Posted on Jun 29, 2015
TSgt Joshua Copeland
6.13K
37
15
7
7
0
46f183dd
Some folks believe so! Using the same arguments used for Same Sex Marriage (majority of the states have it) and using the 14th amendment's due process clause (as was used in the SSM case) means that there should be national mandated reciprocity for Concealed Carry holders.


http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/27/same-sex-ruling-sets-up-national-reciprocity-for-concealed-carry/

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355349-did-the-gay-marriage-ruling-just-legalize-concealed-carry-nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in/
Avatar feed
Responses: 6
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
6
6
0
Unfortunately, "Concealed Carry" has never been established as a Right. Bearing Arms has, but specifically Concealed Carry has not. Most rulings have been narrow and have inferred that it is a privilege. This exempts any type of 14a ruling and leaves it a 10a issue.

Though I agree we should have Reciprocity like we do with Driver's Licences, and other Public Acts (Art 4), it is hard to make this a 14a issue.
(6)
Comment
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
TSgt Joshua Copeland
>1 y
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I think drivers licenses is actually the perfect example for pushing it as a 14a issue. The majority of the states have it as a "shall issue" license (making it a right or at least a privilege on par with a Drivers License) and there is a minority number of states that don't.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
>1 y
TSgt Joshua Copeland Yes, "but" DL's are still a privilege and defined as such. A state doesn't have to issue a DL. They can restrict it based on a wide variety of factors including eyesight.

If a blind guy came into my gun-shop and wanted to buy a gun... As long as he could fill out the paperwork, the law can't stop him from buying.

I believe this is more a Article 4 (Acknowledge public acts between states) issue than a 14a issue (Equal Protection).
(2)
Reply
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
TSgt Joshua Copeland
>1 y
That is true, I think a good lawyer would attack it from every possible angle and this one just strengths the case.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Lt Col Intelligence
Lt Col (Join to see)
>1 y
I think it also has to be noted that the court has upheld the governments right to restrict the right to bear arms. And that right is both a Federal right and a state right. Where in the recent case the court ruled marriage was a fundamental right and the state could not restrict it based on the sex of the applicants.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Capt Richard I P.
4
4
0
One can only hope!
(4)
Comment
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Capt Richard I P.
>1 y
Ever since my junior(?) year in college a pre-law student friend of mine with whom I took a 1st amendment class delighted in telling me the SCOTUS had never 'incorporated the 2nd against any state through the 14th'. I never really understood why it would be necessary, the language seems pretty simple to me, but hey I'll take more robust and explicit protections of rights any day.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
2
2
0
By rights, it should, because bearing arms should be an unconditional right, as the 2nd Amendment specifically says "shall not be infringed". I would argue that it is a citizen's responsibility, not simply a right, to be armed and prepared to defend himself and others. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS lives in a bubble and would not apply rulings equally and systemically because of political and social pressures, so we're screwed.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close