Did the SCOTUS Ruling open the door for national concealed carry?

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:04:20 -0400

Some folks believe so! Using the same arguments used for Same Sex Marriage (majority of the states have it) and using the 14th amendment's due process clause (as was used in the SSM case) means that there should be national mandated reciprocity for Concealed Carry holders.

http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/27/same-sex-ruling-sets-up-national-reciprocity-for-concealed-carry/

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355349-did-the-gay-marriage-ruling-just-legalize-concealed-carry-nationwide-legal-experts-weigh-in/

SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms...

Share on Facebook 1

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jun 29 at 2015 5:08 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:08:14 -0400

One can only hope!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 29 at 2015 5:15 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:15:02 -0400

Unfortunately, "Concealed Carry" has never been established as a Right. Bearing Arms has, but specifically Concealed Carry has not. Most rulings have been narrow and have inferred that it is a privilege. This exempts any type of 14a ruling and leaves it a 10a issue.

Though I agree we should have Reciprocity like we do with Driver's Licences, and other Public Acts (Art 4), it is hard to make this a 14a issue.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 5:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:16:17 -0400

Someone who is prepared for litigation needs to test this in a state that is on the wrong side but not too harsh on the penalties.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 7:00 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:00:09 -0400

That would be a delicious irony.
Unfortunately, the whole thing is based upon a very flimsy Constitutional argument.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jul 1 at 2015 6:04 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:04:25 -0400

By rights, it should, because bearing arms should be an unconditional right, as the 2nd Amendment specifically says "shall not be infringed". I would argue that it is a citizen's responsibility, not simply a right, to be armed and prepared to defend himself and others. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS lives in a bubble and would not apply rulings equally and systemically because of political and social pressures, so we're screwed.

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Sep 22 at 2020 6:05 PM

CW3 Harvey K. — Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:05:14 -0400

I have hopes that there will be some form of mandated reciprocity, perhaps with a "Federal Approval Seal" on state issued CCWs that conform to Federally established minimum standards, such as fingerprint checks of applicants. That concept would be similar to the seal on driver licenses from states the Feds have approved for ID purposes.
Maybe the law can be written with a prison term required for any LEO who refuses to honor such an out-of-state CCW.