Rights, or perhaps more correctly we should say "privileges" do follow people. We have the explicit Constitutional right to bear arms, and the inferred Constitutional right to marry, both can be and are licensed by the individual states. What we are talking about are the privileges a state issued license (to marry or to carry) other states must recognize.

I have no issue with a "license or permit", but outright denial based on a arbitrary decision by an elected LEO is horse puckey.

I do. The wording of the Second is VERY explicit. Perhaps the most strongly-worded stuff in the entire Bill of Rights. Yet it's that very prominent, very near-the-top, enshrined-in-the-Constitution bit of text that liberals think doesn't really matter or that they can contort or try to distort the meaning of because they just don't happen to like the thought of people being able to defend themselves.

I really hope some sanity comes down in more SCOTUS decisions about the S.A. soon. It (sadly) won't shut up the traitors but it might quiet them just a bit to the point where I might be able to finally get a good night's sleep.

No permits, no paperwork, no nothin'. It's a right. If you don't like it, go amend the Constitution. Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out for ya'.

2nd amendment says I have a right to keep and bear arms. Bear means possess or carry. Conceal or open carry - makes no difference to me. My state disallows me to exercise any right to bear arms outside of my house, a hunting ground, or a shooting range. And there is a very narrow band of exemptions that I have to follow when transporting a handgun (firearm must be in a fastened container, unloaded, and ammo must also be in a fastened, but separate container).

I guess in New Jersey, the need to defend myself only occurs in my own home, at a hunting ground, or in a shooting range, so there is no need for me to bear arms elsewhere... :rolleyes:

-Z

Again, states have had to recognize everything from marriage licenses to driver's licenses from other states forever, I believe if CCW was going to be reciprocated between states I think the NRA would have used this already... I think they fear federal regulation, making 'standards' for all states to follow..

However, I thought there was a bill in congress early 2014 about national reciprocity, I think it failed by a few votes.

You are missing the point Fox. Denial of a permit or license is a denial of a right.

If you are mental, have a disease or felony record.....yeah I can see it. But denial based on a "ya don't have a need" isn't right.

I never said anything about pro or con regarding this - just stating some facts, and some other precedent beyond the gay marriage ruling.

I really think the NRA is fearful of federal regulation. Actually the most recent SCOTUS ruling really drives this home. The fed was able to override state law with regards to marriage. Would the fed be able to override state restrictions (or no restrictions in the case of AZ and Vermont) regarding weapon permits? They might be able to, the gay marriage ruling certainly points in that direction.

I understand the history. The ruling seems to have changed the status of previously unrecognized marriage licenses, and it does not seem unreasonable to suggest it could impact the status of other state licenses regulating our civil rights.

Nah. The NRA leadership are mostly from 'free' states. They are also part of the good 'ol boys club. So they can exercise all the freedoms they want - conceal carry, open carry...etc. So they aren't fearful - they just want to leave well enough alone.

Now if you set some folks from states like NJ in the fold at the NRA, then you will see a greater call to action.

So it's about politics with the NRA - but it's internal politics, not external.

-Z

The NRA (and we) SHOULD be fearful of federal regulation. Why the heck do you think the Second Amendment was put in there in the first place? To shoot paper targets? No - it's there to give the citizens the final say when it comes to controlling their own destiny when faced with a tyrannical or oppressive government. The Founding Fathers weren't stupid - they realized that any system (even the one they were putting such careful thought and effort into crafting) can eventually be corrupted and lead to despotism. To prevent this, they made damn sure that the citizens would have guns - lots of guns - to take matters into their own hands if all else failed and they had to. They'd just gotten done doing exactly that with their own revolt against the Crown.

Why can liberals not understand this? There are ultimately two kinds of people in this world if / when the SHTF and situations get desperate enough - those with guns and those without guns (or to put it another way "the safe and the victims).

I know nobody wants to think about maybe having to turn guns onto another human being (lord knows I sure don't - I abhor the thought of it and FWIW I detest hunting as well) but if faced with the choice of doing that or letting harm come to me or those under my protection (like my family) I'd do it ten times out of ten without hesitation. The world is a very dangerous place and civility a very fragile veneer. It doesn't take much for the animal side of humans to come out and when it does, it's right back to the Law of the Jungle. The strong get to survive, the weak get to be dead.

I'm all for helping to build a better, more gentlemanly, more peaceful society but at the end of the day I acknowledge that it's still a veneer and subject to crumbling in the face of natural or man add disaster, a motivated despot or even simple "mob mentality" hooliganism.

I hope I never have to ever shoot a living thing. I've no doubt it would haunt me for life, but I wouldn't hesitate if I had to. There are so many possible alternative outcomes that are so much worse...

I'm a realist. You can keep your idealism. I'll keep my guns.