Antonin Scalia

No, the Supreme Court's Marriage Ruling Doesn't Mean All States Must Recognize Each Others' Gun Carry Permits

The logic may lean that way, but we can't be sure the Court values the Second Amendment's application that strongly.

|

Some gotcha logic at the expense of gay marriage fans who are presumed to not be Second Amendment lovers is circulating around the gun-rights Internet, claiming that the Supreme Court's decision last week in Obergefell v. Hodges means that every state must honor the weapons-carry licenses of other states.

Let's sum up that logic from the mouths of believers before assessing its validity.

Awr Hawkins at Breitbart avers that:

Because a concealed carry license is the vehicle through which many 2nd Amendment rights are exercised in states other than your own, there seems no way to avoid the implication that a state ought to have to recognize a concealed carry license from another state, just as states are now required to recognize same sex marriage licenses from other states.

Alan Gottlieb, whose Second Amendment Foundation has won many extensions of gun possession rights in both lower courts and the Supreme, also sees victory inherent in the gay marriage ruling:

"To paraphrase what Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said about same-sex marriage," noted Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a statement Friday, "no right is more profound than the right of self-preservation, and under the Constitution, all citizens should be able to exercise the right of self-defense anywhere in the country. It disparages their ability to do so, and diminishes their personhood to deny the right to bear arms they have in their home states when they are visiting other states."

While every state has a framework to issue concealed carry permits, they are under no obligation to recognize those issued by other states and territories. For example, Illinois and Hawaii only recognize permits issued by their respective jurisdictions. In contrast, Ohio recognizes licenses from any other state regardless of whether Ohio has entered into a reciprocity agreement.

Here's a good breakdown chart (from the unlikely source of Daily Kos) on how various states deal with both carry rights for their own citizens and other Americans who happen to wander through strapped. Wikipedia also has a decent discussion of the national state of reciprocity for weapons carrying.

Undoubtedly, many Americans suffer grave  injustice because of lack of carry reciprocity. Just ask Shaneen Allen who faced many years in jail for bringing her Pennsylvania-legal  gun into New Jersey and being honest enough to tell a cop so. (Her story has a semi-happy ending.)

But Obergefell is not a tool to right such injustices. Certainly not by the logic of our legal system. A mere logical implication of a Supreme Court decision on a matter not explicitly at issue in the case they decided does not suddenly become the law of the land.

Given the current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Second Amendment, even the logical implication part doesn't really work to get the pro-carry result, at least not in the Court's mind.

Despite Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court currently doesn't even seem to be sure that we have any Second Amendment right to carry or get a carry permit at all, much less that issuing one and honoring them across state lines is a core right requiring equal 14th Amendment protection to all citizens.

The right acknowledged in the Second Amendment ought to apply to carrying weapons outside the home, where self-defense is still a right and still a vital need. At least one line of the Heller decison implies that to some degree the court might agree.

Scalia wrote in his majority opinion that "The Court's opinion should not 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…" That implies there must be some non-sensitive places in which we cannot be forbidden to carry.

But in the years since Heller the Court has not chosen to take up any case to indicate whether it believes the Second Amendment affects regulations on carrying weapons outside the home. Last year they had a great chance to do so with Drake v. Jerejian, which challenged New Jersey's onerously restrictive carry permit laws. But despite a circuit split over how Heller applies to carry rights, they ultimately declined the case.

For more on the importance of extending the Second Amendment outside the home, see plaintiff Tom Palmer who won a victory in such a case over D.C.'s carry laws explain that he knows public carry has made his life safer.

Josh Blackman, a legal scholar friendly to the Second Amendment, isn't even sure a federal law requiring carry reciprocity would be constitutional. Such laws have been proposed for a long while now, and still are being proposed. Portions of Blackman's logic that the feds would be illegitimately steamrollering state's prerogatives with such a law (pre-Obergefell):

there would be "congruence and proportionality" issues, as this law [he is discussing  Senator Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act] imposes significant federalism costs by forcing states to recognize permits from other states that have much more lax licensing schemes. To get here, the Court would have to hold not only that the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home, but "may issue" regimes are unconstitutional. It is not enough that a state allows the right to be exercised (all 50 states have some permitting regime), but Congress would dictate how the state should offer it…..

The second possible answer, is the commerce clause coupled with the necessary and proper clause. The text of the bill does not explicitly cite interstate commerce as a basis for the bill, but it mentions guns traveling in interstate commerce…..putting aside the chutzpah of conservatives citing the commerce clause (alliteration!), the argument is weak because Congress is not regulating the guns, but the licensing regime. Commerce alone will not carry the day, but Congress will have to rely on what Justice Scalia called in Printz "the last, best hope of those who defend ultra vires congressional action"–the Necessary and Proper Clause….While it may indeed be necessary….for Congress to require that states recognize out-of-state permits to promote interstate commerce, is it "proper"?….Specifically, would this law require the exercise of a "great substantive and independent power" that would need to be "implied as incidental to" or "used as a means of executing" the Commerce Power? In other words, would forcing a state to recognize out-of-state gun licenses, amount to such a great imposition on state sovereignty, to no longer be proper?

Well, I'd like to at least see federal lawmakers give it a try and see how it all pans out.

Given the Supreme Court's manifest unwillingess to even decide how or whether carry permits implicate the Second Amendment right they recognized in  Heller, it is grossly premature to say that Obergefell implies carry reciprocity as a matter of law right now, or that the Court ever will agree that it does.

The hard work of convincing state legislators to sign on to more reciprocity agreements, or for some states to lower their carry requirements, or getting a federal reciprocity law passed, or getting a case all the way to and through the Supreme Court regarding public carry rights, is still ahead. Obergefell does not give Second Amendment devotees some instant shortcut to that result.

NEXT: R.I.P. Austen Heinz, Biotech Entrepreneur and Rebel

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. Here’s a great story (and what people should be upset about, not police killing thugs that rob stores)

    http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/20…..rong-home/

    SWAT team stormed the wrong place, then after they left, send in a building inspector to cite the guy for a broken window.

    1. fuckin’ retards

    2. Attorney Bevis Schock says police should have stopped when they realized they had the wrong house, but continued to tear the house apart for two hours.

      His partner, Butthead Awe, could not be reached for comment.

