Latest SCOTUS decisions brings Reciprocity?

Did anyone else hear about this? According to this article, SCOTUS latest decision around marriage has brought on an unintended consequence/benefit around reciprocity. I am wondering if the same applies to open carry as well:

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

HeesBonafide said:

Did anyone else hear about this? According to this article, SCOTUS latest decision around marriage has brought on an unintended consequence/benefit around reciprocity. I am wondering if the same applies to open carry as well:

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

Click to expand...

The ruling is about marriage rights, the court did not even cite any gun references, IMO, it is laughable to take that leap. And anybody suggesting so is pushing for someone else to be a test case. I find this behavior repulsive, if the author of the article wants to be a test case he should step up to the plate, and not give bad legal advice.

Maybe Bob will travel to DC and declare he is carrying concealed, and we can see how that works out for him.

I am not sure it has too...

WalkingWolf said:

The ruling is about marriage rights, the court did not even cite any gun references, IMO, it is laughable to take that leap. And anybody suggesting so is pushing for someone else to be a test case. I find this behavior repulsive, if the author of the article wants to be a test case he should step up to the plate, and not give bad legal advice.

Maybe Bob will travel to DC and declare he is carrying concealed, and we can see how that works out for him.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that SCOTUS has to call out or reference guns, open carry or reciprocity at all according to this article. In fact, while the ruling is around "gay marriage" it sites the constitution to justify that (if I read it correctly) that if one state recognizes a right, another state cannot deny you that same right:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.

The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.

My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday.

Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

I could be wrong, but "wow" if this is correct, what a historic decision indeed!

HeesBonafide said:

I am not sure that SCOTUS has to call out or reference guns, open carry or reciprocity at all according to this article. In fact, while the ruling is around "gay marriage" it sites the constitution to justify that (if I read it correctly) that if one state recognizes a right, another state cannot deny you that same right:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.

The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.

My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday.

Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

I could be wrong, but "wow" if this is correct, what a historic decision indeed!

Click to expand...

If you really believe this, Bob, and you can be the first test cases. Or as the great philosopher Nike said "Just do it" then get back to us.

Here is another article articulating the same thing..

WalkingWolf said:

If you really believe this, Bob, and you can be the first test cases. Or as the great philosopher Nike said "Just do it" then get back to us.

Click to expand...

www.breitbart.com/big-government/20...-up-national-reciprocity-for-concealed-carry/

HeesBonafide said:

www.breitbart.com/big-government/20...-up-national-reciprocity-for-concealed-carry/

Click to expand...

Then by all means travel to DC, carry concealed, and tell the first police officer you see. As far as myself, and hopefully others with common sense, I will wait until there is an actual ruling before doing something incredibly stupid.

Killing the messenger....

WalkingWolf said:

Then by all means travel to DC, carry concealed, and tell the first police officer you see. As far as myself, and hopefully others with common sense, I will wait until there is an actual ruling before doing something incredibly stupid.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to engage to have an argument or state "as fact" that this is the case and we all are free to carry concealed in all 50th states... I am merely the messenger as to what others are saying....

Thought it "might be" interesting for this group....apparently, I was incorrect.

HeesBonafide said:

I am not trying to engage to have an argument or state "as fact" that this is the case and we all are free to carry concealed in all 50th states... I am merely the messenger as to what others are saying....

Thought it "might be" interesting for this group....apparently, I was incorrect.

Click to expand...

What others are saying is not responsible, one can ponder theory. But until that theory is argued before the court, and the court rules, IT IS NOT CASE LAW. Suggesting that people should disobey current law because some loons want people to risk the freedom of others for their theories is not only stupid, it is against the rules of OCDO.

You want to discuss this as a theory to brought to a court, then that is fine, to make a blatant claim is wrong, and hopefully the thread gets shutdown before some fool takes this foolish advice.

Did you NOT see the ?? in the original title?

WalkingWolf said:

What others are saying is not responsible, one can ponder theory. But until that theory is argued before the court, and the court rules, IT IS NOT CASE LAW. Suggesting that people should disobey current law because some loons want people to risk the freedom of others for their theories is not only stupid, it is against the rules of OCDO.

You want to discuss this as a theory to brought to a court, then that is fine, to make a blatant claim is wrong, and hopefully the thread gets shutdown before some fool takes this foolish advice.

Click to expand...

Hence, the question and asking about it....ala theory/discussion/questions/ponder. etc. I do NOT ever recall making a "blatant claim" .. merely providing information that "OTHERS" where saying.... this is NOT my opinion, nor am I stating this opinion as fact..

Take a chill pill and relax.......

States have always honored a citizens drivers license from another state.. So yes, I could see this reciprocity applying to gun permits/licenses. I think the ruling is good for folks that believe the 2A is alive and well..

Some truck driver from out of state will get pulled over and charged with carrying a weapon here in anti NJ, then we shall see...

My .02

CCJ

HeesBonafide said:

Hence, the question and asking about it....ala theory/discussion/questions/ponder. etc. I do NOT ever recall making a "blatant claim" .. merely providing information that "OTHERS" where saying.... this is NOT my opinion, nor am I stating this opinion as fact..

Take a chill pill and relax.......

