In light of the gay marriage decision I have a question

a reply to: Phage

Lots of things can be deadly, but arms are specifically protected in the constitution, Cars or Horses are not, I assume we still have the right of free movement, what happens if one state decides not to accept a drivers license from another state.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

what happens if one state decides not to accept a drivers license from another state.

Then I guess you'll ride a bus.
But they can't make you sit in the back.

a reply to: Phage

So do you think one state should be able to refuse another states drivers license, or ID card?

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Yes. As long as they refuse everyone's. I don't think it would do much for their economy though.

Tell me though, if the 1967 SCOTUS decision on inter-racial marriage did not abolish differential state laws (non-discriminatory ones), why do you think this one would?

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
a reply to: Phage

Lots of things can be deadly, but arms are specifically protected in the constitution, Cars or Horses are not, I assume we still have the right of free movement, what happens if one state decides not to accept a drivers license from another state.

Then driving becomes as messed up as firearms permits and transportation between the various states becomes virtually impossible.

Here's the concealed carry map
www.usacarry.com...

Quite honestly, what it comes down to is no one wants to go down that road because doing so will inevitably seriously screw up interstate trade and travel, and if that happens the federal government is going to be forced to step in and simply assert more power. No one wins by doing so.

a reply to: Phage

Actually a state cant refuse another states drivers license or ID.

Is that a decision about miscegenation? I do not have a problem with interracial marriage or same sex marriage so hopefully those issues are settled law.

i am just asking the questions, I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar nor a supreme court decision expert.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Is that a decision about miscegenation? I do not have a problem with interracial marriage or same sex marriage so hopefully those issues are settled law.

Yes. It was the decision which struck down "states right's" which allowed marriage discrimination based on race. How is that different than the recent decision? Why would the recent decision mean that states can't have their own gun laws when the 1967 decision did not?

Isn't that your point?

i am just asking the questions, I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar nor a supreme court decision expert.

You can start with another question. The one above. Then take it from there.

a reply to: Phage

The state basically can not regulate marriage in any meaningful way any longer.

Shouldnt the same apply to other constitutional rights, and if not why not?

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

The state basically can not regulate marriage in any meaningful way any longer.

False. Unless you consider making same sex marriage illegal to be "meaningful."
www.usmarriagelaws.com...

Shouldnt the same apply to other constitutional rights, and if not why not?

Yes. But you haven't explained how this differs from the 1967 ruling.

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
a reply to: Phage

The state basically can not regulate marriage in any meaningful way any longer.

Shouldnt the same apply to other constitutional rights, and if not why not?

States can confer any bonuses or penalties to marriage that they want. What they can't do is say that same sex couples can't be married. Note that churches can still discriminate.

a reply to: Phage

In 1967 we did not even have the Gun control act, you could still order a gun through the mail without even a background check.

I highly doubt same sex marriage would have been upheld in 1967, attitudes change with the times and so does the court.

As of yesterday the state I am in is now, not only not allowed to discriminate against same sex couples in their own state marriage laws. but must also recognized same sex marriages of other states is this correct? The state I am in actually was one of the 14 with a ban.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

In 1967 we did not even have the Gun control act, you could still order a gun through the mail without even a background check.

And yet, in spite of that SCOTUS decision, various states have developed various gun laws in the decades since. Why would this decision be different?

I highly doubt same sex marriage would have been upheld in 1967, attitudes change with the times and so does the court.

Yes. I agree.

As of yesterday the state I am in is now, not only not allowed to discriminate against same sex couples in their own state marriage laws. but must also recognized same sex marriages of other states is this correct?

Yes. That is correct.

a reply to: Phage

if a state must recognize another states license, be it marriage or or drivers, then it must recognized a firearms license from another state would this not be correct, it is usually much more difficult to get a firearms license than a drivers or marriage license, and for states that require no license how do we deal with that. States should be recognizing licenses from any other state should they not.

As a veterinary tech I have to get a State license, should other states recognized my license? The national exam that is required is the same. or should I have to continue paying for licenses in each state I might work in.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

if a state must recognize another states license, be it marriage or or drivers, then it must recognized a firearms license from another state would this not be correct

No. Obviously incorrect.

The national exam that is required is the same. or should I have to continue paying for licenses in each state I might work in.

Only if they do not accept one you have.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DarkStormCrow

if a state must recognize another states license, be it marriage or or drivers, then it must recognized a firearms license from another state would this not be correct

No. Obviously incorrect.

Why?

The national exam that is required is the same. or should I have to continue paying for licenses in each state I might work in.

Only if they do not accept one you have.

Why should they not accept an out of state license the exam is identical nationwide?

A vet tech license is not cheap in any state and the exam is not either.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

Why should they not accept an out of state license the exam is identical nationwide?

Well, because some states have different requirements and restrictions, for one thing. Some are more lax than others.

a reply to: Phage

States may have different license fees, but the exam is the same, there is no state test just a national test. ( For a Vet tech )

Some states have more lax laws for drivers licenses but your license is recognized nationwide.

a reply to: DarkStormCrow

States may have different license fees, but the exam is the same, there is no state test just a national test. ( For a Vet tech )

I guess you're in the same boat as a lot of professionals then.

Still don't see how the SCOTUS decision has any bearing.

originally posted by: DarkStormCrow
if a state must recognize another states license, be it marriage or or drivers, then it must recognized a firearms license from another state would this not be correct, it is usually much more difficult to get a firearms license than a drivers or marriage license, and for states that require no license how do we deal with that. States should be recognizing licenses from any other state should they not.

No, because states can be more or less restrictive with their licensing practices. Putting aside the Second Amendment issues with firearms licenses for the moment (this is something the court will have to address one day), California wants fewer weapons in their state so they are more restrictive. Texas on the other hand wants more so they are less restrictive. It would be counter intuitive if Texas licenses were recognized in California because all citizens in California could just become licenses through Texas, and then everyones laws would by default be equal to those of the least restrictive state. The same is true of marriage, and different states can offer different benefits or requirements for marriage. I grew up in Reno Nevada, so I'm very familiar with their marriage practices which were for a long time the easiest in the country (people would flock to Reno to get married), in a more traditional area the requirements for being married can be different. What matters here however is that each state applies it's requirements, benefits, and costs in a non discriminatory fashion. That is what the court ruled on here saying that an anti gay requirement is discriminatory for a state issued marriage.

Another way to look at this is through jurisdiction. Texas laws stop at the Texas state border and their gun laws fall into that category. Since marriages are issued by the state, it is entirely within an individual states power to dissolve all current marriages and to no longer recognize those from other states. This goes back to the example I gave above though, no one likely wants to go down this road because marriage benefits are quite popular with people. For example, spousal exemptions on an estate tax or the marital communications privilege. At the end of the day people just aren't going to want to give these things up just to prevent someone else from obtaining them, and the politician that throws out everyones marriage in order to enact such a thing is going to find himself out of a career.

a reply to: Phage

I am just one of those guys who want minimal regulation in life, if you want your same sex marriage you can have your same sex marriage, if you want your constitutional carry you can have your constitutional carry.

I do think that if constitutional carry came to the SC, this case would get reference, because of equal protection issues.