Should SCOTUS Marriage Decision Open the Door to 50-State Concealed Carry?
Russ Chastain 06.29.15
Following the recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling, which asserts that states have no right to ban marriage between homosexuals, some have been quick to extol the virtues of this heavy-handed measure. If no state can ban one activity because it is supposedly a right, then they must also be barred from restricting rights that are really protected under the Constitution. Right?
I don’t think so.
First of all, remember that the recent ruling is based on feelings, not fact. Facts say that the words “shall not be infringed” mean that the people’s right to own and use weapons, including firearms, cannot be restricted. Feelings say that background checks and licensure (registration) are suitable infringements because they make some people feel safer.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Still, some gun rights activists claim that if SCOTUS can so easily dictate what activities the states may or may not ban, and they purportedly base that decision on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (see above), the states must necessarily also be barred from restricting gun rights.
No, wait. They’re not saying that at all.
All they are saying is that, if no state may estop gay marriage, then no state may refuse to honor a concealed-carry license or permit issued anywhere within the USA.
In other words, they accept the infringement of background checks, government record-keeping on gun owners (essentially registration), and the principle that a citizen must beg and bribe (apply and pay money to) the government for permission to exercise a right that is clearly meant to remain UNinfringed.
And that if true 50-state reciprocity is established, allowing a licensee or permitee to carry concealed anywhere (except for “gun-free zones,” of course), then somehow that is a win for freedom.
I disagree for obvious reasons.
But I don’t think it will ever happen anyway.
SCOTUS could just as easily say that allowing citizens to own guns makes some people feel badly, therefore the presence of guns in private hands is “abridg[ing] the privileges or immunities of citizens,” and deliver a sweeping decision barring all states from allowing gun ownership.
And that is where our attention should be right now. Not on rainbows on flags or corporate logos, nor “Love Wins” memes. We should be opposing the obvious threat to state sovereignty represented by this ruling.
Of course, allowing any court to essentially make law is wrong and is against the American form of government–theoretically. But we have been putting up with it for a long time now with no sign of serious resistance.
It is the job of Congress to make the laws. Though they do a poor enough job of it, at least they are elected and may face the consequences of losing their jobs if they misstep.
But I digress.
Do you agree with Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and others that this ruling should open the door to licensed/permitted carry reciprocity or national carry lisencure/registration? Do you feel that CCW licensure/permitting is an infringement? Are you concerned about the erosion of states’ rights? Please comment below.