If my (hypothetical) gay marriage isn't valid in Tennessee, why should your concealed carry permit be valid in New York?

SphericalTime: If my (hypothetical) gay marriage isn't valid in Tennessee, why should your concealed carry permit be valid in New York?

Let's all be petty about everyone else's rights.

Fark It: SphericalTime: If my (hypothetical) gay marriage isn't valid in Tennessee, why should your concealed carry permit be valid in New York?

Let's all be petty about everyone else's rights.

Look, I don't want this guy to see jail time for being honest, but you have to be a special kind of stupid for thinking your out of state concealed carry permit would cover you in New York City.

Fark It: SphericalTime: If my (hypothetical) gay marriage isn't valid in Tennessee, why should your concealed carry permit be valid in New York?

Let's all be petty about everyone else's rights.

It's not really about pettiness, it's about the actual extent of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Does a gay married couple's status change at the border of his state? And, if not, then how could a concealed carry permit be considered to extend?

What's the difference?

vartian: Fark It: SphericalTime: If my (hypothetical) gay marriage isn't valid in Tennessee, why should your concealed carry permit be valid in New York?

Let's all be petty about everyone else's rights.

Look, I don't want this guy to see jail time for being honest, but you have to be a special kind of stupid for thinking your out of state concealed carry permit would cover you in New York City.

This is true, although even the chairman of the NY City Council's Public Safety Committee thinks the city's gun laws are too strict. It would be one thing to completely ban handguns/concealed carry altogether, but places like New York City routinely make exceptions for certain classes of citizens. Off-duty and retired law enforcement, politicians, and celebrities. No one deserves special rights. Either everyone has access to the same rights, or no one does, and carrying weapons is limited to on-duty law enforcement personnel only.

Welcome to RON PAUL's America.

SphericalTime: Fark It: SphericalTime: If my (hypothetical) gay marriage isn't valid in Tennessee, why should your concealed carry permit be valid in New York?

Let's all be petty about everyone else's rights.

It's not really about pettiness, it's about the actual extent of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Does a gay married couple's status change at the border of his state? And, if not, then how could a concealed carry permit be considered to extend?

What's the difference?

There is none.

Ah, it's this story again. You broke the law, and it's YOUR fault. Deal with it.

And by "Today's", subby really means "Last week's".

Fark It: There is none.

There are people out there that think that gun rights are sacrosanct and that gay mariage is an abomination. My question to them is, if they're for state's rights, how do they justify their position when the right in question is concealed carry?

SphericalTime: Fark It: There is none.

There are people out there that think that gun rights are sacrosanct and that gay mariage is an abomination. My question to them is, if they're for state's rights, how do they justify their position when the right in question is concealed carry?

They can't, although they would say that gay people can get married to the opposite gender and be disingenuous, or point out that concealed carry is a right in 49 states, and that gay marriage is only in a handful.

I think anybody who is going to hold rights hostage in their politics is utter scum who cares more about pursuing a social agenda than anything.

VictoryCabal: And by "Today's", subby really means "Last week's".

Nope, last week it was a woman from Tennessee, this week it's a man from Indiana.

SphericalTime: Fark It: There is none.

There are people out there that think that gun rights are sacrosanct and that gay mariage is an abomination. My question to them is, if they're for state's rights, how do they justify their position when the right in question is concealed carry?

While I do agree that both should be recognized everywhere, marriage doesn't have it's own amendment dedicated to protecting us from this very kind of infringement.

If the supreme court recognized the right to keep a gun in Heller than it's stands to reason that bear shares the same protection. "...keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We seem to have forgotten about the bear part.

SphericalTime: It's not really about pettiness, it's about the actual extent of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Does a gay married couple's status change at the border of his state? And, if not, then how could a concealed carry permit be considered to extend?

What's the difference?

I really hope one of these cases makes it to the Supreme Court. Although their recent record on adhereing to the actual Constitution has been sketchy.

Fark It: SphericalTime: Fark It: SphericalTime: If my (hypothetical) gay marriage isn't valid in Tennessee, why should your concealed carry permit be valid in New York?

Let's all be petty about everyone else's rights.

It's not really about pettiness, it's about the actual extent of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Does a gay married couple's status change at the border of his state? And, if not, then how could a concealed carry permit be considered to extend?

What's the difference?

There is none.

I wish people would stop using this example, as I actually think there's a pretty big difference.

No one has a right to a conceal carry permit any more than they have a right to a drivers license. You do have a natural right to marry the person you choose to marry.

SphericalTime: Fark It: There is none.

There are people out there that think that gun rights are sacrosanct and that gay mariage is an abomination. My question to them is, if they're for state's rights, how do they justify their position when the right in question is concealed carry?

Well, if they're logical (yeah, many of them aren't)... the whole point is states can make their own laws, but have to respect the laws of other states when other states' citizens cross into their state.

Hence, "gay mariage is an abomination, thus illegal in Alabama... but because we believe in states rights, we recognize the mariages of gays from California"

gilgigamesh: I wish people would stop using this example, as I actually think there's a pretty big difference.

No one has a right to a conceal carry permit any more than they have a right to a drivers license. You do have a natural right to marry the person you choose to marry.

