Comments

SCOTUS’ GAY MARRIAGE DECISION AND CONCEALED CARRY — 69 Comments

  1. Mas, any recommendations for safety if we’re going to go to watch fireworks at July 4th? More specifically, what types of features in parks, public places, etc should we actively avoid or what can be beneficial (eg maybe walls of buildings around perimeter of crowd is safer, especially nearer access to exits/streets)?

  2. SCW, let the professionals do the fireworks, and stay well back from the launchers. The worst case I know of in which people were hurt in a fireworks display, they were near the launchers when a “firework” from China blew up in the launch tube.

  3. I won’t matter because these decisions were made outside the rule of law. Agree or disagree with the sentiments, the Obama Care decision was based on the idea the law says something other than what it actually does. The Gay Marriage decision is based on the decision the law says something actually never mentioned in the law. In other words, what is or is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t matter, only public (by rule of 5) opinion matters.

    RIP USA.

  4. I have been reading “What ever happened to Justice?” By Richard Maybury. I’m not done yet, but am still prepared to recommend it to everyone, very interesting viewpoint on common law v statutory law(at least to this electrician).

  5. I think while the logic has been set in place it’ll actually take a ruling by a court to get universal reciprocity, but then again I’m no lawyer. Let’s hope that it does happen. Being a resident of NH who often enters MA, I’ve always resented the fact that I had to be disarmed when travel to the Bay State.

  6. Rich, you might want to consider a Massachusetts non-resident concealed carry permit.

  7. The issue on Concealed Carry reciprocity turns on whether a CCW / CHL is issued as :

    1) A magisterial act

    2) A grant under the police power

    A ” magisterial act” is one that the state performs as a regular administrative activity with little discretion on the part of the state agent or “magistrate”. An example is the recording of survey plats at the recorders or County Clerks office ( depending on the state), the recording of deeds, the issue of birth certificates and drivers licenses. In a ” shall issue” state it can certainly be argued that a CHL is a magisterial act; pay the fee, take the class, pass the test and background check, and you MUST as a matter of law, be issued a license to carry. The ” full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution requires each state to recognize and grant full faith and credit to the magisterial acts of the other states.

    Other licenses, such as a license to practice a profession such as land surveying or medicine or law, are considered ” discretionary” and are under the police power. Such licenses are carefully controlled by the state in order to protect the general welfare of the public and to protect the public from unscrupulous, incompetent or unfit practitioners. In almost every circumstance, special and extensive education, rigorous examination, sometimes demonstrated years of experience and usually continuing education are required earn and maintain a professional license. No person has a ” right” to a professional license, the state has some discretion. Each state has its own standards and requirements and there is little or no reciprocity. I hold a Land Surveying license in Texas , in order to practice in
    Oklahoma I must take their examination and meet the State of Oklahoma’s requirements as expressed in the relevant stature and regulations. My Texas license is basically irrelevant.

    There is the crux of the issue – is the issue of a license to carry a mundane and yawn-worthy administrative act or is it a death defying and frightening parceling out of the power of the state to a mere citizen who has not the mantle of a badge or commission?

    The Texas view versus the Massachusetts view. As long as the two positions exist , national reciprocity is unlikely at least on a voluntary basis.

  8. The highest court has become nothing more than a kangaroo court of jesters and political hacks, to me. Hence SKCOTUS: Supreme Kangaroo Court of the United States

    I mean, come on, the Kagan appointment alone, and subsequent senate confirmation, showed me all I needed to know about SKCOTUS and the senate. How does a far left political hack, who had never judged a case from a bench in her life, even get her name on the list of nominees for a lifetime gig in the highest court in the land?

    Bottom line: SKCOTUS is corrupt and rigged.

  9. The operating principle of the Sacred Shysters: Take a position, then fashion a rationale to fit the conclusion.

  10. Greg, you make a very interesting point. However, if one surveys the various States, one finds a third view of the issue as follows:

    Currently five States (AK, AZ, KS, VT and WY) allow “Constitutional Carry” or carry without a permit assuming that a citizen is entitled to possess a firearm at all (not disallowed due to being a felon, mentally ill, etc.). AR is set to join this list on August 16, 2015 which will bring the total number of “Constitutional Carry” States up to six. Clearly, these States view the carrying of a handgun as a “Right to Bear Arms” that does not depend upon government approval at all.

    Roughly, 35 States (not counting AR) adopt the “Shall Issue” model in which a permit must be issued once a set of objective criteria are satisfied. As you note, these States seem to view the issuance of a handgun carry permit as a magisterial act.

    The remaining nine States (and D.C.) adopt the “may issue” model in which approval of the carry license is largely at the discretion of various government officials. As you note, these States clearly view the issuance of a handgun license as a grant under police power.

    I am not a fan of “legislating from the bench”. I think that this latest SCOTUS decision was exactly that! I rather agree with Justice Scalia’s dissent that the democratic process was working just fine, regarding Gay marriage, and there was no need (at all) for the SCOTUS to short-circuit democracy by injecting their personal views into mix and creating a new “inferred right” that no one had ever heard of before.

