|
06-26-2015, 09:14 PM,
|
|
|
Posts: 117
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
Is this possible
Posts: 117
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
0
SCOTUS, based their decision today on that it was a violation of the first amendment for some states to refuse to recognize same-***** marriages.
Now think on this. Does IL, NY, NJ and others violate my right to self protection by refusing to honor a legal CC permit issued by AL and recognized by 20 something other states.
SCOTUS, do you job. Make those blue progressive liberal states correct their laws. This should be about a 5 minute decision and let the clerks write the report.
Now think on this. Does IL, NY, NJ and others violate my right to self protection by refusing to honor a legal CC permit issued by AL and recognized by 20 something other states.
SCOTUS, do you job. Make those blue progressive liberal states correct their laws. This should be about a 5 minute decision and let the clerks write the report.
|
|
|
Find
|
06-27-2015, 08:47 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: Is this possible
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
A lot of people have said the same thing.
Alan Gotlieb has probably spent the day taking calls from every lawyer working with the SAF on who gets to find and take the first case.
http://www.ccrkba.org/?p=5014
Alan Gotlieb has probably spent the day taking calls from every lawyer working with the SAF on who gets to find and take the first case.
http://www.ccrkba.org/?p=5014
|
|
|
Find
07-01-2015, 06:42 PM,
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2015, 06:46 PM by rwhite135.)
|
|
|
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: Is this possible
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
0
07-01-2015, 06:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2015, 06:46 PM by rwhite135.)
What the court ignored is that gay marriage wasn't a 1st Amendment case, it was a 10th Amendment case. No where in the US Constitution is marriage mentioned, nor is it mentioned in any of the Amendments. Therefore the power to regulate it falls to the individual states and not the federal government, including the judiciary. In other words no federal court has the power to throw out any state law banning gay marriage. This differs from the civil rights based on race cases as the 14th Amendment, and others passed at the time, applied all rights to blacks that were enjoyed by whites. No Constitutional Amendment has done so for homosexuals, other than those based on their race. To apply them and the First Amendment in the way SCOTUS did would make the founders turn in their graves. It should also be noted that no state has been required to recognize a hetero marriage from another state but now all are required to recognize a homosexual one.
|
|
|
Find
|
07-02-2015, 01:27 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 538
Threads: 54
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
1
|
|
RE: Is this possible
Posts: 538
Threads: 54
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
1
I would hope that CC would now become the law of the land, but the pragmatic part of me doesn't think it will happen. The country is a better place when people can decide on how they want to live. Let NY be NY and OK be OK. This one size fit all mentality is going to be the death of us.
|
|
|
Find
|
07-02-2015, 06:36 AM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
|
|
RE: Is this possible
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation:
2
(07-02-2015, 01:27 AM)fromtheplaines Wrote: I would hope that CC would now become the law of the land, but the pragmatic part of me doesn't think it will happen. The country is a better place when people can decide on how they want to live. Let NY be NY and OK be OK. This one size fit all mentality is going to be the death of us.
Yes.
(07-02-2015, 01:27 AM)fromtheplaines Wrote: I would hope that CC would now become the law of the land, but the pragmatic part of me doesn't think it will happen. The country is a better place when people can decide on how they want to live. Let NY be NY and OK be OK. This one size fit all mentality is going to be the death of us.
Yes.
|
|
|
Find
|
07-02-2015, 08:05 AM,
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: Is this possible
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
I think the whole concept of forcing one state to recognize another state's licenses and laws is problematic. Imagine if one states lawyers, doctors, or other licensed professionals had to be recognized by every other state. It could cause states to be competitive. For instance, Illinois licenses cost a small fortune (and insurance license is now over $600 annually), but Indiana's is cheap. Imagine if Illinois has to recognize all other state licenses.
This is what this Supreme Court has ruled. It should make CCW automatically recognized as legal no matter the state of issue. Open carry in Texas should now be recognized here in Illinois. The ruling is idiotic on the face of it, but that is what liberals do. The words written in law and the Constitution have been twisted to fit the political agenda of the far left.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
This is what this Supreme Court has ruled. It should make CCW automatically recognized as legal no matter the state of issue. Open carry in Texas should now be recognized here in Illinois. The ruling is idiotic on the face of it, but that is what liberals do. The words written in law and the Constitution have been twisted to fit the political agenda of the far left.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
|
07-02-2015, 01:57 PM,
|
|
|
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
|
|
RE: Is this possible
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
(07-01-2015, 06:42 PM)rwhite135 Wrote: What the court ignored is that gay marriage wasn't a 1st Amendment case, it was a 10th Amendment case. No where in the US Constitution is marriage mentioned, nor is it mentioned in any of the Amendments. Therefore the power to regulate it falls to the individual states and not the federal government, including the judiciary. In other words no federal court has the power to throw out any state law banning gay marriage. This differs from the civil rights based on race cases as the 14th Amendment, and others passed at the time, applied all rights to blacks that were enjoyed by whites. No Constitutional Amendment has done so for homosexuals, other than those based on their race. To apply them and the First Amendment in the way SCOTUS did would make the founders turn in their graves. It should also be noted that no state has been required to recognize a hetero marriage from another state but now all are required to recognize a homosexual one.
SCOTUS - silly people! Same logic in allowing for Citizen's United. Corporations are people too? Come on!
(07-01-2015, 06:42 PM)rwhite135 Wrote: What the court ignored is that gay marriage wasn't a 1st Amendment case, it was a 10th Amendment case. No where in the US Constitution is marriage mentioned, nor is it mentioned in any of the Amendments. Therefore the power to regulate it falls to the individual states and not the federal government, including the judiciary. In other words no federal court has the power to throw out any state law banning gay marriage. This differs from the civil rights based on race cases as the 14th Amendment, and others passed at the time, applied all rights to blacks that were enjoyed by whites. No Constitutional Amendment has done so for homosexuals, other than those based on their race. To apply them and the First Amendment in the way SCOTUS did would make the founders turn in their graves. It should also be noted that no state has been required to recognize a hetero marriage from another state but now all are required to recognize a homosexual one.
SCOTUS - silly people! Same logic in allowing for Citizen's United. Corporations are people too? Come on!
|
|
|
Find
|
07-02-2015, 08:24 PM,
|
|
|
|
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
|
|
RE: Is this possible
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
8
Same logic in allowing for Unions... Unions are people too? Come on! All's Citizen's united did was allow ALL organizations to contribute to political campaigns. Only People vote however, but now Unions cannot buy influence, especially public sector unions, which were just a funnel for taxpayer dollars to the democrat party. Now they are matched dollar for dollar. It is why the Koch bothers are hated, as they will match all union contributions.
Freedom of group speech needs to be allowed.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
Freedom of group speech needs to be allowed.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
|
|
|
Find
|
Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
