SCOTUS: Application of the Same-Sex Marriage Decision to Handgun Reciprocity

[GuyRelford]

The portion of the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage that holds that states must recognize such marriages performed in other states is only three paragraphs long. But it has called into question whether the Supreme Court's decision will now require all states to recognize the licenses (or permits) to carry handguns issued by every other state. Here are the applicable paragraphs of the opinion, substituting just a few words.

These cases also present the question whether the Constitution requires States to recognize [licenses to carry] validly [issued] out of State. As made clear by [prior decisions], the recognition bans inflict substantial and continuing harm on [licensed gun owners].

Being [licensed to carry] in one State but having that valid [license] denied in another is one of “the most perplexing and distressing complication” in the law of [firearms]. Leaving the current state of affairs in place would maintain and promote instability and uncertainty. For some [gun owners], even an ordinary drive into a neighboring State to visit family or friends risks causing severe hardship in the event [they 'illegally' carry their handgun across state lines]. In light of the fact that many States already [license their own citizens to carry handguns] — and [millions] of these [licenses] have already [been issued] — the disruption caused by the recognition bans is significant and ever-growing.

As counsel for the respondents acknowledged at argument, if States are required by the Constitution to issue [handgun] licenses to [their own citizens], the justifications for refusing to recognize those [licenses issued] elsewhere are undermined. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 44. The Court, in this decision, holds [lawful gun owners] may exercise the fundamental right to [carry a firearm] in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful [handgun license issued] in another State on the ground of its [out-of-state] character."

Doesn't this make perfect sense!!??

Guy

 

[HoughMade]

...but that would allow one state to determine what is legal not only in its own state, but in every other state as well....

Oh, nevermind.

 

[mrjarrell]

dupe.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...s-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity.html

 

[actaeon277]

...In light of the fact that many States already...

...but that would allow one state to determine what is legal not only in its own state, but in every other state as well....

Oh, nevermind.

 

[GuyRelford]

dupe.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...s-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity.html

I saw that, but the story in the link doesn't do what I did - using the language of the opinion itself. I thought this deserved its own thread. YMMV.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I like it, and it seems reasonable to me. States already recognize out of state drivers licenses, and now with the same sex marriage decision, I'd say there's plenty of precedent to make a good argument in favor of universal reciprocity.

 

[87iroc]

I like it, and it seems reasonable to me. States already recognize out of state drivers licenses, and now with the same sex marriage decision, I'd say there's plenty of precedent to make a good argument in favor of universal reciprocity.

I like it...but am cautiously liking it because of all the brainpower on here pointing out the dangers of pushing it. Keep in mind...states require TESTING to get a drivers license that is more or less standardized. Hell hath no fury like INGOers going all in for testing to get a permission slip to carry.

 

[BugI02]

I like it...but am cautiously liking it because of all the brainpower on here pointing out the dangers of pushing it. Keep in mind...states require TESTING to get a drivers license that is more or less standardized. Hell hath no fury like INGOers going all in for testing to get a permission slip to carry.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Be careful what you wish for ( you might just get it )

 

[Fullmag]

I don't like any of it. All States do one thing!

 

[actaeon277]

I like it...but am cautiously liking it because of all the brainpower on here pointing out the dangers of pushing it. Keep in mind...states require TESTING to get a drivers license that is more or less standardized. Hell hath no fury like INGOers going all in for testing to get a permission slip to carry.

Testing for a driver's license, but not for a marriage license. 2 different subjects.
Now, if you said, "Most states require testing for a carry license".... that would apply.

 

[BugI02]

The big worry for me is the standard that is used is the lowest (amount of 2A rights) common denominator. Imagine if we all had to live under NY State's
idea of reasonable carry laws

 

[Dosproduction]

Man oh man I hope this works.

 

[actaeon277]

The big worry for me is the standard that is used is the lowest (amount of 2A rights) common denominator. Imagine if we all had to live under NY State's
idea of reasonable carry laws

Except that is not the standard they used. The standard is "most states".

 

[WebSnyper]

...but that would allow one state to determine what is legal not only in its own state, but in every other state as well....

Oh, nevermind.

Exactly what I thought when the decision came down... I then immediately thought this should pertain to carry laws.

 

[Bennettjh]

Like 87iroc, I cautiously like it.

 

[Knight Rider]

Maybe tie gun rights to voting rights instead of marriage rights and let it go either way to either extreme. Some would make it as easy as showing up after you're 18 with little or no ID. Others would suggest a vigorous ID requirement along with education, testing, and proof you are "fit" to vote and have a valid necessity to do so. Aren't both "rights" guaranteed by their own amendments? Why such different requirements to exercise those rights. Sorry if off topic.

 

[HoughMade]

I hope there is sarcasm running rampant here. I don't want anyone getting depressed when the same Supreme Court directly contradicts itself and says that, essentially, precedent applies when they want it to.

 

[actaeon277]

I hope there is sarcasm running rampant here. I don't want anyone getting depressed when the same Supreme Court directly contradicts itself and says that, essentially, precedent applies when they want it to.

Of course they're going to bend over backwards. After all, words on paper mean nothing.

 

[GunSlinger]

Of course they're going to bend over backwards. After all, words on paper mean nothing.

You're so right Act

 

[88E30M50]

I think Guy's right. If the state of Indiana has, to its satisfaction, found me to be a proper person and granted a license for the legal carry of a pistol, then the Constitution requires other states to accept that legal finding. If Indiana should conduct a trial in which I've been legally declared to be a felon, don't the other states accept that to hold true while I'm in their state as well? States are bound by the Constitution to accept the legal findings and decisions of the other states. If you fly to Las Vegas and marry a hooker, Indiana accepts that marriage as legitimate despite it's having come about in a way that might not be allowed in Indiana. It should be no different than that Illinois should accept the fact that I have been declared a proper person by the state of Indiana even though the process might be different in Indiana than in Illinois.

Each state can still retain it's own dumb rules, but a licensed carrier in one state should be no different than any other licensed carrier as long as the current states rules are followed.