      1. Hahahaha! 😛

      2. Well done.

    3. That’s not quite up there with sending your family a bill for the bullet, but it’s close.

    4. I can’t even…fuck!

      How?! How can you fine folks do it? Coming to this website day after day and take nut punch after nut punch after nut punch? It’s exhausting at the least and flat out depressing more often than not.

      I simply can’t do it. I need a break. I’m a semi-frequent lurker and make asinine jokes with very little in the way of substantive input for a few days at a time so I know I won’t exactly be missed here and that’s okay with me. That being said, again, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU PEOPLE DO IT?!

      You all are made of sterner stock than I. Keep fighting the good fight, commentariat. I’m having a drink or four and focusing on something that doesn’t want me to put my head through a plate glass window for the rest of the week. Cheers.

      1. My balls are made from rhinoceros skin.

        1. You need rhino skin
          if you’re gonna comment
          and talk shit
          in these threads;
          You need elephant balls
          if you don’t want to crawl
          in ball pain
          through these halls

        2. My balls are made from rhinoceros skin.

          That’s a delicacy in some cultures.

      2. I’m having a drink or four

        Sounds like you figured it out just fine.

      3. It’s called being a man, pussboy.

        1. As opposed to the inherit manliness of calling somebody a pussboy via the internet? Oooh, I quiver in the wake your tough guy YouTube comment. Steady on, steady on.

          1. That is one of of our trolls – mind it not.

  2. Yea Ohio for once

  3. “Undoubtedly, many Americans suffer grave injustice because of lack of carry reciprocity. Just ask Shaneen Allen who faced many years in jail for bringing her Pennsylvania-legal gun into New Jersey and being honest enough to tell a cop so. (Her story has a semi-happy ending.)”

    Well, sure, it’s a semi-happy ending if you think it’s happy for someone to be fucked with by the state for months while being removed from her children and fearing she’d spend 20 years in prison. Getting pardoned doesn’t change what a horrible abuse of power that was. The prosecutor should have refused to press charges of his own volition.

  4. I’d like to add this to the chart:
    AlmightyJB CCW-Shall carry whenever and wherever AlmightyJB wants – FTP FTG

    1. +1 “Better 6-10 than 6 feet under”

  5. “The Court’s opinion should not 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…”

    Just as the 2nd Amendment plainly states.

    1. and right on cue, there’s Tony to miss the point entirely.

      1. I dunno, I presumed that to be obvious sarcasm. And so for once, I agree with Tony. It’s bullshit to claim that any such restriction is legitimate.

        1. ^This. We can start with “blind nut finds squirrel” if it makes everyone feel comfortable, but I’m okay with agreeing with Tony just this once. What he said was valid.

          1. Are we sure he didn’t just forget to log in with the right account?

          2. This makes 2x I have agreed with Tony. He is right on gay marriage, and he is right now.

            Where there is life, there is hope.

        2. You’re giving Tony way too much benefit of the doubt there…

          1. I’m feeling generous this evening. 😉

  6. I actually disagree with Doherty here because there seemed to be no actual logic behind the Obergefell decision if you read Kennedy’s majority opinion. His logic is basically ‘gay marriage good! Legal gay marriage! 14th Amendment, somehow!’

    I think you can argue it was the right decision on equal protection grounds (and I’ve argued that here) but if you went with the equal protection argument, couldn’t the feds basically invalidate state law at will by arguing that different laws between different states mean that the residents of those states don’t have equal protection due to living under different legal regimes?

    Basically, the law in this country is such a gnarled mess at this point that logic no longer exists in Supreme Court decisions. They just determine what they personally like and vote accordingly with legal justifications serving as little more than post hoc justifications for what they wanted to do anyway.

    1. the law in this country is such a gnarled mess at this point that logic no longer exists

      That just proves how smart the legislators, judges, and prosecutors are.

    2. Basically, the law in this country is such a gnarled mess at this point that logic no longer exists in Supreme Court decisions. They just determine what they personally like and vote accordingly with legal justifications serving as little more than post hoc justifications for what they wanted to do anyway.

      I don’t disagree, but I’m hung up on the words “at this point”. It’s possible I’m just a world-weary cynic, but I’m skeptical that this was never *not* the case.

      1. Well, the Ten Commandments were pretty logical. You just have to resolve the…

        Nevermind.

    3. You just described “rule of man”. We’ve never not been under “rule of man”. They just sometimes had to work harder to pretend we weren’t, and now they have to work less to pretend so.

      1. now they have to work less to pretend so

        Why do you think this is so? I’m interested in a non-collectivist explanation because the one that comes most readily to mind, “the majority of voters are vain fools”, is both pretentious (am I really so better than my fellow man?) and unsatisfying (vanity and foolishness are not uniquely modern traits).

        1. Well, Isaac Newton had his quote about how he only saw farther than prior scientists because he was standing on the shoulders of giants.

          I think we’ve only sank lower than prior generations because the last 7 generations of American citizens have been busy digging us a hole.

          1. That’s pretty good. Well, not exactly good, but well-said.

          2. You do know that quote was an insult directed at Robert Hooke who was Newton’s bitter rival?

        2. I’m sure there are tons of reasons. One may be that we’ve had relatively good governance, at least for the majority, for over two centuries. So maybe people have simply gotten so used to the idea that government is basically good and these increasingly arbitrary powers won’t be abused.

          And of course not everyone defines “good” the way we do. By certain metrics rule of man is peachy.

          1. I don’t know about good governance, because we abjectly have not had “good” governance. I think I can get on board the economic theory, on the other hand. We’ve measurably and demonstrably had a wealthy country with a good economic engine. Great? No, not really. But a healthy one with upward mobility and growth potential, yes. Full bellies don’t have a lot to complain about. Full bellies don’t riot.

            And since we have enjoyed economic benefits for so long, we think it is our divine right for mathematics to bow to our whim.

            In 2008, when everyone was expecting hell to break loose over $5 gallon gas, I was waiting for $5 per lb ground beef. People bitch when the commute is expensive. People riot when they’re hungry.

            1. Full bellies don’t riot.

              I didn’t see many concentration camp physiques out on the streets of Baltimore.

          2. How could you ever have rule by anything other than man? Robot lawyers?

            1. Divine right of the king. The priest speaks for God.

              “Rule of man” != “Rule of a man.”

            2. you wrongly equate “rule of man” with “rule of written law”.

