SCOTUS ruling on marriage; extend to 50 state CCW?

[Joe Bob]

Constitutional Rights PAC | SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Far fetched or what?

[BE911SC]

Parf

[speeder]

Ya think?

[patz]

P A R F? Not a stretch, knowing you maniacs. It will be there soon.

As to extending constitutional rights to denial of right in States. I'm all for it. Why should someone in AZ have the right to carry concealed while if it is denied in CA by some County douchebag Sherriff?

[wdfifteen]

Far fetched. There's no constitutional right to walk around with a gun hidden on your person.

Yes. PARF

[Porsche-O-Phile]

What part of "keep and BEAR arms" do you have trouble understanding?

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

What part of "keep and BEAR arms" do you have trouble understanding?

What part of "well REGULATED militia do you have trouble understanding?"

[Porsche-O-Phile]

None. And that's already settled under the Heller v. DC decision. "Well regulated militia" extends to individuals. Settled already.

[aigel]

Haha - gay marriage and guns in one OP. That takes doing!

[legion]

I always found it sadly funny that anything else in the Constitution (or rights invented by the court) are considered "infringed" when the effect of a law merely has a "chilling effect", but the single amendment that says "shall not be infringed" is allowed to be chilled out of existence as long as it is theoretically possible to exercise.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by widebody911

What part of "well REGULATED militia do you have trouble understanding?"

At the time this country was founded, the term "well regulated" would mean "well equipped" today.

What we call a well regulated army today was called the "Standing Army".

The standing army's soldiers were issued their regulations, meaning a musket, gunpowder and lead balls and other soldier stuff- Not a booklet of rules.

The founding fathers knew that free men should be well equipped to defend themselves- That they (we) should be "well regulated".

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Far fetched. There's no constitutional right to walk around with a gun hidden on your person.

Yes. PARF

Actually there is, but recognizing or defining marriage is NOT a power granted to the feds in the Const, which means it belongs to the states or to the people. Crazy 10th Amendment stuff.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by Dantilla

At the time this country was founded, the term "well regulated" would mean "well equipped" today.

What we call a well regulated army today was called the "Standing Army".

The standing army's soldiers were issued their regulations, meaning a musket, gunpowder and lead balls and other soldier stuff- Not a booklet of rules.

The founding fathers knew that free men should be well equipped to defend themselves- That they (we) should be "well regulated".

More accurately it meant "properly attended to or well maintained".

A clean house would also have been well regulated.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Far fetched. There's no constitutional right to walk around with a gun hidden on your person.

Yes. PARF

The blowback on this recent decision could very well be that there will be CCW's for everybody...

Can you say Gay and Guns in the same sentence...

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Dantilla

At the time this country was founded, the term "well regulated" would mean "well equipped" today.

What we call a well regulated army today was called the "Standing Army".

The standing army's soldiers were issued their regulations, meaning a musket, gunpowder and lead balls and other soldier stuff- Not a booklet of rules.

The founding fathers knew that free men should be well equipped to defend themselves- That they (we) should be "well regulated".

There wasn't much of a "Standing Army" back in 1789. Most defence was by citizens in local ad hoc militia groups that provided for a common defence. In that those citizens mostly had to provide their own arms.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by tabs

There wasn't much of a "Standing Army" back in 1789. Most defence was by citizens in local ad hoc militia groups that provided for a common defence. In that those citizens mostly had to provide their own arms.

True. The British had a standing army, the colonists, not so much.

[group911@aol.co]

And why there is a second amendment at all;
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

[wildthing]

I really hope so. I am in a metropolitan area in California, one of the hardest places to get one.

Why is defending a wife and 3 daughters not "good cause"? Or better yet, why do I have to justify it, if it is an unalienable right?

[sammyg2]

The constitution gave us separation of powers. Now we have collusion of powers.

The destruction is nearly complete. Congrats.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The left wants everyone dependent on the government (them) for everything. When it comes to your own safety and security its deemed "vigilantism" if you dare to suggest you'd rather take responsibility for it yourself rather than be dependent on their "we'll get there when we get around to it - if we feel like it - but right now we're on break" union report-writers.

Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. At least they'll (usually) show up later on to take some pictures and write a nice report about it. That's what they did for my friend (Scott C. Down, murdered in anti-gun Massachusetts back in the early 1990s by some bad guys robbing the place he was working). The police are under no obligation to protect you - yet the left wants you to put complete trust and your very life (and the lives of your family members) in their hands no matter what.

Yep. That makes sense.