I admit this one is my fault. He was busy touting federalism as a state's right to reject Texas gun culture from existing in his state of PA.
I pointed out that he rejects federalism when it comes to imposing San Francisco homosexual culture on the rest of the nation.
Hypocrisy.
That is what I was pointing out.
No hypocrisy. Different issue. Marriage equality implicates the Constitution's equal protection requirement. The equivalent to the gun issue under discussion would be a state law that permits open carry, but not for gays (or blacks, or Jews, etc.) When the state affords valuable rights and protections, those rights and protections must be extended equally under the law.
When you object to marriage equality, what you should be objecting to is the state recognizing the institution at all. The state can't grant special rights and privileges to Christians that marry, while denying them to agnostics or, as you insist, gays.
The open carry issue has nothing to do with equal protection. Laws regulating (or not regulating) open carry apply equally to all who are present within a state's or constituent community's borders. When a Texan travels to Philadelphia, he is subject to Philly's laws, just as a Philadelphian who travels to Texas is subject to Texas's laws. That's federalism, that's state sovereignty. Anyone who calls himself or herself a conservative ought to agree with this fundamental principle.
I understand that the objection is that, well, the Second Amendment is just special. Well, it isn't. All of the Constitution's enumerated rights are subject to reasonable regulation. Christian bakers aren't exempt from nondiscrimination laws of general application. Gun owners aren't exempt from state laws regulating the carrying of arms in the public square.
The Second Amendment's reach is well demonstrated in the Heller case. There, the District of Columbia effectively banned the ownership of handguns, even in the home. There, state/local regulation went too far, denying the District's citizens their natural right to protect hearth and home. But open carry in the public square is not a natural right. Open carry has traditionally been subject to local regulation, and no one here can point to any jurisprudence that says otherwise. Not one single example! Case closed, folks - you may view Philly's rules to be unwise, but my community has the right to address public safety in the way we see fit. As does Texas. That's what makes America great - we are a federation of sovereign states.
I think voluntary reciprocity with respect to concealed carry permits is sound policy. But reciprocity is not compelled by the Second Amendment.