Did Liberal SCOTUS Justices Just Box Themselves Into Taking a Gun Case?

 

supreme-290

By Ripcord

Today’s ruling by SCOTUS on same sex marriage has the left jumping for joy and many on the right disparaging the Court. People of the gun should take solace in today’s ruling. Today, all 50 states must allow for the legal marriage of two individuals of the same sex. They must also recognize those marriages that were performed outside their state. While the opinion tries to zero in on the Court’s previous discussions of the issue, it seems they spent much more time looking at marriage than the Second Amendment over the years, they have given us some nuggets to pull from . . .

An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943).This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

‘Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote’. That’s heartening. And we should now take the opportunity to remind the courts at every turn of Justice Kennedy’s words. As they dovetail nicely with this passage from Heller:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

It’s a safe bet that Ladd Everitt and the gun haters are dancing a liberal jig today. Really they should be very afraid of where today’s decision takes the whole debate.

People of the gun won on another front as it if liberals, which an overwhelming majority of the gun haters are, want the decision on SSM to be respected, then they have to quit cherry picking the parts of the bill of rights they like and support.

Today the court reaffirmed the Bill of rights when it said:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Some will argue the “most” clause in the above passage will give them wiggle room. But it would more aptly apply to the 3rd Amendments quartering of soldiers, 7th Amendment about  civil suits and 8th Amendment about cruel and unusual punishment.  The First, Second, Fourth and Fifth are deemed to be more of the fundamental nature as applied to individuals.

So today we have gained even more intellectual high ground on the gun haters. The “swing” Justice of SCOTUS said these things are not to be put to the vote of the mob.  And they must either accept rights or be called out for the statists they are where some animals are more equal than others. It also is going to force to have some more liberal courts do some legal judo to try and say why an enumerated fundamental right in the Second Amendment should be treated less than the right recognized by the court today. Can’t wait to read those opinions.

comments

  1. avatar Grindstone says:

    Oh boy, these comments are going to be fun.

    Anyway, freedom for all, not for some. Both guns and marriage.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I still don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, who people choose to be in relationships with, whom people choose to love, or what the state wants to call their union.

      On the other hand, I am ecstatic that the SCOTUS just implicitly stated that my Indiana License to Carry Handguns must now be recognized in all 50 states, or else I am inherently harmed by unequal protection under law.

      1. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

        Every citation of Heller I have seen has been used to create “reasonable” restrictions. I don’t know why 2A supporters luade it like they do.

        1. avatar JWM says:

          My main reason for applauding Heller was the simple fact that it was the first scotus decision, to my knowledge, that recognises the 2a as an individual right, not a collective right.

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Chip, that is exactly how I saw the ruling as well. Wonder if it will ever get to a vote.

      3. avatar Anon in CT says:

        Why would you assume that lefties, especially the black-robed variety, gave any inclination towards consistency? It’s all about their Feelings, and they feel that guns are icky.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Of course I don’t think so. SCOTUS are a bunch of activist, legislating-from-the-bench, pretzel-logic-using hypocrites. Marriage isn’t mentioned in the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is, and in fact is prohibited from any and all infringement. So of course, SCOTUS will find a constitutional protection for marriage, while simultaneously finding a constitutionally enumerated authority to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

        2. avatar Chuck in IL says:

          Exactly. It’s not about the law, being consistent with existing law, or even holding to the actual meaning of words. It’s about the “feels” of certain justices. Being pro second amendment doesn’t get you high fives from the President or the NYT, some I’m not holding my breath on this line of reasoning.

        3. avatar JoBob Owens says:

          It’s definitely not just the left who makes decisions based on what’s “icky.” The right does the same thing. For all the pseudoreligious traditionalist rhetoric, most opponents of SSM did and do so because they think being gay is “icky.”

        4. avatar MoPhil says:

          @ Chip:
          “Marriage isn’t mentioned in the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is, and in fact is prohibited from any and all infringement.”
          That is, because the founding fathers, not in their darkest dreams, could ever imagine such a moral decline in society, like we have it today. Or they could and that is, why 2A exists: to safe humans from all kinds of perversion. Counts for same-sex marriage, as well as for those mass shootings. Maybe I am wrong, but it looks to me like people in the Enlightenment era were mentally healthier than most of todays people.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          They were so mentally healthy they thought you could own other people as property. Yup, sounds right to me!

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @MoPhil: There wasn’t supposed to be all of this loss of Liberty and socialism. There wouldn’t be much, if any, need for such a ruling if there weren’t government benefits connected to marriage. That government interference (socialism) ought not exist here in the first place. Besides, if the government wasn’t infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, those who wished to engage in same sex marriage could band together and get married without a court ruling. Many “social problems” today are due to a lack of Liberty through overgrown government. And, to where do statists look for “solutions”? More government! SMH It’s a positive feedback loop and it is fatal.

      4. avatar DrVino says:

        OK. Good for you (Chip Bennett). Really.
        BUT
        Of what consequence is this line or reasoning for a Californian who is likely not see SHALL issue for a decade, if not more?

      5. avatar malikknows says:

        SCOTUS also implied that it can decide to confiscate your guns no matter the laws in your own state. More power at the Federal level should not be applauded, it should be feared.

    2. avatar Jim Barrett says:

      If you really think that the liberals on the Supreme court are going to look at this ruling when a gun case comes up and say, “well, I guess we backed ourselves into a corner, guess we have to apply the precedents fairly to guns,” you are delusional. What was decided today applies to marriage and that’s it. Don’t expect rationality or logic from demagogues who know what’s good for you much better than you do.

