Concealed Carry

The Gays 'n' Guns Coalition

When same-sex marriage meets concealed carry

|

A heartwarming story from Nebraska:

There also used to be anti-gay-bashing patrols that called themselves the Pink Panthers. But I'm not sure whether they were armed.
Pink Pistols

In Nebraska, where same-sex marriage has been illegal since 2000, legislators did something surprisingly pro-gay Tuesday.

Lawmakers were voting on a bill that would make it easier for military spouses to get concealed-carry permits. But the language, as introduced, was vague. After all, who counts as a spouse under Nebraska law? The federal government recognizes gay marriages, but Nebraska doesn't.

This seemed to rankle state Sen. Paul Schumacher (R), who argued that we should not allow gay love to get in the way of one's gun rights.

Joe Duggan, a reporter with the Omaha World-Herald, has the killer quote from the hearing: "Is not the Second Amendment sex blind? Color blind?" Schumacher said. "What great evil would come from saying a partner of somebody in the military…is entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights to carry a concealed weapon in this state?"

Schumacher proposed an amendment that would extend the bill's privileges to gay spouses, speeding up the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit….The amendment passed 38 to 0, and the bill passed the first round of voting 37 to 4.

After the amendment passed, a legislator who abstained from the vote said, "I think we just recognized gay marriage." Libertarian activists, take heed: If you live in a red state, you should figure out a way to reframe all your gay-rights causes as gun-rights causes. And if you live in a blue state, try to do the reverse.

Bonus links: William Burroughs. Storme DeLarverie. The Pink Pistols.

Addendum: I should have mentioned that readers who want more background on why this was an issue in the first place ought to check out the aforementioned article in the World-Herald. Here's the key bit: "Current law allows nonresident military members to apply for a concealed gun permit without having to first live in Nebraska for 180 days to establish residency. [The new bill] would waive the residency period for military spouses who want to apply for gun permits."

Advertisement

NEXT: The Minimum Wage and Magical Thinking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. After the amendment passed, a legislator who abstained from the vote said, “I think we just recognized gay marriage.”

    What you should recognize is that everyone deserves the right to protect themselves, not just spouses of our military.

    1. not just spouses of our military.

      Military service shouldn’t earn any *special 2nd Am.* rights and having sex with someone who has served definitely shouldn’t either.

      I really hate this vein of social justice that Reason has discovered where tying shitty social/cultural issues to actual rights is somehow valuable to both the social issue and enhances the right.

    2. Yeah, WTF is that? I do appreciate the broader point of the post and hooray, I guess, but this “military spouses get special 2A privileges” is complete bullshit.

      1. I do appreciate the broader point of the post and hooray, I guess, but this “military spouses get special 2A privileges” is complete bullshit.

        I don’t even appreciate the broader point of the post. Marriage recognition is a positive right. Self defence is a negative one.

        Refusing to recognize a marriage in no way deprives someone of their right to defend themselves and suggesting the two be intertwined deliberately remolds the intent of the laws to compel legal and political action.

    3. Was thinking the same thing. How about you make it easier for *everybody* to get a concealed carry permit rather than doling out special privileges to military personnel and their spouses.

      1. Or stop requiring permits to carry.

    4. I’m guessing the issue is that such spouses may not claim residence in the state, so this bill just levels the playing field wrt other residents of the state.

      Just a guess, though.

      1. I was wondering if that might be the case as well, but couldn’t find anywhere it stated it.

        Anyway, shouldn’t you be off fighting ISIS?

        1. (Except downstream FdA found it.)

          1. It’s pretty much explained at the “killer quote” link…

            Current law allows nonresident military members to apply for a concealed gun permit without having to first live in Nebraska for 180 days to establish residency. A bill advanced from the first round of debate on a 37-4 vote would waive the residency period for military spouses who want to apply for gun permits.

            …but yeah, I should have anticipated that some readers would want more background and explicitly directed them there.

