I am speaking specifically to interstate recognition of licenses. If someone has a license (drivers, marriage or concealed carry) in their home state, the first two are recognized and honored by all other states, why not the 3rd? Based on the 14th Amendment (equal protection of rights under the law) and the 2nd Amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear arms), it seems that if the federal courts can say to the states "you can't make your own laws on this commonly shared right and must honor and allow for the licensure that an individual has in their home state" that firearm possession is a right that is similarly protected by the 14th and as an extension of the 2nd. Since marriage isn't even specifically stated in the Constitution as a protected right of the people, but has been given that status as one that the "States may not make laws prohibiting", I would imagine that it is only a matter of time before the courts are presented with cases that use the precedence of this recent ruling emphasized with the fact that firearm ownership is explicitly expressed in the 2nd and not just implicitly inferred by the 14th.

I'll just say what I said before, the right to transport any gun you want from state to state isn't quite as important to our society as being able to marry the person you love. In a time when the 1st amendment and the 4th amendment are being shredded it amazes me that people think we need to worry about the 2nd, its about the only one not under threat. I live in the south so maybe I'm biased but mass quantities of guns are really easy to get. I personally don't want people carting them all around the country. You're not gonna convince me that the right to carry a gun across state lines is anywhere close to being on par with right to marry. You are of course free to believe whatever you like though. Have a good one :)