      1. avatar Nick L. EMT-P says:

        Listen to the oral arguments of Alan Gura in Heller, McDonald, the 7th Circuit case, etc. He routinely makes eloquent but concise analogues to the 2nd and the right to an abortion.

      2. avatar B says:

        The court yesterday decided to change the meaning of a word, I don’t think they have any problems with backing themselves in a corner.

      3. avatar MarkPA says:

        I offer a nightmare scenario. Yes, SCOTUS has locked itself into a box they can’t get out of. What can it do to get out of this box on the next 2A case? Don’t accept the case! SCOTUS has declined to grant cert to any of the RTC cases from the 2’nd, 3’rd or 4th Circuits. It can decline as well when the 9th Circuit decision is appealed. Admittedly, SCOTUS is supposed to resolve circuit splits; but it is under no mandate to do its duty on any particular schedule. It could continue to deny cert forever; thereby leaving the RBA in the hands of the several Circuits.

        The PotG would be left with no course of appeal to SCOTUS intransigence. Not enough of us will vote for Presidential and Senate candidates to compel a change in the composition of SCOTUS. The Progressives have us exactly where they want us: too disheartened to bother with electoral politics to gain seats of power in Washington.

        Our only practical remaining avenue will be to gain enough interest – to be distinguished from sentiment – to secure strong majorities in Congress. Polls indicate that we have already won the war for sentiment. Nearly 2/3 of Americans favor RKBA over gun control. But that sentiment is not enough. We need enough voters carrying to invest them with an INTEREST to be protected; an interest in the means of an effective self-defense.

    3. avatar borg says:

      If the states are forced to recognize same-sex marriage licenses than they should also be forced to recognize any valid carry license.

    4. avatar AllAmerican says:

      “If you like your buttsex, you can keep your buttsex. Period.”

    5. avatar Waco Biker says:

      Where is El Mac?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        I’m afraid he might have fallen victim to the epidemic of shotgun gay weddings that have engulfed the country since this morning. I hear it’s especially bad in the South!

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          Did someone say “Deliverance”?

      2. avatar Grindstone says:

        Busy marrying a gay cop.

        1. avatar Waco Biker says:

          That makes El Mac the bottom?

    6. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Huzzah!

  2. avatar mike oregon says:

    The anti freedom people with the loudest voices seem to be people who never let reality, logic, laws or anything else get in the way, “I don’t need truth or facts I know how I feel”.

    1. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Then thank God for the US Constitution. What would we be like with out it?

      https://youtu.be/tN9EC3Gy6Nk

  3. avatar Vhyrus says:

    The one thing that struck me is that the moment the ruling happened every county clerk in the country immediately began giving out licenses with no challenge. Heller was 7 years ago and were still fighting tooth and nail trying to make them follow that ruling.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Well, because guns…duh! Look at that baby!

      1. avatar Desert Ranger says:

        Do you mean THIS baby?

        https://youtu.be/qWwv0xmYAbc

    2. avatar int19h says:

      It’s because the decisions are actually different. In Heller they made some broad claims, but then on the very same page said that some restrictions are justifiable, giving a couple of examples, but then saying that it is not an exhaustive list. This provides an obvious way to work around the decision by claiming some new grounds to restrict RKBA that has not been heretofore claimed; and every time it has to go through the courts to be decided.

      In contrast, the marriage decision is unambiguous in that regard – it doesn’t leave any wiggle room for restrictions.

      1. avatar Henry says:

        Naw, it’s because guns.

        A couple months ago, a court found DC’s “good reason” carry regulation absolutely unconstitutional. But then DC got six months or whatever to rearrange their bureaucratic deck chairs, during which this “absolutely unconstitutional” policy will continue. So where’s the deck chair delay for the gay marriage issue? Surprise, surprise, there isn’t one.

    3. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      That’s because Democracy + The Rule of Law = The right to say and do whatever is currently PC, and nothing else. Always and everywhere. It simply cannot be otherwise.

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      Nope, happens every time when a Leftist wish is fulfilled by SCOTUS.
      Government moves like greased lightening then.
      When the right wins some kind of SCOTUS decision, its only the beginning to a never ending foot dragging by the states.

      I’m WAY past F’ing pissed about it too.

    5. avatar Mr Aninnymoiuse says:

      When was the last time we had a mass butt raping or mass crotch licking in this country?

      1. avatar B says:

        I don’t know, and I am very upset about not getting an invitation.

      2. avatar Joe says:

        we have symbolic mass butt raping / training every day our children are told gay is normal.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> we have symbolic mass butt raping / training every day our children are told gay is normal.

          If that really bugs you so much, you can always homeschool. Or move to Texas, where schools are required to teach that homosexuality is illegal (even though it’s not even true for 12 years now).

          Or better yet, Russia! I hear they’ve got some really awesome “anti-homosexual propaganda” laws there. For bonus points, they also have a law that literally makes it illegal to offend Christians!