            1. Fair nuff. I looked at the first link, but not the second as I thought “killer quote” would cite the quote.

              As presented, it sounded like military members could carry where NE residents couldn’t, or something.

            2. I’m a busy man and can’t be expected to follow every link in an article before spouting off.

    5. everyone deserves the right to protect themselves, not just spouses of our military

      Sure, of course. But what’s interesting here isn’t the rather limited effects of the bill; it’s the way two culture-war issues sort of canceled each other out.

      1. it’s the way two culture-war issues sort of canceled each other out.

        Holy shit! The 2nd Am., with it’s directness and lack of conditions, is a culture war issue in your eyes?

        1. No, but gun control is.

        2. Holy shit! The 2nd Am., with it’s directness and lack of conditions, is a culture war issue in your eyes?

          You’ve got to be kidding me. It’s not the content of the Second Amendment that makes this a culture war issue. It’s the way people argue about it. Our gun debates are overflowing with culture-war rhetoric. Don’t tell me you haven’t seen this.

          1. Our gun debates are overflowing with culture-war rhetoric. Don’t tell me you haven’t seen this.

            They’re overflowing because people inject their culture into an a cultural law/issue/statement.

            And, wrt homosexuals, I haven’t seen this until now.

            Feel free to stop pouring any time. The 2nd Am. seems to do better without people co-opting it for their other SJW purposes.

            1. That is, acultural law/issue/statement.

        3. It’s a cop-out to say, “*my* issue isn’t a culture-war issue because my side is obviously right!”

          You may as well say, “taxes aren’t an economic issue because my low-tax position is obviously right!”

          Classifying something as a culture-war or economic issue doesn’t tell us who’s right.

          Of course, I don’t make strong distinctions between culture-war and economic issues, but then I’m a weirdo.

          A definition of culture-war issues which excludes guns (and dope) is just a way of saying, “my issue matters and yours doesn’t.”

          1. It’s a cop-out to say, “*my* issue isn’t a culture-war issue because my side is obviously right!”

            This is predicated on the notion that the culture war is a given and, when extrapolated, suggests that no compromise, on anything, can be reached.

            The sort of notion that leads to both creeping statism and deadlock.

            Even then, I’m not saying I’m right. I’m saying we are predominantly in agreement about a given issue and considering our agreement on this issue based on a completely unrelated issue (whether we agree or not) is, *quite literally*, a non sequitur.

            I presume we all have (as libertarians or as people seeking/holding CC permits) highly analogous views of gun control. You’re suggesting we can’t possibly agree because we aren’t considering dope or gender or sexuality or any other thing that can whimsically be crammed in under the 9th and/or 14th Am.

            I’ll admit, I’m not aware that homosexuals have a predilection for or against guns one way or another. Your statements, to me (and in the context of the larger argument), suggest that being gay is somehow *inextricably* linked to being in favor of (or against) gun rights.

            Jesse’s suggestion that gay rights issues be *reframed* as gun rights issues, pretty clearly indicate that any inextricable linkage that exists is highly malleable and/or subject to interpretation.

            1. The notion that a culture war is a given? You don’t think it’s reasonable to observe that something like that is going on? And how can anything be creeping and in a deadlock at the same time? And where do you get that Jesse’s suggesting gay rights issues (plural) be reframed as gun rights issues?

              Seems like you just wanna argue.

      2. But what’s interesting here isn’t the rather limited effects of the bill; it’s the way two culture-war issues sort of canceled each other out.

        Says you.

      3. But what’s interesting here isn’t the rather limited effects of the bill; it’s the way two culture-war issues sort of canceled each other out.

        I don’t disagree.

    6. Confused. What were NE laws on concealed carry before all this? What are these “special rights”?

  2. Permits to carry (or perhaps you could say “bear”) arms? What a bunch of control freaks.

  3. ‘Joe Duggan, a reporter with the Omaha World-Herald, has the killer quote from the hearing: “Is not the Second Amendment sex blind? Color blind?” Schumacher said. “What great evil would come from saying a partner of somebody in the military…is entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights to carry a concealed weapon in this state?”‘

    Um…what? I had thought the second amendment was also blind to your status as the spouse of a soldier.