              “written law” is the concept that the law means the same months and years after it was enacted,because the meaning remains the same,it’s not dependent on the whim of a ruler(a man) that varies from day to day,month-month,year-year. Written law allows the common man to understand the meaning of the law and how it affects him,and makes it possible for him to stay on the good side of the law at all times. it secures business contracts.

              “Rule of man” is subject to the ruling person’s feelings at any particular moment.
              Thus impossible for the common man to always abide by the law,because the law is variable. that greatly complicates business,contracts,etc.

    4. I think they didn’t make the good equal protection arguments for that very reason, so that it can’t act as a precedent in all the obvious ways.

      1. Can you imagine what would happen if, after completely ignoring it for 150 years, they ruled the the equal protection clause actually meant what it says?

        You’d invalidate 90% of the laws Congress has ever passed.

        1. You’d invalidate the entire tax code. It’s filled with carve outs. Hell, let’s do this shit – if we actually read the Equal Protection Clause as written, every single tax writeoff is invalidated AND all marriage privileges are invalidated since they don’t help single people AND all affirmative action laws are invalidated.

          It would be fucking chaos.

          1. I love it. Let’s fire that fucker up!

          2. It would be fucking chaos.

            And that is partially why we live under rule of man, not rule of law. If people were actually dedicated to rule of law, the fact that chaos might result as a ruling of law would not stop that ruling. But humans don’t tend to live that way. They go “if I interpret this the way it actually should be everything is going to go crazy, so I’m going to interpret it to not cause everything to go crazy because crazy is bad”, and that is rule of man.

            Trying to have rule of law is like trying to be abstinent. Maybe some people can stick to it, but most can’t…because it goes against human nature. And what seems to inevitably happen to systems that deny human nature?

            1. Well it wouldn’t be chaos today if those laws had been quashed from the start.

              Still, you’re right. Anyone who thinks we could politically throw out the federal register overnight, or that that would even be a good thing, is kidding themselves.

              1. I think it would be a good thing.

                Hsil Eris!

                1. In the long term, it might be. But we’d have to get that far. And the government is too deeply invested, and the system too heavily dependent, to quit cold turkey and not expect some serious withdraw. I don’t think people would tolerate that long enough to come out stronger on the other side.

              2. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see the entire federal register thrown out overnight. But the people who are in positions to actually, you know, rule on these things almost assuredly do not share my view. And so they make sure it doesn’t happen, even if they don’t follow the law or precedent or even logic.

                Ergo, rule of man.

              3. You’re the one who can’t even nail down what in hell he means by “good”. When you start trashing your principles (even transitory pretend ones) because following through with the right might have consequences, “good” becomes meaningless. It’s why pragmatism is a circular mindfuck. You set out what is good, then act accordingly, unless the consequences that may emerge don’t conform to the good, then do different, but that doesn’t work unless the good has somehow transmogrifuckinfied itself in the process. Of course, you pretend to rationalise it by further unhinging the parms of human reason by disjoining the process and calling one end “ends” and the other “means”. And Satan is the father of pretending.

                1. Limpee, the most basic “good” is respecting others’ right to life. And I would posit Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are pretty much 1B and 1C. Property is next. And as long as your acquiring of property doesn’t break the first 3 goods, then you are clear. Don’t even bring up history, it’s in the past, it can’t ever be truly fixed(otherwise, we need to track down anyone with the most ancient DNA…). Start today and be consistent.

            2. People are so scared of change. And yet, paradoxically, applying rules equally to everyone would smooth out inconsistencies. But you bring up the tribal point, and how (small groups of) people will always make rules to benefit themselves in the short term, even if it makes no sense in the long term. My favorite example is the car culture in America. You fuckers that want trains now and dense(smart?) development are descendents of the same(and the same) people who want all cities built in grids with 6 lane roads running in short-block grids to allow car travel in inner cities. You don’t get to have both. EPCOT is only a theme park for a reason. Human ingenuity will win in the long run and you don’t get to define the future. Yeah, it’s fucked until we reach the tipping point, but the tipping point always comes(minus Planet Nibiru crashing into Earf).

            3. They become religions?

    5. Eh, there have been worse rulings in the past. Fleming v. Nestor is an example I like to give to authoritarians as an example of bad rulings:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

      One response I got, was something like “well, as long as you’re not a communist, you don’t have to worry about losing your Social Security”.

      When I explain Wickard v. Fillburn, they accuse me of making things up.

      1. When I explain Wickard v. Fillburn, they accuse me of making things up.

        I have not found someone who, when I explained Wickard to them, was not immediately appalled by it, and yet, apart from libertarians, none of them were particularly concerned about it, either.

      2. “One response I got, was something like “well, as long as you’re not a communist, you don’t have to worry about losing your Social Security”.”

        Ha ha, a prog told me the same thing. Even if he was right (he wasn’t), that’s a fairly cavalier attitude to take toward commie rights, which progs tend to defend in other settings.

        1. You could use the same argument to defend Joseph McCarthy, which is what makes that so awesome.

          BTW, I’m pretty sure that if McCarthy had been a Democrat doing exactly the same thing to ‘reactionaries’ the progressives would have erected a statue to him at this point.

          1. They didn’t make a monument to Sen. Eastland (D-Miss), another key anticommunist.

            They *are* a bit vague on his party affiliation, though.

            1. Eastland went after commies. I’m talking about someone going after right-wingers.

              1. Oops, I wasn’t paying attention.

                Yes, I would certainly agree.

          2. McCarthy would have saved American democracy, in the same way FDR saved capitalism.

      3. Dude. I’m not creative enough to make up shit like that.

        Flemming v. Nestor is pretty good, though. I’m not even sure I’d argue that it was misruled. There isn’t a property right in Social Security until you’ve actually received it. There’s no “savings account” where the FedGov keeps “your” money; They explicitly take from you to pay the retirees of now, on the promise that they’ll steal from young people later when you retire.

        And it’s also a perfect example of “If you get into bed with the Devil, you better be ready to get fucked.”

        1. People are dragged into the SS Devil’s bed by force not choice though.

          1. My grandparent’s generation could easily have cast it off. My parent’s generation should have cast it off.

            You’re right, for people like us, basically. Everyone else, left, right, up, down, front, and back all look at you like you’ve grown tentacles out of your scalp if you suggest canning the whole pile of shit.