        2. avatar Bob H says:

          You’re reporting on European anti blasphomy laws as if they are being used to silence critics of Christianity… even Salon.com has it closer to the truth than you. Towards the end of the article they cite actual cases in which criminal charges have been brought against people and funny… people only seem to get in trouble if they blasphem Muhammad… if you think national socialism favors Christianity, I will let you rebut yourself with something called ANY HISTORY TEXTBOOK http://www.salon.com/2013/07/20/in_russia_its_illegal_to_insult_the_feelings_of_religious_believers%E2%80%9D_partner/

        3. avatar int19h says:

          I am specifically referring to Russian blasphemy laws. To date, they have only been used to suppress criticism and mockery of Christianity, the Pussy Riot case being a particularly famous and publicized but not the only one (and also famous for being possibly the first court case in Europe in several centuries where religious documents on canon law – specifically, the Quinisext Council – were cited by the prosecution, and accepted by the court as relevant).

  4. avatar mdc says:

    Next big TV show, (Gay Divorce Court). Just wait and see.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      unfortunately, there are no serious publicly traded companies that are heavily involved in weddings. . . there is gonna be a spike in marriages, and all of the attendant stuff involved there, and a spike in divorces.

      1. Only one wedding-related that I know of: https://www.theknot.com is publicly traded.

      2. Dirk, correct me if I am way off base here but, how long will this celebration last before the gays get militant again? Desegregation seemed to quell the militant blacks for about two generations. I grew up in the 70s and 80s in black neighborhoods and have not seen this level of discontent among black people in any time in my life.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Hm, militant gays… do they burn cars? shoot at cops?

          Or do you mean the gays in US military?

  5. avatar Merits says:

    Good luck. You’re counting on the left to be consistent, or have principles. The only one I know they hold to is ‘might makes right’. They did what they wanted this week with SCOTUS, and if they get the chance they’ll do what they want with guns, prior precedent be damned.

    1. avatar Brentondadams says:

      Exactly. The court will do whatever it wants whenever they feel like it.

  6. avatar siilverwarloc says:

    I really have not thought of it that way. However, after thinking about it more, I really like the sound of it. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Or in this case, what’s good for the goose is good for the other goose too.

  7. avatar michael nieto says:

    the problem is that liberal judges ignore the second amendment the only reasonable judges on the court are all R appointed if we lose the next presidential election the court will be our greatest enemy

    1. avatar mdc says:

      The court is the enemy regardless of the fake 2 party presentation. Throw in Congress and POTUS. Have you not just witnessed the passing of TPP. You are witnessing fake two party existence. Obamacare. Justice Roberts.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      Which reasonable judges? Scalia? If you’ve read his dissent, he essentially went full retard embracing judicial deference (this is a term describing a specific legal doctrine); if you’re not familiar with it, look it up). And judicial deference is the very thing that stymied 2A for over a century, and let to abominations such as the Wickard v. Filburn ruling – and if it were to be applied to, say, the Heller, it would have been different.

      1. avatar Waco Biker says:

        The irony is Scalia went apeshit against Roberts’ judicial deference in King vs Burwell only one day before.

        The SCOTUS is officially no better than an internet poll with a sample size of nine.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Wielding usurped power not delegated to it and its members appointed for life…

        2. avatar Katy says:

          Not that I’m doubting you, but I’m a bit surprised by that. I need to review the full opinions and dissents, but that seems to run against my view of Scalia.

          Historically he has been,not the most conservative member of the court, but the most logical. More than any other justice, it isn’t his opinion that drives the writing, but rather the law. That the law leans conservative is another issue, but that makes sense, since a liberal movement is challenging the status quo and conservative is maintaining it. The wheels of change most move slowly if they are not catch us in their path and all that.

          Point being, an R or a D after your nominator’s name historically meant nothing as to what kind of justice you would be – you were nominated because you were the best. Only in the last 16 years have we seen more political calculations.

        3. avatar Waco Biker says:

          There’s nothing logical about Scalia at all. He adheres to the letter of the law when it fits his opinion. When it does not, he puts on his activist robe. All the black-robed politicians do this.

          Good luck finding five elitist lawyers from Harvard/Yale who conform to the “defense against tyranny” view of 2A, because those two schools are choke full of future tyrants.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          Read some of the opinions that Scalia has authored wrt government powers when it comes to the 4th in various drug cases (no-knock raids, entering without the warrant etc), e.g. Hudson v. Michigan. They’re abominable, and give us things like this:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/03/27/absurd-fourth-circuit-ruling-embodies-everything-thats-wrong-with-drug-raids/

          I would also recommend reading the book “Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court” by Damon Root. It’s a fairly interesting recount of things, which should be of relevance to pretty much anyone reading this blog because it devotes a very significant part to Heller and McDonald decisions, how exactly they were argued, and what they changed. Among other things, it shows the nuances of Scalia’s judicial approach over time.

  8. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    This ruling should free up the courts for some 2A cases. Hopefully with a positive outcome.

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    We can glean nothing, we are hobbled by whatever defense (in this case of marriage) was put forth by the side arguing against. The Court had a right to protect the Constitution, instead it protected the will of a small percentage of the population.

    And they defied logic to do so.

    If the set of people in the World fit into a circle, a 10% crescent shaped slice of it could be considered homosexual (if you were being extremely generous and multiplying by 3x). A 60% center gibbous-section of the circle would be heterosexual (of which, some might be paired sexually active couples but not be considered by Society, nor consider themselves as “married”). The thicker 30% crescent on the other side would be the heterosexual “married couples”. Thereby, a FRACTION of the 10% homosexual slice wants the WHOLE CIRCLE to discriminate enough against the WHOLE CIRCLE enough such that there is / becomes the 30% Section of “married” class, that they wish to then force the WHOLE CIRCLE to attribute (the FRACTION of the) 10% homosexual class to (the 30% married class) WITHOUT ALSO INCLUDING the center 60% heterosexual class that has a greater potential (by definition/rite/tradition) to join the “married” class than those seeking the forced inclusion.