    Since I am not a fan of this kind of activism, my preferred solution for National Concealed Carry Reciprocity would be for Congress to get off its butt and pass it. After all, a super majority of the States (35 out of 50 or 70 %) favor at least the view that it is a magisterial act. If the Constitutional Carry States (who are even more accommodating) are added into the total then the majority becomes 41 out of 50 or 82%.

    With such consensus, Congress (if it responds to the will of the people at all) should be able to both pass National CC Reciprocity and then override President Obama’s certain veto into the bargain. We should not have to pray for an activist court to give us relief! That will never happen given that CC reciprocity (or anything at all to do with firearms) is hateful to the radical left-wing members of the SCOTUS.

  11. When/where did SCOUS get the authority to determine the constitutionality of any issue? Isn’t that like the fox guarding the hen house?

  12. “The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

    The law is already there but we have a supreme court (caps not employed on purpose) that chooses to ignore the Constitution and a president who feels he is not bound by it. Imagine the result if I decide I am no longer bound by IRS regulations. How do you think that will work out?

    “All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.”

    Imagining that a law passed as a sop to political correctness (homosexual marriage) will provide relief to an area of the law (2nd Amendment) which is definitely NOT PC is a fools errand.

    The struggle continues.

  13. To the point, the time is now ripe for this. The crazy quilt of state laws from 0 required for concealed carry to x hours of y training in a state requiring handgun registration make interstate travel and commerce a demonstrable burden to the citizen. In fact even the open carry advocates will help the effort as their behavior is often explained as “needed” because two states may both allow open carry yet have no provisions for reciprocity on concealed carry. Now is the time while SAF and Alan Gura are making headway, for select cases to be brought to the fore for district court and SCOTUS approval. The scary part if the next president is a d, they will be able to appoint at least one justice and make no mistake, that is the next job BHO wants, a lifetime appointment and the bully pulpit.

  14. FYI :-))

    The Nevada Firearms Coalition is having a Freedom Celebration & Blue Card Shredding event on July 18th. Clark County (Las Vegas) required gun owners to register and have a Blue Card.

    A new law bans local regulations rquiring registration – Handguns do not have to be registered anymore (no ‘blue cards’) in Clark County.

    The Nevada Firearms Coalition is dedicated to the ownership and safe use of firearms for self-defense, competition, recreation & hunting

  15. TN_Man

    Thanks for your comment. I was basically pointing to the dichotomy between states that require “sate action”. States that require NO action do not fall into the conflict between “magisterial” and “police power” acts.

    I am a firm believer in Constitutional Open Carry – that was the norm when the Founders did their work. My sweet home Texas has always had no restriction of the carriage of Long Arms – concealed if you want, open, loaded, unloaded- you can walk down Mockingbird Lane in the Hospital District of Dallas carrying a slung AR if you wish; it is not against the law unless you point it at someone. That is how the carry of pistols SHOULD be, and was, until the post-reconstruction state constitution of 1876 gave the Legislature the authority to regulate the “wearing of arms”… with a “view to prevent crime”. This was an over-reaching backlash against the excesses of the Reconstruction occupation government ; a thinly veiled attempt to keep newly freed negroes and other people considered to be undesirable from carrying pistols in public, as revealed by the legislative notes.

    Back to your idea – it is true that a super-majority of states have some form of concealed carry, but many of those states see the “gun carry license” as dangerous to public safety and absolutely will fight long and hard before they let people from Arizona or Texas carry in Chicago or Brooklyn while visiting.
    I would welcome the idea – how to get Congress to pass such a law and then override the inevitable veto?

  16. The answers to these questions will ultimately have to be found in Article V of the Constitution, I think.

  17. Massad, thanks for the nod on same sex marriage, and I had to laugh out loud on your take of suffering. As a gay man I don’t fit most stereotypes. I’m an avid gun sportsman and follow your wisdom as closely as I can. I’m not sure about CCW reciprocity and this case, as far as I know it wasn’t decided on the Full Faith and Credit clause, it was decided more on the 14th Amendment, but then again, SCOTUS can be all over the map in 5-4 decisions so anything is possible. I will say as a gay man I appreciate the option to defend myself and friends if needed with a gun. Sadly gay bashings still happen, even in the “liberal” cities.

    PS did you see the Lynne Russel case about her husband killing the robber? That’s a hell of a story, I hope you write an article on it. If that doesn’t make a case for guns being used to save lives, I don’t know what does.

  18. I’m a rabid defender of the 2nd amendment, but believe national reciprocity will give the Feds the green light to drive carry to a national standard set of criteria.

    What’s different about marriage licenses and carry permits is that every marriage license allows the same thing. OTOH, every state sets their own rules for carry, places open to carry, and in some cases the license is required for any form of handgun ownership.

    This WIDE variability will drive the Feds to level it out, and exert their will, and they won’t ‘standardize’ around Vermont, or Texas. They’ll try for as close as they can get to CA, MA, NJ, etc.

    No thanks!

  19. Random thought: is gay marriage like bayonet lugs on rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds? i.e. tell someone they can’t have it and it becomes the most desirable (and essential) item ever.

    Not saying it’s necessarily so; it’s just a thought.