Unintended consequences?

Might be:

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

-snip-

The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify their argument, which reads:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.
The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.

 I've always thought the "full faith and credit" clause was sufficient to allow concealed carry - or open carry, for that matter, anywhere if it was allowed in your home state, but I'm not rich enough to own a staff of lawyers to bail me out.

I wonder who will be the first test case to carry in Illinois based on a Wisconsin CCW?

Not me, until I win the lottery...

Another simple solution

About identity theft - all CONgress has to do to eliminate this problem is to make the lender responsible for issuing a fraudulent loan - not the person defrauded.

I personally know of a case where a person with "power of attorney" for an elderly person's finances went into a bank and had the woman sign for a mortgage - the proceeds of which the person with power of attorney promptly stole and spent. The woman's estate was subjected to legal action by the issuing bank - for a loan made against a property in trust, without even checking to see if there was a clear title for the property in question. The heirs had to pay off the bank - and their lawyers.

With a law as I suggest in place, the bank would have had no recourse except to prosecute the person with the power of attorney who was guilty of not only fraud, but malfeasance.

The answer to the "gay marriage" issue

Is extremely simple. All the states need do is cease issuing marriage licenses altogether. End of controversy.

As long as states required testing for STDs, there was a legitimate reason for a state to issue a marriage license. Public health is a legitimate concern of state government.

Since the advent of AIDS, many states have dropped the testing requirement - and so, have lost the only justifiable reason for licenses. Of course, there is always the issue of fees and taxes, but I would believe that the costs outweigh the income and the controversy.

No state licenses would make the Supreme Court ruling meaningless. If two people want to get married, they can find a suitable preacher or "justice of the peace", or just declare themselves married. That's how it worked for hundreds of years. Common law marriage is still observed in several states. Custody of children, inheritance, and such issues have lots of legal precedent, as do contracts and "pre-nup" agreements.

Of course, we should expect that there will be cases where preachers will not want to participate in an action they find sinful or wrong. Lawsuits will undoubtedly follow.

Because idiots

I'm getting sick of the revisionists and the book-burners.

So:

I was born and bred in Chicago. Never lived south of Chicago. Don't have any "Southern pride".

What I do have is a deep and abiding loathing for the idiots in charge of too much of our country.

The Southern States seceded from the Union - quite legally, as the Union is a voluntary agreement between the several States. They did this not to preserve slavery, which was becoming uneconomical even before the War, but because of restrictions on trade imposed by the Northern states.

Abraham Lincoln has been quoted as stating he had no interest in having Negroes in the US - he was in favor of returning them to Africa. The 13th Amendment was more about politics than justice. His presidency set the stage for the huge increase in federal power we suffer under today.

This image is only objectionable to people who intend to ignore history. Like the lawsuits against Indian team names and mascots. Such will ultimately result in an America that does not remember it's history - and that suits the liberals just fine.

Here are some truly objectionable symbols:

Note that even though I find these symbols distasteful, some of them obscene, I do not advocate banning them.

Or the ideas they represent.

Violence in Baltimore

A late posting:

Dozens Shot In Memorial Day Violence In Baltimore

Baltimore police reported twenty-eight shootings and nine homicides over Memorial Day weekend, making May the deadliest month in the city since December 1999.

The victims included a 9-year-old boy shot in the leg yesterday. Police described the child as an “unintentional victim of the shooting.”

A total of thirty-five people have been killed in Baltimore in the month of May, bringing the death toll to 108 since the beginning of the year.

Chicago better look out - they might lose their first-place standing!

Tomb of the Unknowns

I bet most people don't know anything about this:



Found here.

Competency

Jugears sure can pick 'em - this is the person he appointed to run the federal prison system:



We are doomed if we don't get these people out of power!

Predictable

Demonrats move to ban the nonexistent,

Dems move to ban plastic guns

Congressional Democrats are proposing to ban plastic guns, following reports of major security lapses at the nation’s airports

Plastic guns can be even more dangerous than traditional firearms because they're harder to detect, says Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).

The Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act, backed by Israel and several other Democrats, would prohibit the manufacture of entirely plastic guns. The legislation would require a major component of every gun to contain enough traces of metal to be detected.

Listen to the logic:

"If detectable weapons can make it through security checkpoints, how can we expect to catch wrongdoers carrying undetectable plastic firearms?" Israel told The Hill. “What could be worse than a gun that can be used on an airplane, but cannot be detected on the security line because it’s plastic?”
"It’s time to modernize our airport security so the American people can count on it," he added.

OK. The TSA gropers can't find conventional weapons that easily trip metal detectors and show up clearly on X-ray. So, let's pass a law banning the nonexistent so when it shows up in someone's carry-on, they won't be able to see it anyway, and criminals will ignore the law  and print out one-shot handguns any time they want, as criminals do not obey laws, stupid or otherwise.

Representative Israel should try living in the real world, where criminals ignore laws they find inconvenient and realize that the cat is out of the bag re: firearms and solid printers.

Since "undetectable" guns are, in fact, undetectable, the only way to ensure they don't get on airplanes is to make every passenger strip naked, submit to a thorough cavity search and MRI (lest they have an implanted WMD), and wait while all their carry-on luggage - and every checked luggage item - is opened and searched by at least three independent teams - with all activities recorded to prevent theft and other fraud. The passengers will have to board naked, and be placed in straitjackets, belted into their seats, which will have to be transparent so any surreptitious Houdinis can be identified before they escape their bonds.

Only then will air travel be safe from passengers who intend mayhem.

I expect one of our solons like Rep Israel or Nancy Pee-Lousy to propose such a bill right after the Demonrats win the 2016 Presidential race. It sure won't fly under a sane President.

Thanks, LBJ!

Your "War on Poverty" has succeeded beyond your wildest dreams:

#9   When LBJ’s “War on Poverty” began, less than 10 percent of all U.S. children were growing up in single parent households. Today, that number has skyrocketed to 33 percent .

#10   In 1950, less than 5 percent  of all babies in America were born to unmarried parents. Today, that number   is over 40 percent.

#11   The poverty rate for households that are led by a married couple is 6.8 percent. For households that are led by a female single parent, the poverty rate is 37.1 percent.

Found at Nobody Asked Me