    What the Justices have done, is just further drive a wedge into the gap that is their parting with relevance.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      You make no sense at all. How does recognition of a same sex marriage translates to discrimination?

      (And also, why do the numbers even matter at all? Do you believe that the will of the majority trumps all?)

  10. No they didn’t. If they can “change” the meaning of words they can do whatever the hell they want. They changed the meaning of word in both the last obama care suit, and the gay rights suit. I’m almost afraid to take a case before this court. Just my 2 cents worth.

    1. avatar Mr Aninnymoiuse says:

      You’re not alone….

  11. avatar brainman says:

    This article presumes the court will follow its own logic. They’ve shown through multiple rulings that they don’t. So you probably shouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that favorable 2A ruling.

  12. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Um yeah one does not follow the other…gun rights rest on a fickle and unpredictable unelected bunch of black robes. It may make sense to US but I doubt any of the gals is going to vote for gun rights. EVER… Good luck Chip on the 50 state theory…

  13. avatar Kyle says:

    lol

    NOT A CHANCE!!! Not with John Roberts constantly auditioning for a reality TV show. He’ll not do anything to antagonize the left.

  14. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

    YES…and this shit is going to get BAD. SCOTT’S IS A DIVISION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

    1. avatar Allen says:

      “Stay away from Scott, he’s a dick!”

  15. avatar gsnyder says:

    I’ve already heard this marriage decision doesn’t have anything to do with the Constitution. Really? And I see the USPS decision today, not good for firearms. One excerpt:

    “the Tenth Circuit held that “[t]he risk inherent in firearms and other weapons distinguishes the Second Amendment right from other fundamental rights that have been held to be evaluated under a strict scrutiny test, such as the right to marry and the right to be free from viewpoint discrimination, which can be exercised without creating a direct risk to others.”

    Slippery words. Already compared to marriage, and clearly takes a stand on comparisons. I’m not sold the marriage decision is a positive for the 2A. I’ll rate it no higher than a maybe.

  16. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

    SCOTUS ……damn auto-correct

    1. avatar BDub says:

      It could have been “Scrotum”, so not too bad actually.

  17. avatar Terrence Maguire says:

    Now gay people can help make divorce lawyers richer. Not being a big fan of marriage ( more government interference in our lives) I could care less who we as a society let get married. Gun rights are going to be trampled because the courts have given the states and cities the ability to make up their own gun laws and there is no national unity,

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Now gay people can help make divorce lawyers richer.

      Not only divorce lawyers. Double income, no kids = huge taxes. It’s called the “Marriage Tax,” and I’m loving it.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Divorce is actually one of the “benefits” of marriage, actually. As much as it sucks, actually having some kind of procedure to make asset allocations and other things like that after the dissolution of a relationship is very valuable. With divorce law, there are ground rules for all that stuff. If you were never married in the first place, then it can get murkier.

  18. avatar Kendahl says:

    I cannot understand religious conservatives’ argument that gay marriage undermines traditional, heterosexual marriage. They would be correct if the decision replaced heterosexual marriage with gay marriage but it doesn’t. Heterosexuals can still get married either in the religious ceremony of their choice or by the justice of the peace. No harm, no foul.

    From the perspective of gun rights, we should all be happy whenever private individuals’ rights to live their own personal lives are expanded. What we need to worry about is whether the Court will have a double standard when it comes to gun rights.

    1. avatar David says:

      If it were just a matter of live and let live, then you are right. However, as we have seen in recent cases where people have been ruined for refusing to bake cakes or provide photography services for same sex weddings, it doesn’t really work like that. Merely saying you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman now places you in the same camp as racists, and could even cost you your job. If you want an idea of where this is likely headed, look north to Canada: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

      1. avatar int19h says:

        You realize you can be sued just the same for refusing to bake a cake for a straight wedding, right? It’s equal protection. If you don’t like what’s being protected here, fine, but that’s a separate law altogether.

        1. avatar David says:

          A pastor went to a gay bakery and asked them to bake a cake with an anti gay marriage message on it. Not only was the bakery able to refuse to bake the cake, the pastor ended up facing legal action. Clearly some are more equal than others. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/13/christian-who-asked-gay-rights-bakery-to-bake-anti-gay-marriage-cake-may-face-legal-action/

        2. avatar int19h says:

          Everybody can “face some legal action” in this country – anyone can threaten to sue anyone. The baker in this case has threatened to contact FBI for some unspecified “hate crime”, but we don’t know if she actually ever did, and even if she did, there are heaps of precedents saying that it’s not. So that part is basically just irrelevant.

          As far as bakery being able to refuse – did the guy actually sue them in court? So far as I can tell, he didn’t, he just went there with a camera, recorded the refusal, and that was that. Legal action in civil cases does not happen automatically with few exceptions, you have to actually go and make a claim. So effectively we don’t know if they are able to refuse according to the law, because the law was never brought into the picture to begin with.