            So, for the most part, I’m stocking up on cans of dog food and planning to laugh at all those motherfuckers when they discover that the well is empty.

            1. Stocking up on cans of dog food?

              Perhaps you should peruse the aisles and check prices on human vs. dog food.

            2. Generations can’t do anything, only individuals can. The plurality of eligible voters for a long long time have voted “none of the above” and the rest split between whatever shit sandwiches team be ruled has put up. I’m not going to blame a generation for being forced into the shitty SS system, it’s just as retarded as blaming millennials for anything that happens today.

          2. People are dragged into the SS Devil’s bed by force not choice though.

            There’s a Godwin joke in there somewhere, but I’ve already made enough of those today…

            1. Yeah I saw that when I typed it out but I wasn’t going to type out the whole words god damnit!

        2. I have tried without success to explain to progs and others that Social Security taxes were not saved or invested. The money was immediately spent on SS benefits and other things. All that exists are a bunch of IOUs together with a promise to tax other people to pay the benefits of the next batch of retirees.

          All I get in response is “argle blargle trust fund argle blargle I paid in argle blargle”.

          1. your error was in calling them “IOUs”,and not “Government bonds” that they really are.
            That confuses them.
            but then you have to explain to them how the gov’t bonds get paid,from tax revenue at the date the bonds are cashed in. the gov’t bonds have a fixed interest rate,so that extra money has to come from more taxes. Because government does not generate any profit,as do private businesses. ALL government money comes from taxation of the People.

        3. They explicitly take from you to pay the retirees of now, on the promise that they’ll steal from young people later when you retire.

          What I got out of Flemming was that they’re not even promising to steal it from people for you when you retire. Maybe they’ll can it, maybe the won’t. They haven’t promised anything, and are not obligated to do anything.

          So, in the future, when people are whining about their benefits being not quite what they expected, based on what they paid in (due to inflation and means testing or what not) they can’t really say that the government didn’t warn them. They just chose to believe something else.

          I’d take 12% of my income into a private retirement account any day over that. But, then I’m self-interested.

        4. But I didn’t give affirmative consent.

      4. When I explain Wickard v. Fillburn, they accuse me of making things up.

        There is a mindless idea supporting Wickard, i.e., the farmer would have to buy grain on the open market if he limited his production. But this is basically the gov’t compelling him to do something (as opposed to saying he can’t do something), which isn’t right.

        Oh, wait, Obamacare “taxes”. Nevermind…

      5. Fleming v. Nestor is an example I like to give to authoritarians as an example of bad rulings

        I’ll have to read it — the one I pull up is Schenck v. United States (1919) — which literally shows the court ignoring the Constitution:

        We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

        But the actual text of the First Amendment is exactly about restricting what Congress may do — in fact, it is unqualified, meaning that there are no exceptions therein:

        1. (cont.)

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          We then plainly see that the Supreme Court (and, indeed, the whole of the Federal government) is perfectly willing to ignore the Constitution to further its own convenience and power.

    6. So I can bring my same sex spouse into any state and demand whatever the fuck that confers to me, but I can’t bring a handgun to protect myself and my family? My, how the times is a changing.

    7. The Fed could basically justify any action under this premise, and they will, assuming they will profit in some way, shape, or form. But if it’s icky, forget about it……jurisprudence doesn’t mean justice.

    8. States have different requirements for getting married, not least being minimum ages. Don’t some also have waiting periods? Costs differ, and I bet there are differeing rules on who can officiate — clerk, judge, minister …

      So I see no problem with equating recognizing both marriage and CCW permits across state lines.

  7. Any state I’d want to visit already has reciprocity.

    1. Did you hear the big news? They’re doing Top Gun 2!

      1. Of course. It’s the most important sequel of our lives.

        1. Top Gun 2 is announced right after Obergefell…gay conspiracy anyone?

          1. Well, the characters will need to be gay, it’s the Navy, after all. But since DADT and the inclusion of women as fighter pilots, I’m hoping for some hot lesbian volleyball scenes.

            1. Look, you can say we’re all a bunch of fags in the Navy, but at least we’re *manly* fags and open about it.

              Not like to AF twinks who still hide in the closet and pretend to be ‘good christians’ because you mandate church service at the Academy.

              And the only volleyball scenes you’ll get in TG2 are when the nerd desk pilots are testing out their new robot building skills with a ‘Robot Wars’ last-machine-standing tournament because the Navy’s already accepted that the AC pilot is the weakest link.

              Seriously though – Top Gun 2 will suck, no matter who is in it or who directs. Its simply a movie whose time has passed.

              We should simply dig out the old VCR, pop the tape in, an take a trip back to a time where Kelly McGillis was considered hot and no part of the plane that wasn’t on camera existed.

              1. You cannot recreate this sort of sexual energy.

                Or this.

              2. I can’t defend the AF against ANY of your accusations.

                *hangs head in shame*

                But at least we aren’t the Navy.

                Yes, i give it an 83% chance of sucking.

                And let’s see, Maverick was a lieutenant in 1986. Admiral Mitchell?

                  1. We don’t have any of those.

                    FA has a good(ish) idea for a TG2 plot.

                    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.c…..1431573216

                    Yeah, the Navy – our women are more manly than . . . wait, that didn’t come out right.

                    1. Well, Stealth REALLY sucked.

                      But Jessica Biel in a flightsuit….not so much.

                1. more likely “private commercial pilot” Mitchell.
                  after all,Maverick was NOT very good on strategy,he flew by the “seat of his pants”,instinct.(and guesswork)

      2. Is it going to feature F-35s starving their pilots of oxygen?

        1. Have they picked a bird or insect name for it yet? I think the F-35 Thunder Turkey has a nice ring to it.

          1. It’s already officially the “Lightning II”. No word yet on any nicknames, though, so there’s still time…

            1. When some Admiral unveiled the F-18G Super Hornet variant to a bunch of Navy Lieutenants, he made the mistake of telling them, “It’s like the Prowler, but with a G. It’s the Growler.” Imagine his embarrassment when one of those Lieutenants informed him that ‘Growler’ is another name for a giant deuce. And so, a modernized, high tech variant of the Navy’s premier figher/attack aircraft is now commonly referred to by a term used to describe a big turd.