Not sure what you're getting at? You may not have a "right" to a drivers license... but we're not talking rights. If you have the privlidge of a Louisiana drivers license, you have the legal right to drive in Louisiana. And Illinois. And New York.

Same thing with a gun license.

Callous: SphericalTime: Fark It: There is none.

There are people out there that think that gun rights are sacrosanct and that gay mariage is an abomination. My question to them is, if they're for state's rights, how do they justify their position when the right in question is concealed carry?

While I do agree that both should be recognized everywhere, marriage doesn't have it's own amendment dedicated to protecting us from this very kind of infringement.

If the supreme court recognized the right to keep a gun in Heller than it's stands to reason that bear shares the same protection. "...keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We seem to have forgotten about the bear part.

No, "we" seem to have forgotten about the "well regulated militia" part.

And "we" seem to be too ignorant to know that "bearing arms" is a legal term for serving in a military force, not old timey speak for carrying your gun around with you.

Callous: If the supreme court recognized the right to keep a gun in Heller than it's stands to reason that bear shares the same protection. "...keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We seem to have forgotten about the bear part.

And I hope you don't forget about this part of District of Columbia v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." - District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

RexTalionis: Callous: If the supreme court recognized the right to keep a gun in Heller than it's stands to reason that bear shares the same protection. "...keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We seem to have forgotten about the bear part.

And I hope you don't forget about this part of District of Columbia v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." - District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

And as the last paragraph of that clearly states they didn't touch it. So what's in place remains in place. There's a reason they didn't touch it. because they knew how it would go, so they ruled as narrowly as possible.

vpb: No, "we" seem to have forgotten about the "well regulated militia" part.

And "we" seem to be too ignorant to know that "bearing arms" is a legal term for serving in a military force, not old timey speak for carrying your gun around with you.

No "we" are apparently ignorant that Heller specifically stated that keeping arms was not contingent in any kind of military or militia service. But keep farking that chicken.

Callous: And as the last paragraph of that clearly states they didn't touch it. So what's in place remains in place. There's a reason they didn't touch it. because they knew how it would go, so they ruled as narrowly as possible.

I'll take this to mean that you acknowledge that the long-standing tradition of regulation or control of means of carry by the government is perfectly constitutional under the Second Amendment.

RexTalionis: Callous: And as the last paragraph of that clearly states they didn't touch it. So what's in place remains in place. There's a reason they didn't touch it. because they knew how it would go, so they ruled as narrowly as possible.

I'll take this to mean that you acknowledge that the long-standing tradition of regulation or control of means of carry by the government is perfectly constitutional under the Second Amendment.

Meaning, therefore, that NYC's gun regulations are Constitutional.

Cagey B: This reminds me of the time back in my retail days when I had a guy flash his Oregon driver's license thinking it absolved him of paying sales tax in California.


If they do that in Washington, they actually get out of it.

Dear New York,

It's time to ditch your lousy gun laws and adopt similar gun laws to one of the cool states....I recommend Washington.

Sincerely,

The_Sponge

P.S. - Bloomberg can suck it.

SphericalTime: It's not really about pettiness, it's about the actual extent of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Does a gay married couple's status change at the border of his state? And, if not, then how could a concealed carry permit be considered to extend?

What's the difference?

A), I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that the Weeners at TFA brings up FF&C, but NO ONE links it to gay marriage.
B), it's sort of a difficult situation, because, for example, TN's concealed carry laws specify wording for signage notifying carriers that there are no guns legally allowed on a property (legally). Obviously New York should never have to put up a sign listing off TN legal codes.

Teen Wolf Blitzer: How stupid do you have to be to go to New York?

Says someone from...wait, Sarasota, really? What are you, 80?

asmodeus224: Oh i will enjoy watching libertarian 2nd Amendment twits argue that a state shouldn't have a right to set its own laws.

States right only apply when y'all want them to apply, amiright?!

Welcome to NYC mofo, learn the rules.


Call me crazy, but states should not pass laws that are unconstitutional.

And as retarded as New York's gun laws are, and speaking as somebody who has a CCW permit, I would never bring ANY of my firearms into New York.

BarbadoSlim: Jeeeeesus folks, DON'T BRING GUNS TO NYC! IT WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE. Seriously exceptions to the law need to be made, or judges/juries should just find these people not guilty. There's no intent here.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Saying you didn't intend to break the law doesn't mean you didn't do it.

skullkrusher: asmodeus224: Oh i will enjoy watching libertarian 2nd Amendment twits argue that a state shouldn't have a right to set its own laws.

States right only apply when y'all want them to apply, amiright?!

Welcome to NYC mofo, learn the rules.

I am not a geographer but NYC isn't a state I don't think.

Being from Buffalo, it's always hilarious when I get asked about such-and-such deli or what to do on NYE. I'm like b*tch, I dunno, I'm going to the Falls.

cameroncrazy1984: BarbadoSlim: Jeeeeesus folks, DON'T BRING GUNS TO NYC! IT WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE. Seriously exceptions to the law need to be made, or judges/juries should just find these people not guilty. There's no intent here.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Saying you didn't intend to break the law doesn't mean you didn't do it.

I'd normally agree with that, but-

The online gun-law information Jerome read was inaccurate,

So it at least sounds like he made a good-faith effort to understand what the law was.