What the DOMA ruling means for the 2nd Amendment

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and as such homosexual couples will be recognized by the federal government.

The court ruled that the Federal Government had no right to regulate or fail to recognize the rights of gay couples to marry in a state that allows it.

I find this very interesting.  You see, the liberal justices, with Justice Kennedy joining them, have just said that the Federal Government cannot deny the rights of a citizen in a state that recognizes said rights.

This is interesting because when it comes to an actual right (marriage in the eyes of government is about tax breaks and power of attorney), one that shall not be infringed , the federal government doesn’t seem to have any problem trying to trample it underfoot.  They may not find it so easy to do in the future thanks to this ruling.

Let me quote you some of the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy, but this time, let us assume that DOMA is some federal gun control measure.  I’ve swapped out and bolded the equatable terms.

Page 19: The States’ interest in defining and regulating the 2nd Amendment, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that the right to keep and bear arms is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits.

Page 21: The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into gun ownership made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

Page 22: Weapon Bans principal effect is to identify a subset of state- sanctioned firearms and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And weapon bans contrives to deprive some gun owners under the laws of their State, but not other police officers, of both rights and responsibilities.

Page 23: By this dynamic, federal gun control under- mines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned gun rights; for it tells those gun owners and all the world, that their otherwise valid firearms are unworthy of federal recognition and must be banned.

Page 23: Under federal gun control, gun owners have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, gun control touches many aspects of a law abiding citizen, from the mundane to the profound.


(this one is DIRECTLY applicable without even changing a word)

Page 26: Federal Gun Control and weapons bans singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper.  The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its understanding of the 2nd Amendment, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.


Now, I’m not going to argue for or against gay marriage.  But if the precedent set here is going to be applicable in the future then gun owners should be happy.

Here’s the breakdown:

Page 19: The 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right

Page 21: Gun bans seek to stigmatize those who take enjoyment in those banned weapons.

Page 22: Gun bans seek to limit law abiding citizens to shotguns and hunting rifles while the government employees can muster assault rifles and automatic weapons.  Thus creating a sub-set of citizen, unequal to their government employed neighbors.

Page 23: Reaffirmation of States’ rights.

Page 25: 14th AmendmentSection 1.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  *with that logic, state gun bans are illegal too.

Page 26: By this ruling, every Firearm Freedom Act that has passed or will pass in States, cannot be challenged or abridged by the Federal Government.


So not only would the logic of this ruling assure that FFA states are beyond federal reproach, but it would also outlaw things such as the NY SAFE act.  The act which allows for some citizens (police officers, active and RETIRED) to keep “assault” weapons and magazines loaded with more than 7 bullets, but denies that right to others.  This is a clear violation of the Kennedy opinion because it creates a sub-set classification of citizen.

Now, there are gun grabbing bigots out there who may rail against me.  How they disagree with me on how I exercise my inalienable rights.  How it disgusts them to see a gun on my hip.  All I have to say to them is…

I was born this way  :o)

Send this to friend