          The other difference between this case and the original “gay cake” case is the nature of the refusal. To remind, in the original case, it wasn’t the message on the cake that was objectionable – it was the fact that the customers were getting married in the first place. In other words, discrimination was on the basis of the customer’s identity. In this case, the refusal was not to bake a cake for a regular wedding, and not to bake a cake for a heterosexual – they refused to bake a cake with a specific message on it. Presumably (at least until demonstrated otherwise), the guy could have gotten the cake if he agreed to change the message. So the refusal was not based on his identity. And the right of businesses to refuse to promote messages is also firmly entrenched in case law, and that was not touched in any way by the anti-discrimination laws, which focus on identity only (race, gender, religion etc). Simply put, “a guy who wants to say X, for as long as he wants to say it” is not an identity, much less a protected one.

        3. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          It would only be equal protection if every suit went equally far. As long as there are some more-equals pretending to be in some position to determine which suits have merit and which do not……. Some will have equal protection, while others will have protection the more equal kind.

          I’m all for gays, pedophiles, animals, children and corpses marrying to their hearts content (or malcontent for all I care), so it’s not like I’m specifically opposed to this ruling. But the trajectory the West and it’s acolytes have been on for the past century or more, leaves little doubt that the rule of the gun ultimately leads to vastly superior outcomes than the currently fashionable rule of law. That of course does not preclude a third option from being superior to either, but between those two, ISIS trumps SCOTUS any day of any week.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          >> between those two, ISIS trumps SCOTUS any day of any week.

          The nice thing about our decadent Western bordello is that it still has freedom of movement – you’re welcome to buy a ticket to Turkey and go enjoy the awesomeness of the Caliphate any time.

          (Just keep in mind that should you find it not quite as much to your liking as you seem to imply, getting back might be just a tad more difficult.)

      2. avatar Grindstone says:

        Churches won’t be affected because they’re not businesses.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Churches can be affected in their capacity as businesses, though – i.e. if church owns a business, that business cannot discriminate against customers (or employees).

        2. avatar Chuck in IL says:

          Yet. Get ready for the next step, threatening the tax exempt status of a church if it doesn’t bend to the will of the statist left.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          While I don’t see the relevance to this case, why exactly should churches be treated any differently from any other non-profit in that regard? Why do they need some special exemption to be tax-exempt? People bring up charity work, but if a church is a charity it should just file its paperwork as such (and to the extent it is such).

          As a result of those exemptions, fraudulent scum such as the Church of Scientology are tax exempt.

          BTW, fun fact: there was exactly one religious organization in the history of the United States that voluntarily turned down its tax-exempt status (on ideological grounds). It was the Church of Satan.

        4. avatar Grindstone says:

          There’s a difference between refusing to perform a wedding in a religious house of worship and a business refusing service based on who the customer is.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      Because guns! Oh wait…that’s the fear based argument against guns. Because gays! There. That’s much better.

    3. avatar Tommycat says:

      I’m agnostic, so the concept of Christianity being opposed to same sex marriage is a tad odd to me. HOWEVER I understand why many Christians have an issue with it. It isn’t so much the “ew gross” factor as the “They’re gonna make me take part in something I don’t want to be a party to.” In each state where Same Sex Marriage has become legal, gay activists have sued companies who refused to be part of the ceremony. Examples being the photographer and bakers who lost their businesses and were sued for making the decision that their faith meant more to them than the business. Personally, if I were forced to by law, I think I’d dump a whole bottle of vinegar in the cake batter, on accident of course. And keep in mind this is from someone who is in favor of gay marriage. I feel that legally married gay couples should be able to defend their legally grown pot plants with legally purchased machine guns. But when you start forcing folks to choose between their faith and your ideals, you are treading in dangerous areas.

      1. avatar SCW says:

        Agnosticism isn’t some middle ground. You can be a christian and an agnostic. Gnosticism means knowledge, to know. Are you an agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist, or gnostic atheist. Pick one.

        On the topic of businesses not wanting to serve gays, why would it be ok to do that and not ok to refuse business to blacks, or cripples? Would you pour vinegar into the cake batter meant for a black wedding? Would you build your place of business on a steep hill with one set of steep stairs so cripples couldn’t access it? If you find that to be wrong, then so is refusing business to people solely upon the reason of their sexual orientation.

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    Did Liberal SCOTUS Justices Just Box Themselves Into Taking a Gun Case?

    No, not at all. Because gay marriage is an all-important emanation or penumbra or something, while 2A is a mere enumerated right that shall not be infringed.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Always right to the point, Ralph!

  20. avatar Silver says:

    If the SCOTUS were actually functioning as intended, then I could see the optimism here. The problem is that the SCOTUS couldn’t care less about the rule of law, precedent, or really anything except what their political activist roots are. They’re just as hypocritical as any other political entity.

    I wouldn’t trust them to do anything positive with gun rights, precedent or not. Because it’s not about upholding the Constitution. It’s about doing what the administration and populist sentiment demands of them.

    1. avatar mdc says:

      Well stated Silver. We are witnessing complete breakdown of the Republic. Those who cling to salvation of 2nd Amendment rights thru fake RINO elected officials, I got one word” delusion.

  21. avatar Dave says:

    And every true Christian realizes that our country’s court is a sham. Nous defions!

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Well, now they can all hang out with all the True Scotsmen.

      1. avatar Slick says:

        Nope, sorry. They all died during WW2 for the Queen’s Own Kamikaze Regiment.

        After all, the money was good and there was water skiing.

