National Right to Carry Reciprocity Legislation

[Frank Ettin]

Legally speaking, is there any difference between the States or the Federal Government abiding by the First or Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Is free speech more of a right than a right to bear arms?

That is a meaningless question. There is no way to quantify a right.

Rights, including rights protected under the Bill of Rights, are subject to limited regulation. Whether a regulation or limitation is permissible will be decided by courts based on the nature of the right (as that nature is recognized by the courts), the nature and scope of the regulation or limitation, the burden the regulation or limitation imposes on the right, and the governmental purpose furthered by the regulation or limitation. Various regulation and limitations of the rights protected under the First Amendment have been sustained, and many have been rejected by the courts.

As post-Heller/McDonald Second Amendment jurisprudence develops, various regulation and limitations of the rights protected under the Second Amendment will be sustained, and others will be rejected by the courts.

 

[ATN082268]

That is a meaningless question. There is no way to quantify a right.

I think you missed the point. All rights in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution are equally important rights and should be treated as such. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court when that court could barely (5-4 decision) acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment, in the Bill of Rights, was actually a right.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Rights, including rights protected under the Bill of Rights, are subject to limited regulation. Whether a regulation or limitation is permissible will be decided by courts based on the nature of the right (as that nature is recognized by the courts), the nature and scope of the regulation or limitation, the burden the regulation or limitation imposes on the right, and the governmental purpose furthered by the regulation or limitation. Various regulation and limitations of the rights protected under the First Amendment have been sustained, and many have been rejected by the courts.

You have posted this before, and in the context of "the way it is" you are correct. As an attorney, you naturally look at common law and court precedent, and your view on the subject is shaped by that lens.

As I have done previously, I would again point out that, although in practice] the 2nd Amendment has been subject to regulation, that is NOT the way it's supposed to be. The 2A is unique among the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights in that it is the only one that explicitly states that it is NOT subject to regulation.

Regulation = infringement. The 2A states that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." Our problem today is that judges (including Supreme Court justices) don't seem to know what "not" and "infringed" mean.

 

[bandaid1]

I stand corrected on the incorporation thing. I failed to complete my thoughts on the issue.

Obergefell v. Hodges relied on the 14th ammendments "due process clause" (immunities and equal protection) which was a bad idea for marriage rights. Because there is no enumerated right to marriage in the BoR like there is with the 2nd Amendment. This ruling has left to many unanswered questions (1st Amendment religous rights for one). If the SCOTUS had found that marriage was a 9th Amendment right, it would have made marrage a PERSONAL right retained by the people instead of just a desire by 5 unelected, unaccountable government officials to act like legislators.

By using "Due process clause"in the 14th A, then the right to keep and bear arms would also fall under the due process clause in the right to State issued firearm licenses with every State. Now if a State "Justice of the Peace" has discretionary power to issue marriage license (as it is in many cities/ states with "May Issue" firearms licenses) as they see fit, then the Obergefell ruling can be a very limited right or no right at all. If not, then It makes it easier to say that the rights are not being given equal protection, since every State must now recognize every other States Drivers license (by choice) and Marriage License (by SCOTUS ruling) and since every state has some form of firearms licensing to carry a firearms, then under equal protection, someone that holds a firearms license in one State would have to be recognized by the other States as well. Lest States be allowed to not recognise other states Marriage licenses as well.

The question still remains;
"'on what grounds can states refuse to honor another class of license that permits a different protected right?"

If States cannot apply different rules to the (now) protected right of Marrage then the same goes for the protected right to Weapons/firearms/Arms. However in the case of marriage, they used the 14th Amendments 'due process clause" instead of the 9th A, (or in the case of firearms the 2nd A) then the current protection given to marriage leaves the States with the ability to heavy regulate that Marriage License. Due process changes over time. For example, I see no reason why it would be illegal for a State to make additional requirements to get a marriage license such as additional training, testing or other non-dicriminatory requirements that could/would lead to a refusal to grant a marriage license to many people both gay or straight. An example would be; mandating genetic compatablity testing to protect the public from having to support the potential handicapped offspring of genetic disorders like Cystic Fibosis, Down Syndrome, Progeria and soon on. This testing would not evaluate whether the couple can conceive, but rather, if they are compatable to produce healthy offspring as a couple. It would apply to everyone that is appling for a marriage license thus it would also serve to enforce the laws on incest which is already illegal in every State. However, such testing would also deny Gay marriage much like "good cause" does for firearms.

The second issue with Obergefell v. Hodges is that Marriage cannot be an Indivual Right. I can speak, pray, petition the government for redress, keep and bears arms, remain silent, be secure in my home etc. without any assistance from anyone. When people say they have a right to marry or right to healthcare or food stamps etc., its not true because if no one agrees to marry you then you can't get married to yourself, if the state refuses to issue a marriage license then what? The authority to grant something also includes the authority to deny it. If all the doctors and nurses leave your state, then your right to access and receive medical care does not exist.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

It's still nearly impossible to legally obtain a handgun in Washington DC or Chicago

Only if you literally mean "in Chicago", since there are no FFLs here. But there's no special restrictions for those who live in Chicago for buying, possessing, or carrying a handgun (the latter provided you have your State Police-issued CCL).

I wish more online firearms dealers would know that... ~sigh~.

 

[ronl]

I'll attempt to explain how Obergefell coincides with the National Carry. It was the argument in the case that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution, and because a majority of states already had laws allowing same-sex marriage the other states had to allow it. 1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs... When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.
The ruling is as above stated. It was ruled by this very same court that owning firearms is indeed an individual right. To properly protect oneself possession of a weapon is necessary, and such a right is indeed recognized by an overwhelming number of states. Using that same line of reasoning as in the Obergefell case, those states and municipalities that limit carry of handguns are in violation of the Constitution as the right would have to be equally applied. If the Obergefell case were cited as precedent, then the high court would have to rule along the lines they themselves instituted, or they would truly reveal that they are just another political branch of the government.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The ruling is as above stated. It was ruled by this very same court that owning firearms is indeed an individual right. To properly protect oneself possession of a weapon is necessary, and such a right is indeed recognized by an overwhelming number of states. Using that same line of reasoning as in the Obergefell case, those states and municipalities that limit carry of handguns are in violation of the Constitution as the right would have to be equally applied....

Where exactly does it say in Obergefell that the right to marry in each State must be equally applied? Please quote the exact language in the opinion on which you rely.

While Obergefell certainly requires that in each State same sex couples must be accorded the same right to marry as opposite sex couples in that State, each State also has varying requirements and formalities that apply to opposite sex couples marrying and will now also apply to same sex couples. There are in each State various formalities which attach to marriage, and they vary from State to State. Nowhere in Obergelfell is anything said to the effect that such State to State variation is foreclosed by the Fourteenth Amendment.