          2. F-35: The Marines won this round.

          3. In deference to the cultural contributions of the great left-wing sitcom producer Norman Lear, they’re calling it the “F-35 Jive Turkey”.

            -jcr

          4. or “Junk Jet”,a play on the Harrier’s “jump jet” moniker.

        2. No, a hot chick posing as a lesbian and enticing the butch pilot to attend a beach volleyball afterparty.

        3. Is it going to feature F-35s starving their pilots of oxygen?

          Wrong jet.

    2. Same here Francisco. I only visit states with reciprocity. It is one of the standards I use for deciding where to visit.

  8. Basking in the soft glow of the Gunshine state, such concerns seem so… distant..

  9. OT: Ted Cruz auditions for The Simpsons

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0sRkvX4KE

    He does the “twirling towards freedom” bit.

    1. They were all terrible except the Ned Flanders impression.

  10. “Certainly not by the logic of our legal system, in which a mere logical presumption of the implications of a Supreme Court decision”

    …means nothing at all, especially in the case of a decision which is based on feelz, not logic.

  11. Give Greece What It Deserves: Communism

    “The land that invented democracy used it to perfect the art of living at the expense of others, an example all Western democracies appear intent on emulating. Being the first to run out of other people’s money makes Greece truly ripe to take the next logical step beyond socialism.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/bi…..communism/

    1. Wow, that is some grade A anti-Greek trolling.

      “As wrenching as it will be we can take comfort in the fact that Greece doesn’t have much of an economy to disrupt. The only Greek industry that’s worth a damn is tourism, rapidly collapsing as travelers get tired of being stranded by strikes while dodging Molotov cocktails. The rest of us can find plenty of other sources of lamb chops, yogurt, and olive oil. They crushed the concept of private property long ago under the burden of environmental, cultural, and social regulations that govern land use. Wouldn’t it be instructive to let them have a go at building a workers’ paradise to remind us what state enforced equality looks like?”

      1. They would just blame it on capitalism and greedy bankers, anyway.

      2. One of the characteristics of grade A trolling is pointing out uncomfortable truths.

      3. “Instructive” in that the lesson would be obvious, yes. “Instructive” in that other governments would learn something? Well, I suppose it could happen, some day.

    2. After my vacation, please.

    3. And yet, Greek bureaucrats still demand stool samples and chest x-rays before granting business licenses.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03……html?_r=0

      1. NYT comments are hilarious because they’re morons but pretentious morons:

        “It’s not heavy regulations (or socialism) per se that causes problems. Surely Germany, with its tight environmental and labour laws, should present formidable challenges as well. To me, I think it’s a mindset problem. When the economy was good, Greece could have invested heavily in infrastructure, for instance online forms for government departments, and maybe small industrial parks to help startups in need of warehouse space. That they did not, indicates that they preferred to bang on well-established industries like tourism while failing to diversify. Without a strong manufacturing sector (or in this case online retail) they did not have other legs to stand upon the moment northern Europeans decided to cut back on beach vacations.”

        Laughing my ass off. All they had to do was spend their money on warehouse spaces and they could be humming along like the Germans! It’s so simple!

        And anyone who thinks Germany has business regulations as ludicrous as the Greek regulations is too ignorant to be taken seriously.

        1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:

          “It is not Socialism that is the problem, it is lack of proactive progressive thinking that uses intelligence with the right insights and foresights.

          In countries like India “this kind of intelligence” is lacking because most Indians are not proactive, but reactive or adaptive. And those who are smart are usually street smart or shrewd -not intelligent with intuition and integrity.

          Some are creatively or cunningly good at maneavoring or manipulating the system, rather than confronting it, changing it or improving it. That is why Indians stand in long lines outside embassies and consulates to flee their problems, rather than do something about them. In stead of admiring social workers, who are problem solvers, most Indians prefer movie stars, sports stars and rich people (who are ostentatious and corrupt). This is also true for Italians and Greeks. ”

          What is this guy babbling about?

          1. Then there’s this guy who gets everything right, but ends by blaming it entirely on Bush:

            “What’s sort of funny is that in many countries, and especially in Socialist countries like Greece and Italy, we see the state feeding itself at the expense of society. Governments, especially those in accountability-free cultures (including our own) have a built-in tendency toward bankruptcy. Why? Because politicians have an incentive to borrow and spend money in the short term — to boost patronage and feed corruption — that they will have no responsibility or accountability for paying back over the longer term. Most citizens accept such irresponsibility and seek to adapt to, and profit from, it. But, the day of reckoning always comes around. Stay tuned. Iceland yesterday. Greece today. Spain, Portugal and Japan tomorrow. The U.S. and the U.K. the day after, etc. Fasten your seatbelts. Primary culprit in the current U.S. predicament? My vote goes to a wastrel and profligate named George W. Bush, a country wrecker of the first order.”

            I’m amazed. The entire post is lucid and 100% accurate and then in the end he turns into Palin’s Buttplug. Every country in the world has these problems, but somehow it’s Bush’s fault.

            1. Maybe that was a feeble attempt to cloak his comment to keep it from deflecting straight off the Progressive Wall of Mental Hygiene.

            2. Awww.. fumbled at the 1-yard line..

            3. Social signaling for the loss.

          2. I’m pretty sure he just said Indians are too stupid to make socialism work. Sorry, too “street smart”.

            They need to be more like social workers.

            1. The “more intelligent and more compassionate” argument really is just American Exceptionalism turned on its head.

          3. Not sure, but I’m pretty sure it was totally racist.

        2. There is another important difference between West Germany and Greece, and that is legacy capital. The Germans have a lot of wealth accumulated over the past three quarters of a century, whereas the Greeks do not. This is evident as well within Germany itself; the continued disparity between East and West is a reflection of the regions’ respective pasts: you can more easily suffer regulation when you started off in a better position.

        3. When the economy was good, Greece could have invested heavily in infrastructure, for instance online forms for government departments, and maybe small industrial parks to help startups in need of warehouse space.

          I don’t know why the fallacy that supply creates its own demand persists, but man do people really not understand incentives. Building “infrastructure” for its own sake accomplishes nothing. If it did work, then the current economic malaise never would have begun in the first place; the subprime mortgage crisis was a prime example of how throwing “social goods” at people doesn’t automatically make society better.

          “Easy come, easy go” is just as true of roads and factories as money.

