Gay Marriage and 2A....

[GardoneVT]

Cody,

I appreciate your thought in this matter and Jeep's as well, but I'm perplexed either way you cut it.

How does the 14th work for gay marriage, but not self defense with a firearm, which is a clear constitutional amendment?

Meaning how has "our side" not been able to make this work, where there are 300 MILLION guns in America. Meanwhile, if I'm being generous, there are maybe 5% same sex couples?

One: the perception in the legal establishment is that firearms are a deadly tool of mass destruction which cannot be entrusted to Joe and Jane Citizen without extensive public oversight.

Two: those 300 million lawful guns are concentrated demographically among a small number of people compared to the entire US population. One guy in ten owns half of Cabela's SKU inventory f from .22LR all the way up to .50 BMG while the other nine people are either totally gun-less or own one pistol collecting dust under the kitchen sink.

Three: gun owners are no more politically savvy or active then the general population. At the range it's all talk about action and involvement, but crickets when the time comes to actually vote and participate in the political process.

Ultimately what we have is a basic public relations problem. Most of the world's movers and shakers in government, business, and media entertainment collectively believe firearms are a social ill comparable with inbreeding and meth-lab trailer parks. We need to lift the curtain on the social benefits firearms offer. Catch is someone's going to have to start a media conglomerate from scratch to do it, because the current ones have an institutional bias against guns that runs deeper then Saudi Arabia's aversion to gay marriage.

[JTQ]

One: the perception in the legal establishment is that firearms are a deadly tool of mass destruction which cannot be entrusted to Joe and Jane Citizen without extensive public oversight.

********TRIGGER WARNING*********


It used to be you'd always see how many died each year from AIDS, since they needed to publicize a big number to let you know how big the problems was so they could get funding for research/cure. Now, you almost never hear any numbers since somebody may put two and two together and determine the Government encouraging a behavior that significantly contributes to deaths is probably not a good idea.

[cclaxton]

I am just guessing here, but I would think the dissents published by the minority in Obergefell have no force of law, nor affect anything other a particular justice's image/reputation. I would argue that the dissents here are a stretch, mainly because the ruling is so well-supported and so well articulated. I have to say the more I read the decision, the more impressed I am with Justice Kennedy (or his law clerk). The reasoning was sound, the case-law clearly supported, and it was well-written. The dissents are opinions with no force of law. When I look at the ACA decision, for instance, I found it more confusing and the reasoning more questionable.

Everybody loves to hate the Supreme Court. I think it's time we give them some kudos and some credit for holding the torch on personal liberties and protection of individuals. These are professional lawyers at the peak of their careers, and don't really have to answer to anyone on their legal decisions. That gives them the freedom to look at the law and make decisions that continue to embody the tenets of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the protections we deserve.

Nobody ever thanks them. Well, I do.
Cody

[cclaxton]

One: the perception in the legal establishment is that firearms are a deadly tool of mass destruction which cannot be entrusted to Joe and Jane Citizen without extensive public oversight.

Two: those 300 million lawful guns are concentrated demographically among a small number of people compared to the entire US population. One guy in ten owns half of Cabela's SKU inventory f from .22LR all the way up to .50 BMG while the other nine people are either totally gun-less or own one pistol collecting dust under the kitchen sink.

Three: gun owners are no more politically savvy or active then the general population. At the range it's all talk about action and involvement, but crickets when the time comes to actually vote and participate in the political process.

Ultimately what we have is a basic public relations problem. Most of the world's movers and shakers in government, business, and media entertainment collectively believe firearms are a social ill comparable with inbreeding and meth-lab trailer parks. We need to lift the curtain on the social benefits firearms offer. Catch is someone's going to have to start a media conglomerate from scratch to do it, because the current ones have an institutional bias against guns that runs deeper then Saudi Arabia's aversion to gay marriage.

I basically agree.
I like the idea of offering free training to any journalist or media person or Democratic Party Leader. What we need to to remove the mystique around firearms. I will never forget the first time I brought home a pistol and showed it to my adult son (he has no firearms experience). I pulled it out of the box, unloaded, and tossed it on the bed with the muzzle away from us. My son literally jumped back. That is, unfortunately, the reaction that the average inexperienced person has to guns. We have to change that. When I took a course at FrontSight, the President of FS said that he has a standing policy that he will grant an interview to any journalist with the caveat that they complete a handgun training course before the interview. And, when they are done he asked them, "After taking my course do you feel confident you can safely handle a handgun?" Of course answer is YES. He then asks them, "Then don't you think any law-abiding American can do the same and should have that freedom?"

Part of it is exposure to firearms...I like the idea of "Take a Democrat to the range." In fact, take anyone to the range who is inexperienced with firearms. The more voting citizens we have who see the gun as a tool rather than an explosive, the less the public sees it as an evil thing.

The more we do to prevent suicide by firearm, the more it helps our cause as well. I would like to see us do more in that area. It also shows the public that we care...which of course we do. But it is good PR.
Cody

[Jeep]

I am just guessing here, but I would think the dissents published by the minority in Obergefell have no force of law, nor affect anything other a particular justice's image/reputation. I would argue that the dissents here are a stretch, mainly because the ruling is so well-supported and so well articulated. I have to say the more I read the decision, the more impressed I am with Justice Kennedy (or his law clerk). The reasoning was sound, the case-law clearly supported, and it was well-written. The dissents are opinions with no force of law. When I look at the ACA decision, for instance, I found it more confusing and the reasoning more questionable.

Everybody loves to hate the Supreme Court. I think it's time we give them some kudos and some credit for holding the torch on personal liberties and protection of individuals. These are professional lawyers at the peak of their careers, and don't really have to answer to anyone on their legal decisions. That gives them the freedom to look at the law and make decisions that continue to embody the tenets of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the protections we deserve.

Nobody ever thanks them. Well, I do.
Cody

As you know, I don't, but you are correct that dissents have no legal force. They might have persuasive force for the future, but no legal force.

[Wondering Beard]

Two editorials:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d55_story.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ignity/391796/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...e-pride-event/

Just FYI

[cclaxton]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...e-pride-event/

Just FYI

I would not have believed it until I saw it.
It takes all kinds. Cops seem to be genuinely smiling.
Cody

[cclaxton]

Two editorials:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d55_story.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ignity/391796/

Turley's article was a good find. However, I think he completely overstates the significance of the "right to dignity" which I don't see stated explicitly. Turley is a strange bird: http://jonathanturley.org/about/ but I do respect his astute columns and his knowledge of Constitutional Law. Perhaps I underestimated the potential impact of "the right to dignity."
Cody

[joshs]

I would argue that the dissents here are a stretch, mainly because the ruling is so well-supported and so well articulated. I have to say the more I read the decision, the more impressed I am with Justice Kennedy (or his law clerk). The reasoning was sound, the case-law clearly supported, and it was well-written.

Really? Most of the analysis from lawyers that I've read think that the opinion is terrible. To be clear, I agree with the result. I just think it stops being "law" when 5 people decide to change the meaning of "liberty" in a document that is supposed to be "law" and has a very clear procedure for amendments. In this regard, I agree with Thomas that "liberty" was never understood to include rights to government benefits, that's what the equal protection clause is for.