Originally Posted by zikzak
I'll ask this here since I don't want to troll/derail the gun owner's thread.
Why is it a violation of Libertarian principles to have the federal government override state government restrictions of some civil liberties, but it is perfectly acceptable to petition the federal judiciary to have state and local gun control laws overturned?
We have a general gun control containment thread if you want to bump it.
I guess there are a few answers to this.
First of all you are confusing neocon positions with libertarianism this is understandable to and extent because the only good parts of neocon ideology are cribbed from libertarians. Sadly they pick and choose which parts they like.
Many if not most libertarians see law as a necessary evil to reduce the influence of governments and the mores of idiots on their lives. They accept that for now the constitution does this if people actually followed it.
From a constitutional standpoint government involvement in marriage outside of contract law is questionable at best (a proper case for the supremes would likely end up with civil unions for all, church weddings if you want without legal standing).
Firearms ownership is expressly permitted by by the constitution with no restriction whatsoever. As our law stands and as long as we have states that are subject to the constitution then laws restricting firearms are preempted and invalid.
From an AC style/pure libertarian perspective states/localities have the right to do as they see fit unless it harms another through force or fraud.
Since gay marriage harms no one it would be allowed. Since firearms themselves harm no one they would be allowed. I can see an argument where gay marriage or guns would be restricted in some areas of ACland, but that would be an aberrant non-libertarian society IMO