          1. If it worked, China would be the world’s current economic powerhouse.

            If it worked, the Soviet Union would have never fallen.

            1. You beat me to it. On the other hand, China at least builds infrastructure that people want, once in a while.

              Now if only they’d finish the Jintailu – Dawanglu link on Line 14…

      2. Any bureaucrat who ever demanded a stool sample from me would get it right in the middle of his desk.

        -jcr

    4. Hilarious, and also apparently quite unforesightful, in that it was written 4 years ago, which is 4 more years the Greek bankers managed to kick that can down the road.

  12. Chris Matthews said tonight that the Obama economy has tripled the wealth of anyone in the stock market. I presume he bases this on the fact that the Dow went from about 6,000 to about 18,000 under Obama. However, he neglects to mention that is was 12,000 before the crash. If you had $12, lost $6, then got $12 more, you didn’t triple your money. You got 50% more. And that doesn’t count inflation and capital gains taxes or the fact that most investors don’t put it all in blue chip stocks.

    1. It also doesn’t count that that kind of explosion in the stock market without simultaneously having low unemployment and increasing wages causes an increase in income inequality. If that were happening under a Republican president, they’d be calling him a tool of the 1%.

    2. Those of us who entered the job market near the bottom (and actually got a job) have done pretty good though. Well those of us who actually saved, which doesn’t seem like many.

    3. Chris Matthews can’t be that stupid. Matthews is in the stock market, did his wealth triple?

      Year over year, my portfolio(s) are either largely flat or down over the last couple of years.

      Just because you’re “in” the market, doesn’t mean you’re making money.

      1. The market has been abject shit. staying mostly flat or going down (over time; there are always momentary spikes and drops). Do these people not look at their returns and performance over time?

        1. If you haven’t gotten at least an 8-10% annual return since 2008 you’re doing something very very wrong.

          1. If you haven’t gotten at least an 8-10% annual return since 2008 you’re doing something very very wrong.

            Yeah Paul has done something wrong.

            1. I didn’t start heavily investing until late 2013 early 2014.

              1. Even then the S&P 500 is up 14% since Jan 1, 2014. Not as good as 2013 though, that year was gangbusters.

        2. Maybe being Obamas leg tingling buddy gets him inside info.

        3. Over time the S&P has had a yearly return of 10% (minus inflation) not mostly flat or going down.

      2. Chris Matthews can’t be that stupid.

        That sounds like you don’t know who Chris Matthews is.

        -jcr

    4. Then maybe Chris Matthews can explain why despite such wealth-tripling the pensions of government employees in shitholes like Illinois – the Messiah’s home state – are worse off.

  13. “no right is more profound than the right of self-preservation, and under the Constitution, all citizens should be able to exercise the right of self-defense anywhere in the country.”

    Oh, Alan. That’s just crazy talk.

  14. I posted this story when it first happen but the additional details here make it even worse. Fuckin’ piece of shit cop.

    “It has been two weeks since a Columbus police officer shot at a dog and hit a four-year-old girl in the leg.”

    “Instead of administering aid to Ava, witnesses state that Officer Thomas walked down the driveway, got in his car and drove off before an ambulance or any other help arrived.”

    http://nbc4i.com/2015/06/30/pa…..surgeries/

    1. It is an infuriating story, but Mr Lizard shows up in the comments, so that is pretty swell.

  15. MSNBC: Rand Paul pals around with racist domestic terrorists

    MSNBC analyst Michael Eric Dyson ripped Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday, saying that Paul’s meeting with anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy was a “deal-breaker” in the Tea Party presidential candidate’s efforts to connect with black voters.

    “He figures that he gains more by siding with a Cliven Bundy than by being opposed to his vitrolic viewpoints and racist beliefs,” Dyson said of the senator. “And you would think that Rand Paul would be more careful in the aftermath of what happened in Charleston, and the nation’s swing against Confederate flags and other symptoms of racial animus in this country.”

    Paul and Bundy met at a campaign stop on Monday, after which Bundy said he was “in tune” with Paul while the senator, apparently ignoring Bundy’s remarks about “the Negro” last year.

    Bundy described the encounter as one example of how Paul can go from sounding like Noam Chomsky one moment to sounding like pro-segregation Gov. George Wallace of Alabama the next.

    Because having a polite conversation with someone means you agree with their viewpoints. Ideas are cooties, everyone.

    By his logic, does Clive Bundy now endorse Rand Paul’s criminal justice reform push to get black felons out of prison and into the voting booth/gun stores?

    1. The left has gotten so authoritarian on this subject that it’s amazing. Remember when those two gay guys were hounded by leftist mobs because they had a friendly conversation with Ted Cruz?

      1. The way this sort of “MSNBC analyst”/ Lefty Pundit acted during Ferguson was telling.

        Where are the libertarians voices!?” they asked

        Just as “not giving” = taking, and “not taking” = subsidy to them, they feel free to describe anyone not ripping their hair out and engaging in precisely the same kind of groupthink as Obviously Racist

        Never mind that it was libertarians speaking out against police militarization & rampant misconduct, the massive costs of the drug war perpetrated by the left, the failure of the welfare state,, etc.

        No, because Rand Paul doesn’t denounce the Bundys for making politically incorrect comments, and instead chooses to note that the BLM acts like fucking Feudal Overlords in the West, crucifying people for daring to use open land… well, clearly he’s on the side of the Domestic Terrorists.

        what fucking knobs these people are. It doesn’t matter that the BLM was probably in the wrong on this issue, all they care about is that a Yokel might be racist, and you can’t defend *those kind of people* from abuse without being tainted.

        1. Its almost like Rand recognizes that there’s a hierarchy of problems within this country and racism, by itself, really isn’t near the top anymore.

          Cops don’t beat up and shoot black people because they hate black people. They do it because they can get away with it.

    2. Paul and Bundy met at a campaign stop on Monday, after which Bundy said he was “in tune” with Paul while the senator, apparently ignoring Bundy’s remarks about “the Negro” last year.

      Bundy described the encounter as one example of how Paul can go from sounding like Noam Chomsky one moment to sounding like pro-segregation Gov. George Wallace of Alabama the next.

      Is this word salad meant to convey some kind of meaning, or is it just meant to induce totemic fear of Paul in liberals’ minds?