      2. avatar Desert Ranger says:

        What about Connor Macleod of the Clan Macleod? He is still alive…

        Oh wait, he’s French. Damn. Never mind.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      Why should the court care about your Christian sensibilities? Their job is to interpret the Constitution, not the Bible.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        It’s not even their job to interpret the Constitution.

    3. avatar SCW says:

      You could always drag them in the street and stone them to death…Probably won’t happen…too busy burning witches.

      1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        That you cannot actually drag them into the streets and stone them, while they can “interpret the constitution” in such a way that they can do so to you, is exactly the problem. Get around that asymmetry, and we may be well on our way to what could reasonably be deemed “equal protection” again.

    4. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      Duh!

  22. avatar Fuque says:

    Gays can help fund the divorce industry now… straights are tired of towing the line…

    1. avatar Tommycat says:

      I have always said, “Why should straight people be the only ones to lose half their sh… stuff”

  23. avatar Silver says:

    “It’s a safe bet that Ladd Everitt and the gun haters are dancing a liberal jig today.”

    I doubt it. Dancing is a microaggression against people in wheelchairs.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Harrison Bergeron

      It’s a quick read, and it’s quite apt…

      https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

      Ow.

  24. avatar Waco Biker says:

    Think again. As the majority opinion for King vs Burwell and the dissent in today’s case shows, any fidelity to the letter of the law and the notion of limited, enumerated powers of government is out the window, and replaced by the unabashed exercise of unlimited power without even a token attempt at checks and balances, and pure personal opinion, respectively.

    Good luck putting at least five libertarian judges in SCOTUS, or even one.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      This ruling has reduced the power of the government. How can it be a bad thing?

      1. avatar Slick says:

        Ehh, more like transferred it. Now the .gov gets more marriage taxes to further entrench their power.

        But maybe im just cynical. I’m one of those radicals that believe that marriage shouldn’t be affiliated with the government at all. Straight, gay, interspecies, or marrying a 3DS (you crazy Japan).

        1. avatar int19h says:

          You don’t have to marry if you believe that you are taxed less otherwise; that ruling doesn’t change that. It gives same-sex couples the choice to marry or not as they see fit.

          And I would have to note that for many couples (basically, any couple where there’s significant income disparity between partners), filing jointly actually results in a lower effective tax rate.

        2. avatar Slick says:

          Whats wrong with getting rid of the whole government involvement all together?

        3. avatar barnbwt says:

          Ah, but the government does not treat single Americans equally under the law as married ones, right? A prudent ruling would have invalidated all governmental recognition of marriage altogether with a long stay period for adjustment. Life would go on, all the same benefits would be present for married couples, but they would no longer be contingent on marriage, and thus, could not exclude gay or non-married couples. Letting the state enmesh itself in the institution of marriage is what cause this issue in the first place, and what led to its downfall (first through divorces for practical legal reasons, and now redefining it entirely for the same)

      2. avatar Waco Biker says:

        That’s like saying the NFA tax stamp is fine, if you don’t want to pay $200 to the enemy then don’t get a suppressor.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          The NFA stamp for a silencer is a limitation placed on you by the government.

          A ban on same-sex marriage is another limitation placed on you by the government.

          Same-sex marriage being legalized is like silencers no longer being regulated under NFA.

          So, it’s quite literally the reverse of what you said.

        2. avatar Waco Biker says:

          I criticized the dissent on the gay marriage ruling, not the majority opinion.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          My apologies – it was not entirely clear in the context.

      3. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        Transferring power from the legislative branch at the state level, to the judicial,branch at the federal level, is “reducing,” now? Just like the constitution, the words mean what we want them to mean, darnit…..!

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Since the judicial power in question can only invalidate laws, not create new ones, this results in the net reduction of laws, preventing state legislature from restricting the freedoms of state citizens.

          Why, would you rather let state legislatures do as they wish?

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          The federal government has just consolidated more power for itself. SCOTUS was used to do that first in 1803. The Court has continued, slowly and far between at first, increasing in frequency and breadth as time went on.

          I’m ready to return to some sort of articles of confederation or abolish the union all together. The states were supposed to be a confederation of sovereign states. That’s what the first revolution was fought over. That’s what the second revolution was fought over. Perhaps that will be what the next one will be fought over. They say three is a charm.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Why, would you rather let state legislatures do as they wish?

          Yes. We can more effectively deal with a state government infringing than we can with a central government all the way in DC with the deepest of pockets and largest of armies. What we have now is tyranny nationwide.

        4. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Why, would you rather let state legislatures do as they wish?
          Yes. We can more effectively deal with a state government infringing than we can with a central government with the deepest of pockets and armies.
          At this point in the game, I am inclined to agree. Patrick Henry may not have been wrong.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That happened surprisingly early in our history, 1803. Our free nation was doomed from that point on. It has been on an exponential slide ever since. http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

  25. avatar barnbwt says:

    No, I think SCOTUS just ruled that an individual can marry a corporation, though.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Why stop there? A person can marry their adult child, grandparent, or brother/sister and force their employer to provide health insurance. And why not marry your dog as well and force their employer to provide health insurance for your dog? Can I marry my car and force my employer to provide maintenance?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        The dog cannot consent. Ditto for the car.

        Other than that, I don’t see the problem?

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          but the Scat Pack loves it when I rim its gas-hole…

          I have to think if Tim Cook marries the Apple Corporation the IRS may quite literally collapse like a neutron star at the tax implications, killing everyone. That’s probably a good utilitarian argument for limiting such unions.