    Did I miss the ‘our warrior caste gets more rights’ clause of the constitution?

    1. Did I miss the ‘our warrior caste gets more rights’ clause of the constitution?

      It’s right after the ‘FYTW’ clause.

      1. It’s in the emanations and penumbras, along with the last century of constitutional law.

      2. But right before the “Every little victory counts” clause.

    2. While I haven’t researched it yet, I suspect what they are doing is they are allowing military spouses who can be citizens of other states, the ability to CCed where the current law says only citizens of that state can.

      1. citizens of that state

        Did they just make that up out of thin air? Cos last time I checked I was a citizen of the USA, not a citizen of New York.

        1. Sorry, resident is more appropriate.

          1. The way this constitutional right is creatively “interpreted” by the various states sure makes it seem like we’re treated as citizens of the state.

  4. Earning cash on-line was never been straight forward because it has become on be half of me currently. I freelance over the web associate degreed earn concerning seventy five green backs an hour. Get longer together with your family by doing jobs that solely need for you to possess a pc and a web access and you’ll have that at your home. slightly effort and handsome earning dream is simply a click away…..
    ??????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

    1. In the spirit of the article, I hope this scam involves both gun running AND gay prostitution.

    2. Best Engrish I’ve seen in a month, congrats.

  5. “I think we just recognized gay marriage.”


    THE.

    HORROR!

  6. This country has been moving for years in a very frightening direction — and that is that veterans are a special class. I used to work in an office where almost everyone is a veteran. When one guy told me he got a good deal on the state fishing license because he was a vet, I said some disparaging (jokingly, we were friends). His reply was, “I earned it.” Now I guess we’re saying that the spouses, too, have earned privileges. (with the caveat above repeated above that concealed carry is not really a privilege)

    1. STOP!

      While, I can’t say this for sure (because walker provides no fucking background) here is what I think is happening here.

      Because military people move around so frequently, they are allowed to maintain citizenship in the state of their choosing, as it would be a HUGE pain in the ass to change it every 2-3 years. Spouses move as well.

      I’m guessing what is happening here is the current NE law says you need to be an NE citizen to get a CC permit and this amendment grants an exception to military spouses living in the state if their spouses are stationed in the state.

      That there should be no permit required to begin with, under 2A, not sure how you call this special treatment?

      1. Ah…

        Lincoln, NE, ? Current Nebraska law makes people who move into the state wait 180 days before they can apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

        But it gives an exception to military personnel. Senator Dave Bloomfield of Hoskins wants to extend that military spouses as well.

        It’s okay Jesse, I’ll help you with your job.

    2. We’ve a long way to go before it gets back to the level of the bonus march, let alone the veterans’ revolts or military takeovers other countries have seen. Special classes are a dime a dozen, it’s pretty ho-hum by now.

  7. It took me a while to realize that the pink logo is a person pointing a gun from the head down, and not an abstract vagina.

    1. It is actually a plan view of a person holding a handgun in an Isosceles stance.

      1. Yes, yes, but it also looks like a big pink vagina, doesn’t it?

        1. Yes, it’s both. A very clever design.

  8. I don’t know about the Nebraska situation, but in general, a blue state will cheerfully recognize your same-sex relationship but will be reluctant to allow you to defend yourself and your partner from homophobic violence.

    A red state may or may not want to recognize your relationship, but at least they’ll allow you to whip your gun out and tell some gay-basher to back off.

  9. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

  10. “What great evil would come from saying a partner of somebody in the military…is entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights to carry a concealed weapon in this state?”

    Because of course, the 2nd Amendment says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of partners of people in the military…”

    And if you amend a bill that formerly applied to dogs to apply to dogs & cats, that doesn’t mean you’re making dogs & cats legally equivalent.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.