      1. Well it’s MSNBC so…

    3. Well there is a current rather powerful politician who got his start in the living room of an admitted terrorist. I guess that is okay because the guy had the right politics.

      1. White terrorists who were protesting the Vietnam War are totally cool now. You see, back then government was run by old, white men, and now government is cool because it is run by old, white men.

    4. Both Dyson and his wife are ordained Baptist ministers. I’m sure in that role, Dyson has broke bread with coreligionists who might have a less than enthusiastic opinion about a certain recent ruling by the Supreme Court.

      Someone should bring that to the attention of MSNBC.

      1. HM, that is a very good point, and also one I doubt would ever get much mainstream airplay (because of racism and all).

      2. Al Sharpton is also a minister and he seems OK with the ruling.

  16. There’s a program at Columbia Law School – the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project – dedicated exclusively to fighting *against* religious freedom. I don’t know if they’re going to be on the front page of the papers, but they’ll certainly be doing a lot of brief-writing and lobbying to undermine religious freedom.

    Here they explain how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act started out OK, until it started being used to help Christians –

    “Protecting minority religions ? especially when their practices don’t harm third parties
    who don’t share their beliefs ? is a worthy and valuable goal in a multicultural society.
    The problem is that the use of RFRA has drifted quite far from its intended targets. The
    federal RFRA is now being invoked not to protect minority religions from discrimination
    by the majority, but to enable members of majority religions (like the Christian owners of
    Hobby Lobby), to impose their religious beliefs and strictures on other people who do
    not share them.”

    http://web.law.columbia.edu/si…..ebsite.pdf

    This is fascinating, because

    (a) is it constitutional to allow “minority religions” more rights than “majority religions?”

    (b) You can’t be much of a “majority religion” if the government is trampling you underfoot

    (c) If the government is able to stomp on “majority religions,” what hope do the presumably weaker, smaller “minority religions” have?

    1. is a worthy and valuable goal in a multicultural society

      It’s actually one of the most sacred foundations upon which liberal (in the classical sense) democracies have been built for the last 200+ years, or at least were built on. It’s not just “worthy and valuable”, it’s a matter of basic morality for any society.

      And yeah, they are going to go with the bull shit privilege argument to claim that Christians can’t be discriminated against or something.

      I can’t help but read shit like this, seeing that it is at a supposedly reputable institution of learning, and not feel very ominous about the next 10 years.

    2. Interesting that minorities deserve more consideration than majorities. Aren’t these the same clowns who insist gun ownership is declining and is now a solid minority?

    3. but to enable members of majority religions (like the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby)

      In the U.S. there is no “Christian religion.” Christianity is divided into myriad denominations, with splits even within denominations. The “Christian church” is a collection of minorities with fundamentally different beliefs and traditions, not a monolithic majority.

      For every Christian baker who refuses to decorate a gay wedding cake, there’s a Christian minister who will happily perform the ceremony.

  17. Maybe somebody already posted this, but there is a “teaser” for the Oliver Stone Snowden movie. Oliver Stone can be a quack, but hopefully it will spring board things back into the discussion and change some minds.

    The upside down flag is cool imagery.

    1. An upside-down stars and stripes is an official “Distress Signal

      I believe it originates as a Naval signal, but could be used in any context to indicate ‘desperate help needed’

      Of course, you don’t ever want to attempt it yourself, you see… because we live in an irony-challenged world

      1. Some vet walked up to us at Occupy once and suggested we fly an upside down flag at a protest. I nipped that in the bud right quick. Could you even imagine the wankfest which would have ensued? Jesus.

      2. Its not an ‘official’ naval distress signal.

        As there are a lot of national flags and most mariners are not especially familiar with them. Plus, it can be difficult to tell if, say, the French flag was upright or not.

        See: International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (Colregs) Annex IV.

        The ‘inland rules’ for the US (CFR Title 33 ch I blah blah blah) copies Annex IV verbatim.

        However, *unofficially* it *can* be an distress signal. Or it could be some guy who’s upset with the state of the country. Or some dude who manage to hook the flag up wrong and hoisted it anyway.

        Its certainly not a violation of the Rules of the Road for a mariner to use an upside down flag as something other than a distress signal.

  18. Re: Greek default.
    Guardian, Atlantic and to a lesser extent WSJ, the lefties are now convinced that the ‘troika’ shouldn’t have ‘predatorally’ loaned Greece money in the past, but they should now for reasons no one has made clear, other than Tsipras is a lefty.
    And you can forget your obsolete ‘morality’ of demanding repayment, but ‘morality’ requires more money for Greece, ’cause starving children!
    Of the lot, The Guardian has the greatest range of opinions, and during the day, quite a few from Greece.
    Regardless, Tsipras apparently pulled a Bo and oh, so cleverly dealt with his various counterparts in bad faith, such that no one is now willing to negotiate with him going forward (“Germany says: No new bailout unless Tsipras goes'” http://www.theguardian.com/bus…..or-tsipras). Of course the lefties are framing this interference in Greek politics when it is merely a condition of negotiation. Keep Tsipras, please. The creditors can avoid losing more money.
    It’s not easy to make the Eurocrats and the IMF look like heroes, but Tsipras and Co. are doing a workmanlike job!

    1. Let Greece burn as a lesson.

      This shit is right out of a Rand novel.

      1. I’m just surprised that I haven’t yet seen an argument put forth that the US should send a big bag of money over to Greece based on the idea that Greece’s problems are all somehow Reagan’s fault.

        1. Jerryskids|7.1.15 @ 12:36AM|#
          “I’m just surprised that I haven’t yet seen an argument put forth that the US should send a big bag of money over to Greece based on the idea that Greece’s problems are all somehow Reagan’s fault.”

          Obo has yet to find personal glory in doing so, but if he does, hang on to your wallet!

    2. That’s ‘are framing this *as* interference’
      And the Guardian commenters aren’t setting standards which are hard to meet:

      “It really won’t do for supporters of modern financialised capitalism to get all moralistic about debt. I remember the old days, when a balance of payments deficit was seen as a real crisis – for example, it probably cost Harold Wilson the 1970 General Election here in the UK.
      By definition, for there to be surplus nations requires there to be deficit nations.”

      No one has yet pointed out that budget surpluses =/= trade surpluses…

      1. By definition, for there to be surplus nations requires there to be deficit nations.

        OMFG!