        2. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          Exactly what is it a dog and a car cannot do that would signal consent? If you answer “utter the word yes to a question” you just committed the crime of discriminating against people with a different mother tongue, or who has a speech impediment. Besides, a car with a tape recorder and some half decent speech recognition software can pretty much consent to anything.

          I do realize we live in the progressive era, where the answer to “why a car can’t consent” is because “We Say So, Darnit, and we’re the gubmint”

        3. avatar int19h says:

          >> Exactly what is it a dog and a car cannot do that would signal consent?

          Communicate the affirmative response, in any way accessible to them.

          >> Besides, a car with a tape recorder and some half decent speech recognition software can pretty much consent to anything.

          FWIW, I don’t particularly mind people marrying robots, either. I’m not sure what benefit they would derive from it, though I suppose we could make robots for whom visitation rights would actually make a difference.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Kit could consent. 😉 Autonomous, self driving cars in the near future?

  26. avatar CoolBreeze says:

    If you think the left is consistent in what they say, you’re wrong. Only consistent in their agenda. They don’t hate gays. They do hate guns. Today’s “arguments” will mean nothing when SCOTUS rules on 2nd amendment.

  27. avatar DV says:

    As with everything gov’t, the other side won’t come while this is still fresh. It’ll be a while, after everyone’s gone on with their lives.

  28. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Forgive me if I’ve said this on TTAG before, but it’s hard to keep track of things.

    I believe that the next case the supreme court takes on guns will be the final ruling they ever make on them. Bare with me on this, I’ll make it as brief as I can:

    In the recent case on Obamacare, whose supreme court ruling was passed down the day before today’s on gay marriage, the court ruled that the phrase in Obamacare that healthcare exchanges must be “established by the State” in order to recieve tax credits. The Surpeme Court ruled that the Federal gov’t could give tax credits in states where exchanges weren’t established by the state.

    Justic Scalia wrote in the minorty opinion that “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.”

    This ruling, imo, sets a dangerous precedent that any law can now be interpreted to mean anything at anytime. The right to keep and bare arms could now retroactively mean that, because the amendment ratified so long ago that it only applies to muskets. All guns of later technologies, including percussion cap, are thus subject to gov’t approval and gov’t has every right to deny the selling of modern firearms and also the right to confiscate them.

    The Supreme Court will vote 9-0 because gun control is the last thing Obama wants before he’s out in 2017. He’ll use every bit of his FBI and CIA to find something to blackmail the court to rule in such a way.

    After that, term limits will be unconstitutional because it’s against the rights of the president’s pursuit of happiness and then you’ll have It Can’t Happen Here, happening here.

  29. avatar Todd says:

    Don’t need the whole left end of the Court. Just the guy who said today that fundimental rights are not subject to a public mentality.

    For all the nawsayers posting here if it really is that bad, then two options exist, 1 a republican congress with a republican President in 2017 or it’s going to be a complete collapse of what we know today. I think I’ll hope for the Court to get it right and work on #1. otherwise the options suck

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I’ll take option #2 for a return to article of confederation, Alex.

      Hell, I’ve been contemplating voting for Hitlery or even Barry (if he runs again). 😉

  30. avatar Excedrine says:

    I’m still waiting for the day that gay couples, and their adopted and artificially conceived children, will be able to defend their hemp farms and marijuana grows with machine guns and mortars.

    No, I personally don’t agree with gay marriage or gays having kids, but so long as their decisions don’t negatively effect me it’s none of my business. Further, I have no right nor place to judge these people nor to deprive the of all the same liberties and protections that I (should be able to) enjoy.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      You’ll be hard pressed to achieve such liberty with a court interpreting things this way, though. Gay marriage was only supported as it poses neither a check nor balance on federal power, and only constitutes a reduction in state (as in the 5 states, not the federal government) authority. That gay rights will now be protected/enforced federally constitutes yet another federal responsibility for our DC masters.

  31. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “And they must either accept rights or be called out for the statists they are where some animals are more equal than others.”

    Since when has being called out as statist hypocrites ever bothered these people?

  32. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    Trying to predict possible future rulings about gun issues, after the SCOTUS’s wishy-washy approval of the tyranny of Obamacare, then today’s ruling on the SSM issue, is a fools errand. If this says anything, it says “Katy bar the doors,” absolutely anything is possible from here on out. Two clearly unconstitutional concepts have just been enshrined as law by supposed intelligent, learned jurists. I’m just not getting the happy-happy, joy-joy feelings that there’s a positive spin here….for any reason whatsoever. Everywhere we turn, there are bullies using the power of the Fedgov to push people around, and dictate what they must do…..or else.

  33. avatar VSN says:

    Also several states have a minimum age of consent.

  34. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I think SCOTUS plays with the Ouija Board for their refined and scholarly decisions.

  35. avatar David Zimmerman says:

    Well Danny,
    Your constitutional arguments are flawed. You’re argument failed in the first reference you quoted : “an individual can evoke a right to constitunal protection when he or she is harmed even if the legislators refuse to act”.

    How clear is that? The congress and most states refuse to act in controlling any type of gun control, so the Judiciary has every right to step in.

    I’m not talking about banning guns, just some reasonable regulation. As you also stated, there are limits on the First Amendment, why is it so catastrophic to place a few limits on the second amendment?

