So if SCOTUS rules some state gun law to be unconstitutional, do you also consider it “lawlessness” when officials no longer follow the passed gun law that was struck down?
Are those gun laws still the law of the state until they are rewritten? I sure dont remember that being the case.
You cant have it both ways.
The fact of the matter is simply this- when a judge/court strikes a law as unconstitutional etc, it simply ceases to be enforceable, not that is does not exist. So, in this case ( forgetting strawman arguments for a moment0 Kim Davis actually has no law to follow re issuing licenses- the KY law is void per the SCOTUS ruling- what needs to happen now is the KY legislature must re-legislate on the issue-else there is in fact no provision for any clerk to issue a license to anyone-as she maintains.
Now, the strawman re gun laws-was the gun law restrictive or liberal? If the court strikes down a law that complies with the written constitution-then that ruling is void on face value, if it strikes down a law that does not complie with the wording and clear intent of the same wording in the constitution, then it (that law)is void anyway- so yes, I can have my guns and ammo both ways. A stricken law is still the law , it is just not enforceable, so there is no law until the elected legislature addresses it, fact.
Please show me anywhere somewhere in the Constitution or federal statutes or admin rules where the fed gov is clear on the matter. Don’t go to the anti-discrimination laws-they do not address marriage or sodomy, but they do address matters of faith.