      2. “By definition, for there to be surplus nations requires there to be deficit nations”

        Wait, what the fuck? Do these people not realize that a lot of the country’s debt is not held by other countries but by individuals who have bonds, etc? Theoretically every country could run surpluses since surpluses are nothing but income – spending.

        1. I’ve read that if you total up the trade surpluses and deficits for all nations, it comes out on the deficit side.

          1. PapayaSF|7.1.15 @ 1:01AM|#
            “I’ve read that if you total up the trade surpluses and deficits for all nations, it comes out on the deficit side.”

            I think you need to find that cite and offer it.
            That presumes that one trader is willing to take a voluntary loss in a trade; don’t pass the sniff test.

            1. I read it long ago, pre-web.The point was that the statistics aren’t accurate, because it should all zero out in the end.

      3. “By definition, for there to be surplus nations requires there to be deficit nations.”

        when you accuse them of zero-sum thinking they give a blank stare or ignore you and then five minutes later vomit up shit like this.

    3. “It’s not easy to make the Eurocrats and the IMF look like heroes, but Tsipras and Co. are doing a workmanlike job!”

      The Eurocrats were actually trying to get Greece to CUT THEIR MINIMUM WAGE.

      How stupidly high does your minimum wage have to be for the fucking Europeans to argue that you should cut it?

      1. “How stupidly high does your minimum wage have to be for the fucking Europeans to argue that you should cut it?”

        I think hitting, oh, France in the wallet with the sledge-hammer of Greek default tends to make even imbeciles like Tony finally understand that incentives matter both ways.
        Now, they may go back to stupidity tomorrow if they somehow got their money back, but, hey, that’s some money they could spend locally to get re-elected!

    4. So you’d prefer a technocrat over an elected government?

      The Troika SHOULD be blamed because they’re ripping everyone off. Sure Greece is dishonest, how could they have not known that for umpteen years? The fuckheads in the Troika want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that THEY aren’t corrupt pieces of shit themselves and that their hand-picked predecessor to Tsipras did great things for Greece, despite the fact that unemployment went up.

      The Greek citizenry – as shitty as they may be – do not exist to serve the Troika.

      In other words, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 10 times in a row, shame on me and throw me in the woodchipper.

      The EU is a stupid idea that needs to crash and burn. Greece is just a small brush fire compared to what happens next. And the only tool the Troika has is gasoline.

    1. Dammit.

      Rep. Alan Grayson May Have Violated Finance Ethics

      1. Why is that a “Dammit”

        That guy is a idiotic douchebag

        Gillespie profiled him here =
        http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..ayson.html

        He’s repeatedly claimed to be “an economist” because he has a bachelor’s degree, and spent 2 years (*according to wikipedia – 4 years, according to his twitter) just out of undergraduate school in some vague role that may have had something to do with numbers….at best.

        But his numeracy since leaving that post leaves much to be desired. Aside from that jackass claim re: the Minimum Wage, he claimed masses of people were dying off due to lack of Obamacare not so long ago.

        1. Sorry for the mis-direction … the “Dammit” was for the lack of an Edit button … just dropped the link in the first post and fergot to post the actual headline.

          Grayson is an idiot douchebag’s uncleaned nozzle.

      2. “Dammit.”

        Unexpected. No one could have seen it coming.

  19. OT: Scientists teach monkeys about money prostitution follows almost immediately.

    Turns out that monkeys understand what price signals mean better than proggies.

    1. Nice link, thanks.

  20. Because gays are awesome and guns are icky!

    /progderp

  21. “The [17th] Amendment resulted from an arduous, decades-long campaign in which reformers across the country worked hard to garner approval from Congress and three-quarters of the States. What chumps! Didn’t they realize that all they had to do was interpret the constitutional term ‘the Legislature’ to mean ‘the people’? The Court today performs just such a magic trick with the Elections Clause.”
    .
    Says the dissent of the man who just got done saying that “exchanges established by a state” means “exchanges established by a state or by the federal government”. And you’re expecting some kind of consistency out of the Court from one ruling to the next?

  22. So, interesting question: does the slow march of gun rights over the last few years/decades partially invalidate Machievelli’s idea that reform must be swift or shit wont change?

  23. Not at all on topic, but: Holy shit.

    Did a giant pussy sit at a computer and slap out that drivel with its meaty flaps?

    All Star Batman knows that being a super-buff, super-handsome, super-rich badass who is unfettered by all social obligation

    Yes. yes, it did.

  24. Despite Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court currently doesn’t even seem to be sure that we have any right under the Second Amendment to have any sort of right to carry or carry permit at all, much less that the issuing of one and the reciprocal honoring of one across state lines rises to the level of a core right requiring equal 14th Amendment protection to all citizens.

    It’s ironic that some of the framers were concerned the Bill of Rights might disparage the unenumerated rights at the expense of the enumerated ones. Here we have a situation where it works exactly the opposite way.

  25. IANAL, but I held that CC permits should be honored by states long before I heard of Obergefell. Why wouldn’t they be covered by the Full Faith and Credit clause, like driver’s licenses? A driver’s license isn’t a right, but it’s a judicial act by a state that other states are obliged to honor.

    1. In one of the great ironies, the very idea that people would even be required to get CC permits would have been anathema to the founders. Driving on public roads is not considered a right. Therefore the drivers license. Of course even then, every state considers a drivers license “shall issue” as long as you pass the test. One doesn’t even have to prove a need to drive. So a right supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution isn’t honored state to state even when a state has requirements to get a permit. Yet a “privilege” is automatically honored by every state.

  26. If we’re going to assert the need for reciprocity on marriage licenses, other freedom based reciprocity seems the logical step – with the freedom to defend oneself as particularly notable. Other freedoms might include the freedom to practice law, or the freedom to sell health insurance interstate.

    If, in fact, states don’t have the right to limit freedoms granted by other states, let the most free state win!

  27. requiring all states to recognize a state’s concealed carry permit definitely IS Constitutional;

    Article 4,Section 1;
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,Records,and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by General laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the effect thereof.

    This is the legal reasoning behind the same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states ruling.

  28. The four liberal “justices” will never accept any individual gun rights, and Kennedy will feel no obligation to apply his sophistry on homosexual “marriage” to any other issue.

  29. But it SHOULD.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.