an interesting perspective on limits placed on marriage and 2a rights from the constitutional law perspective.
if something is a right, and ruled that limits can not exist, or bans, based on it being a right, what effect does that have on the way laws are being made in relation to the the 2a.
this is an interesting read. the attached brief written by someone that appears AGM, and maybe pro gun, seems to make a pretty strong case for rulings in favor of the 2a based on the logic applied in the GM suit. equal treatment under law.
if a marriage license and marriage must be honored in all states, why wouldn't concealed carry permits, or even blanket open carry?
http://bearingarms.com/can-gay-couples- ... bergefell/
down towards the bottom of the document, in the document linking to the full listing of the brief, is the explicit 2a link... but also a part of which is in the excerpt.
also of interest, the writer notes that the courts, in almost all cases has throw out populist ideas (what the population of most states desire, as noted by citizen votes), and says forget that. we (scotus) will determine what you want. yeah, i paraphrased that somewhat, but it's the general point.
so, equal treatment, NATION WIDE, can trump state law/rights. remember, cali even went so far as to pass a STATE constitutional amendment in the 2000's prohibiting ssm.
if something is a right, and ruled that limits can not exist, or bans, based on it being a right, what effect does that have on the way laws are being made in relation to the the 2a.
this is an interesting read. the attached brief written by someone that appears AGM, and maybe pro gun, seems to make a pretty strong case for rulings in favor of the 2a based on the logic applied in the GM suit. equal treatment under law.
if a marriage license and marriage must be honored in all states, why wouldn't concealed carry permits, or even blanket open carry?
http://bearingarms.com/can-gay-couples- ... bergefell/
down towards the bottom of the document, in the document linking to the full listing of the brief, is the explicit 2a link... but also a part of which is in the excerpt.
also of interest, the writer notes that the courts, in almost all cases has throw out populist ideas (what the population of most states desire, as noted by citizen votes), and says forget that. we (scotus) will determine what you want. yeah, i paraphrased that somewhat, but it's the general point.
so, equal treatment, NATION WIDE, can trump state law/rights. remember, cali even went so far as to pass a STATE constitutional amendment in the 2000's prohibiting ssm.