    Your arguments are weak and one sided. Please think of a progressive society as a whole. Fear is not the way to go.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      It is clear you have no appreciation for the scope of gun control already in place, or you would not use language like ‘just a few’

  36. avatar John in Ohio says:

    I’ve got to agree with Jim Barrett on this one. I don’t think SCOTUS will care.

    After reading about Scalia’s dissent in the latest Affordable Care Act ruling, it reinforces my opinion that this “corner” won’t mean anything to SCOTUS when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamacare-travesty-the-supreme-court-continues-to-make-stuff-up-out-of-thin-air.html

    To say that Scalia was upset by this decision would be a massive understatement. He says that this ridiculous decision will be “remembered through the years” and that it sends a message that “the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites”…

    “But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax, ‘further [Medicaid] payments to the State’ means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

  37. avatar Desert Ranger says:

    Honestly, I believe this is true freedom. Honor each other’s rights so long as they do not tread on another’s rights. The Constitutional Golden Rule

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Now it is, but yesterday that right did not actually exist yet, nor did it spring from any precedent directly. What the government can give you, they can also take away (see: slave owner property rights, for a less positive example)

  38. avatar John in Ohio says:

    To those discussing if clergy could be compelled to perform marriages against the individual clergy’s wishes; Scalia had some thoughts on the matter.

    http://www.canonandculture.com/justice-scalia-and-clergy-solemnization-of-same-sex-marriages/

    Justice Scalia began by asking:

    [O]nce it’s . . . made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions[,] for example, . . . is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry? Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?

    Without referencing any specific constitutional provision or any judicial precedent, Ms. Bonauto responded that the Constitution would continue to apply and that no clergy “to this day” are “forced to marry any couple[s] that they don’t want to marry. We have those protections.”[13]
    Justice Scalia followed up:

    [B]ut right to this day, we have never held that there is a constitutional right for these two people to marry, and the minister is—to the extent he’s conducting a civil marriage[—]he’s an instrument of the State. I don’t see how you could possibly allow that minister to say, I will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry two men. Which means . . . you could have ministers who . . . conduct real marriages that . . . are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister refused to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the State power to make a real State marriage. I don’t see any . . . answer to that. I really don’t.[14]

  39. avatar Hannibal says:

    the atlantic actually ran an article bringing this up: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/

    I doubt that SCOTUS as it stands will go anywhere near guns. But a future SCOTUS might use this ‘dignity’ argument to do so.

  40. avatar xer 21 says:

    The question isnt whether they forced themselves to take a gun case.

    the question is whether we want THIS supreme court to take it.

    im not convinced i do.

  41. avatar Parnell says:

    “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.” Where has he been for the last five decades? How many times have we heard “For the children”, “The right to be free of guns”; etc?

  42. avatar tdiinva says:

    That would appear to be true if the Court were consistent. Don’t expect that to happen.

  43. avatar Bob H says:

    This ruling is so far outside of the Constitution I doubt their future decisions will have any semblance of consistency. Anybody for gaya marriage will be unable to check emotion for logic, but the pandora’s box has been opened and now there are serious questions of constitutionality raised.
    1st. How can anybody reasonable dispute a polygamist marriage legally? The only laws outlawing it are state laws and the SCOTUS just said marriage is a fundamental right and that state laws dont apply to it anymore.
    2nd. Reciprocity. Before the ruling, the ONLY reason why a California hetero marriage licence is recognized by Tennessee and vice versa is because of a written reciprocal agreement. There are no automatically reciprocal licences. So basically logically and legally speaking, if Tennessee has to recognize all marriage licences from all other states regardless of requirements, how in the heck does that not apply to a handgun licence? Which is protected by the 2nd amendment with the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    3rd. If marriage is a right, legally and logically, would a pastor, church, venue, caterer,ect. Face federal didiscrimination charges if they don’t agree with same sex marriage from a strong religious perspective? Also if a baker goes to prison for discrimination, only to have one of the partners in the same sex marriage decide to be straight again, (which does happen especially with ticking clock women) does the imprisoned baker get released because he no longer was discriminating?
    My biggest concern with this whole thing is the process, and the way that 5 justices can arbitrarily write laws and apparently now rewrite the constitution and everyone thinks that is how the government works.. if the Republicans had a spine they would impeach them but I’ll bet most people including congress don’t even know that’s possible.

  44. avatar Don says:

    One more instance where the government is prevented from saying “you can’t” to an individual. Keep them coming.

    -D

  45. avatar treefroggy says:

    The only thing that these 2 cases have proven is that SCOTUS will do whatever it damn well wants , the Constitution be damned.

    Don’t get your hopes up . Consistency of thought and fidelity to the rule of law is not their strong point .

    1. avatar Waco Biker says:

      Where in the Constitution does it say the government can regulate marriage in any way?

  46. avatar GunandFun says:

    Just a Hypothetical…..If I have a (gay marriage) license to legally carry a gun in Virginia and the State of New York doesn’t recognize my (gay marriage) license to legally carry a gun, then can I sue them for violating this “Case Law”?

  47. avatar pocono shooting says:

    This is checkmate for National Gun Carry. If all states are forced to honor the gay marriage licenses of other states, by the same mechanism they must also honor the gun carry licenses of other states

  48. avatar pocono shooting says:

    This is checkmate for National Gun Carry. If all states are forced to honor the gay marriage licenses of other states, by the same mechanism they must also honor the gun carry licenses of other it

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email