Click to expand...

sorry hees, can't claim oh i just threw the articles out with ??? just to see which way the wind was blowing!!!

so the defensive rant you posted wasn't your opinion but rather what "others are saying"? oh and others have NC chp also?

tell ya what mate...since others say it is ok, then take your CHP with your second best firearm and visit (any order you like) NJ, DC, NYC, CHICAGO, CA and, as another member has stated ~ poorly conceal carry your second best firearm around and post back whatcha found out about how these states defined the recent ruling!

you might be surprised to discern the idiot savant who wrote the article is full of it and is selling snake oil to cure stupid.

bottom line mate, enjoying the discussion of what others are saying about the article?

ipse

countryclubjoe said:

States have always honored a citizens drivers license from another state.. So yes, I could see this reciprocity applying to gun permits/licenses. I think the ruling is good for folks that believe the 2A is alive and well..

Some truck driver from out of state will get pulled over and charged with carrying a weapon here in anti NJ, then we shall see...

My .02

CCJ

Click to expand...

ccj, aren't the states doing so by specificly worded federal mandate under inter/intra statutes...uh not authority from a s-s marriage ruling?

and mem serves CDLs can't carry anwhere...period!

ipse

countryclubjoe said:

States have always honored a citizens drivers license from another state.. So yes, I could see this reciprocity applying to gun permits/licenses. I think the ruling is good for folks that believe the 2A is alive and well..

Some truck driver from out of state will get pulled over and charged with carrying a weapon here in anti NJ, then we shall see...

My .02

CCJ

Click to expand...

Not exactly, it has not "always" been so and it is by agreement, not federal reciprocity. Think Iowa may have been the last to sign on back in the late 1930's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_license_in_the_United_States

Grapeshot said:

Not exactly, it has not "always" been so and it is by agreement, not federal reciprocity. Think Iowa may have been the last to sign on back in the late 1930's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_license_in_the_United_States

Click to expand...

In my opinion the Federal Constitution out weights any agreement or lack thereof between the states and the SCOTUS ruling referenced in this thread will apply to gun permits/licenses in the future.. We just need to find someone to test my theory..

My .02

Regards

CCJ

HeesBonafide said:

Hence, the question and asking about it....ala theory/discussion/questions/ponder. etc. I do NOT ever recall making a "blatant claim" .. merely providing information that "OTHERS" where saying.... this is NOT my opinion, nor am I stating this opinion as fact..

Take a chill pill and relax.......

Click to expand...

The author of the article makes the blatant claim, you posted, and defend the article. Now if you want to put a disclaimer in that you do not support breaking the current law, or anyone else doing so it would help your case. But you seem unwilling to do that.

solus said:

ccj, aren't the states doing so by specificly worded federal mandate under inter/intra statutes...uh not authority from a s-s marriage ruling?

and mem serves CDLs can't carry anwhere...period!

ipse

Click to expand...

There is no federal law that bans carry of firearms in CDL vehicles, or any law in NC, BUT so many of the places are posted or off limits to firearms that a driver must service it makes it damn hard to carry legally in those places.

One of the highest paid runs I had was for the military, containers, tank tracks, and vehicles. It is illegal to take a firearm on any military base.

countryclubjoe said:

In my opinion the Federal Constitution out weights any agreement or lack thereof between the states and the SCOTUS ruling referenced in this thread will apply to gun permits/licenses in the future.. We just need to find someone to test my theory..

My .02

Regards

CCJ

Click to expand...

The problem is your opinion will not keep you out of jail. If we keep asking maybe the OP could step up and be the test case. I doubt the author of the article will.

It would be great if our rights were recognized accross state lines.

This just goes to show that the homosexuals wanted special rights, not equal rights.

I understand the argument presented for forced honoring of CCP/CWP/CPL for all of these united states though.

I cannot afford the legal cost of being a test case. If I could I would.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

You may be completely correct..

solus said:

sorry hees, can't claim oh i just threw the articles out with ??? just to see which way the wind was blowing!!!

so the defensive rant you posted wasn't your opinion but rather what "others are saying"? oh and others have NC chp also?

tell ya what mate...since others say it is ok, then take your CHP with your second best firearm and visit (any order you like) NJ, DC, NYC, CHICAGO, CA and, as another member has stated ~ poorly conceal carry your second best firearm around and post back whatcha found out about how these states defined the recent ruling!

you might be surprised to discern the idiot savant who wrote the article is full of it and is selling snake oil to cure stupid.

bottom line mate, enjoying the discussion of what others are saying about the article?

ipse

Click to expand...

I am not trying to state - "hey, lookie here -- we all have reciprocity!" I thought it was very interesting information and thought that "if" this is the case, "WOW - what a historic day indeed!" I thought that people may appreciate hearing this news, whether accurate, fiction, embellished or not. But, instead, people seem to want call me out as if "I" am the author of this article and this is my statement of fact...

Why is it that people on this group seem to take "opposite" stance on so many posts? We are all on the same team -- how about we work together as one stop acting like step brothers: --moderator deleted--

HeesBonafide said:

I am not trying to state - "hey, lookie here -- we all have reciprocity!" I thought it was very interesting information and thought that "if" this is the case, "WOW - what a historic day indeed!" I thought that people may appreciate hearing this news, whether accurate, fiction, embellished or not. But, instead, people seem to want call me out as if "I" am the author of this article and this is my statement of fact...

Why is it that people on this group seem to take "opposite" stance on so many posts? We are all on the same team -- how about we work together as one stop acting like step brothers: --moderator deleted--

Click to expand...

While this is the internet and people will sometimes shoot the messenger, I don't really see that this is the case here.

We do sometimes argue/discuss both sides of an issue in order to get all perspectives, personal attacks are to be carefully avoided.