Ouch ouch ouch...

just had surgery. Still not feeling too good.

Sorry did not mean you at all, I should have been more precise. I hope you have a speedy recovery!

How anyone can go from SSM to CC is beyond my tiny little brain.

WE need to enforce the 2nd by the way so they cant have guns, they are not mature enough to

See? Works both ways!

I expressed on another thread. Your rights don't change when you cross a state line, which includes firearm rights. I am not a gun person, but I do not fear those with guns, who have passed the increased scrutiny of an advanced license issued by law enforcement.

tattooed on their forehead.

Ammosexuals (whomever made up that word is awesome BTW) seem to be able to only focus on things that begin with the letter G.

Conservatives don't have a monopoly on respect for the RKBA and many have argued that since the RKBA is a right then some one who legally possesses a gun in one state shouldn't face prison for going to another state, QED Shaneen Allen.

A marriage license, birth certificate, or diploma, for examples, recognizes a status or condition. By contrast, a permit to carry, or practice law, or drive, or hunt/fish, or whatever, is a permit to actively do something within the state.

It seems reasonable to me that states should be required to recognize other states' documents in the former category, while retaining state-level control over activities in the latter category...

If we did the state would cease to be legitimate. In fact, the state is obligated to not interfere or punish when we exercise our rights.

If we accept restrictions upon our rights it is only after a compelling interest can be demonstrated and even then the least intrusive standard must be employed, i.e. we have background checks to ensure duly convicted felons do not purchase guns, we have marriage licenses to ensure blood relatives do not marry.

"Self-defense is a right"? I do not see anything remotely similar to that stsement in the constitution. Certainly not the second amendment.

Ignoring that, however, to make the comparison between SSM and CC is confusing stastus with laws. What marriage means varies state by state. Who can marry is what SSM ruling was about. Some counties are not giving any marriage licenses. Stupid, but allowed. If a county in Alabama can simply say no marriage licenses, why can't Washington D.C. no guns?

Silly, silly, silly comparison.

doesn't make any mention of conscience yet it protects the means of informing the conscience as the 2A protects the means of self defense.

To claim there is no right to self defense is ludicrous. It has never been observed in the US (except for slaves and native peoples). Find for me anyone who will make the case that a victim cannot resist an attacker. Again, the state would cease to be legitimate.

And I'm not sure how the argument stands that just because Place X does something different than Place Y with regards to marriage it is then presumed they are right to do so with regards the 2A.

First, either or both may be in error.

Second, even if they have separate criteria for obtaining a marriage license, such as ages of majority, the unions would still be recognized in the other state. In other words, reciprocity.

Stupid of me. Need to avoiding drinking and posting.

Hey, if it weren't for the olives in my Martinis, I would starve.

However, the idea that one has a right to self-defense according to the constitution I do not agree with. That is a relatively recent construct of conservative courts. It is seen as a requirement in order to then jump to guns. Preferably big threatening guns. Penis shaped guns.

See, I should not drink and post. Doesn't make this post off the mark, though.

offended by the incessant penis references. I do not advocate for the RKBA because I need more/bigger penises in my life nor are guns the sole province of men. It is really a sexist and chauvinistic line of insults considering women have been working for equal recognition in fields such as law enforcement and the military.

Surely a movement that seeks to claim for itself the intellectual and moral high ground could see its way to not resorting to such childish gutter insults.

As to your line of argument --

Vermont:
Chapter 1, Article 16, That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

New Hampshire:
2-a. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. (Added in 1982)

Rhode Island:
Article 1, Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Connecticut:
Article 1, SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Pennsylvania: (The Declaration of Rights of the Pennsylvania Constitution predates and was a model for the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution)
Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Delaware:
Article 1, Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (Adopted 1987)

Ohio:
Article 1, .04. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Kentucky:
Section 1, Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Mississippi:
Constitution of 1817: Article 1, Section 23. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

CCW, but it's not an argument for requiring states to abide by other states' processes for the same. I would argue that each state should be allowed to develop that process for itself (subject to 2A/USSC limits), and hold all persons present in the state to the rules of that process. If states wish to enter into reciprocity agreements that's up to them, if they want Constitutional Carry then great, if they choose shall-issue-with-training (my preference) then so be it, and so on...

Ditto corporations, many professional certifications, etc. The no-reciprocity argument is just a means for harassing the poor and unconnected into not exercising their rights.

where I see the state as the appropriate unit for decision-making. I feel the same about DLs actually, see below....

Consider the case of Shaneen Allen.

If you are going to include driver's licenses in the "doing" category that states can regulate, then that would imply that a state could deny the validity of out-of-state licenses, which I do not think is what you intended to say.

Conversely, many states do deny a "being something" status to outsiders. "Being" the new owner of a "assault weapon" whether anything is done ("doing&quot with it or not, is now a status a person in CT or NY cannot gain the status of.

Personally, I think the SC decision is long overdue. A legal status you have in one state should not be invalidated just because you cross state lines. This is one country, not a bunch of squabbling little international borders. And today's ruling gets us a little closer to being one rather than fifty.

remarkably foolish for a state to decline to recognize an out-of-state DL, I think they should be allowed to do so. (Although that is an area where the federal government could reasonably insert itself, assert itself, to compel reciprocity I can't see where it has nor do I think it should do so. States should be allowed to decide, and it looks like they've all made the right decision.)

I don't agree that your AW comparison is valid (although I do oppose AWBs in general). Being the possessor of a piece of property is not a personal characteristic or identity in the vein of marriage, birth, etc. In those cases, the state's interest is in the item, not the person...

But given the ties that marriage has to property (ever been divorced?), the division is not entirely clear cut between states of "doing" and "being". Going back in US history to where wives were effectively property muddies it even more, as do the laws regarding responsibility of parents for their children's misconduct or dog owners for the dog's actions.

My personal opinion is that "state boards" really have little purpose except revenue collection. If a person has passed whatever academic requirement is a pre-requisite for performance of given profession (like a medical degree), a "state board" should simply be whoever administers a federal standard test and the results of that test should be valid nationwide.

But even if we disagree, it is an interesting way of looking at the issue. Thanks.

that conceal carry is a Constitutional right, that is correct. Until then.

They are still bartering for horses and cattle.

test that theory in NY

"states rights"... and they STILL don't even get THAT point?