Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Nope. 
Okay. To spell it out for you because you're obviously confused from earlier points.
The 9th amendment establishes that the rights of the people are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Specifically, just because a right is not explicitly stated in the constitution CANNOT be used to pretend the right doesn't exist.
Ergo, your earlier comment regarding whether marriage is listed in the constitution is EXPLICITLY MEANINGLESS, according to the 9th amendment.  |
What renders the Constitution meaningless is the reliance on 5 or more SCOTUS justices to "interpret" it however their political persuasions dictate at the moment.
Quote:
Additionally, carrying concealed is not a right. Explicitly stated as not a right by our SCOTUS.
Marriage IS a right. Explicitly stated as such REPEATEDLY by a variety of SCOTUS rulings.
So no. The two are not in the same ball-park.
|
I am glad we agree both are not in the same ballpark. The right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the Constitution which means it ought to be minimimally constrained as our other Constitutional rights are. Minimizing the constraint on our 2nd amendment rights is what the House did with the bill requiring reciprocal recognition of CCW by states.
Marriage as a "right" is a product of judicial decree. Much as gay marriage advocates might like to portray this right as absolute, the SCOTUS has never held that the states have no capability to regulate marriage nor have they dealt directly with the issue of gay marriage.
Quote:
So let's apply the same logic to marriage licenses!
Except the main difference being that marriage IS A RIGHT, and full faith and credit has been historically extended.
Carrying concealed IS NOT a right, and whether a state even allows people to carry concealed and what the requirements are within that state IS STILL a state's right.
|
the topic is the recognition of CCW's from other states. Since it involves multiple states, it falls within the US Congress' purview.
Quote:
|
What you discuss would bypass that right.
|
Not at all, it would regularize the treatment of CCW among the various states.
Quote:
I QUOTED YOU.
So you can't defend your own quote?
QUOTE where "Heller" supposedly "left the treatment of permits issued by other states up to Congress"...
I am not misrepresenting anything.
I am using your own words.
|
Yep, Heller didn't speak to the issue of one state recognizing CCW issued by another state so it left it up to Congress to decide. That is how our beloved SCOTUS ought to work, minimal scope in their opinions.
Quote:
We are not talking about a right to "bear arms".
We are talking about CARRYING CONCEALED.
|
The second amendment right and carrying concealed are inextricably linked. As with our other rights the appropriate course ought to be minimal constraints such as requiring one state to recognize the CCW issued by another.
Quote:
This is thoroughly disingenuous.
I am more than happy to listen to any "compelling state interest" you think exists, in the proper thread.
The REAL problem is that anti-gay marriage proponents CANNOT LIST ANY compelling state interest which doesn't fall flat in rudimentary review. 
|
Per usual you reflexively ignored what I wrote. It wasn't an invitation to a fruitless discussion since as a committed gay marriage advocate you will no doubt prejudge any reason barring it as an abrogation of the "absolute" right to marriage.
Quote:
"firearm ownership" is a separate issue from carrying concealed.
YOU BROUGHT UP HELLER. 
Can you understand that Heller itself recognized that distinction?
Can you STOP pretending that they are the same thing?
|
At the risk of becoming tedious, the issue at hand is the recognition by one state of a CCW permit issued by another. Heller left this up to Congress.