done that. That, of course, has nothing to do with the right of a business to ban guns.

OK here ya go. a family lives in Pa, their 14 year old gets a Pa learners permit. two years later the family moves to Ohio, the 16 year old goes to the DMV to get a drivers license. he shows his Pa permit to prove that he had one.

Why is that liberals cannot think logically?

They moved there, you fucking moron. They became residents of Ohio. Only Ohio could issue him a license. That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about residents on one state having their "licenses' recognized in other states. Try to keep up..

your drivers license is recognized by all states, you fuckin moron.

 

[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.

 

[paddymurphy]

No one with a law degree will advance that idiotic proposition. And what "previous gun rulings" are you referring to? The ones I was referring to were decided by this Supreme Court in opinions written by Scalia joined by the conservatives. They held that while the second amendment applies to state and local regulations, it does not prohibit any regulation. They specifically held that it was permissible for states to ban firearms from certain places, like courts and schools and government buildings.

apples and oranges. banning guns in courtrooms does not equate to interstate acceptance of CC permits.

nice try, but you are way off topic.

No, asshat, the topic is the Supreme

You fail to understand the Supreme Court opinion. Hell, you never even read it, did you? It says that any law that bans same sex marriage is unconstitutional And it says that states have to recognize "marriages" performed in other states. The ruling has no effect on the ability of a state to require that you obtain a marriage license in that state if you want the ceremony held there. Can you get a learners' permit and PA and then take that into Ohio for the driver's test?

actually you probably can.

Do you often make statements on issues you have no fucking clue about? You cannot take a PA leaner's permit to Ohio and take the test. First of all, you have to be a RESIDENT of a state to have a license issued there. Second... wait, there is no second. You cannot use a Pa learners permit to take an Ohio test; you cannot use a marriage license issued in Pa and then get married in Ohio; you cannot use a Pa Concealed Carry permit to carry in Ohio. Of course, the states clearly have the right to pass laws that do allow that. They can enter into reciprocity agreements with other states that recognizes permits issued in other states. Some have already done that. That, of course, has nothing to do with the right of a business to ban guns.

OK here ya go. a family lives in Pa, their 14 year old gets a Pa learners permit. two years later the family moves to Ohio, the 16 year old goes to the DMV to get a drivers license. he shows his Pa permit to prove that he had one.

Why is that liberals cannot think logically?

They moved there, you fucking moron. They became residents of Ohio. Only Ohio could issue him a license. That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about residents on one state having their "licenses' recognized in other states. Try to keep up..

your drivers license is recognized by all states, you fuckin moron.

Never said they were not. Again, however, that is not what we were talking about.

 

[Ernie S.]

While I essentially have to agree, You have to admit that someone being denied service because he was armed could be an interesting test case of public accommodation laws.
PA laws are there to ensure various protected class citizens have equal access to services.
I won't argue whether it is proper to force a business to serve blacks or gays or Martians, but the fact that only race, gender, sex, disability and sexual orientation are mentioned in PA laws, would ordinarily mean that gun owners are not covered. However, considering the recent SCOTUS ruling extending subsidies to obamacare recipients in states with no exchanges, could one assume that SCOTUS is apt to rewrite laws to fix presumed improper omissions?
The right to bear arms is so plainly protected by the Constitution, might SCOTUS include that right in existing PA laws?

It would only apply if the state's PA laws included people who carry guns. If SCOTUS ruled on this based upon the 2nd, it would not involve PA laws at all.

One would think that, but considering SCOTUS last week essentially rewrote ACA, the precedent is there to allow them to add other rights and classes to public accommodation laws.

They did not rewrite ACA.

Yes, they essentially did. They extended subsidies to states with no exchange in direct violation of the intent of the law. ACA was written in such a way as to try and force Conservative states to jump on the band wagon. Many states called obama's bluff and he responded by giving people in those states subsidies in violation of the letter of the law.

No, they essentially didn't. They interpreted it in exactly the manner it was intended to be interpreted by the people who passed it into law.

the law says that subsidies should flow to customers “through an Exchange established by the state.”

The intent was to coerce states into setting up exchanges.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Oh... I see.
So, if the requirement for a CCW licenses across all 50 states were substantively the same, you'd agree that every state would then have to recognize a CCW from every other state?

 

[PratchettFan]

It would only apply if the state's PA laws included people who carry guns. If SCOTUS ruled on this based upon the 2nd, it would not involve PA laws at all.

One would think that, but considering SCOTUS last week essentially rewrote ACA, the precedent is there to allow them to add other rights and classes to public accommodation laws.

They did not rewrite ACA.

Yes, they essentially did. They extended subsidies to states with no exchange in direct violation of the intent of the law. ACA was written in such a way as to try and force Conservative states to jump on the band wagon. Many states called obama's bluff and he responded by giving people in those states subsidies in violation of the letter of the law.

No, they essentially didn't. They interpreted it in exactly the manner it was intended to be interpreted by the people who passed it into law.

the law says that subsidies should flow to customers “through an Exchange established by the state.”

The intent was to coerce states into setting up exchanges.

Not according to the arguments put to the court nor to the general administration of the law. The court agreed with those arguments. That's their job.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Equal protection means the law can't select a certain group to discriminate against.

Marriage laws that did not allow same-sex marriage treated everyone equally and did not discriminate anyone.