The Implications of the California Court Who Overruled the Vote of the People

In 2000, in a referendum, the people of California voted to ban gay marriage. The power of the people was heard. However, we recently had a court in California decide the voice and votes of the people do not matter. They struck down the ban on gay marriage against the will of the people. So, here is what the court did. They decided, first off, to throw out the vote of the people, which is ok in this case, but wasn’t there a bit of an uproar over the 2000 elections involving a recount and the votes of the people when it came to the general election for the Presidency of the United States? Oh, there was an uproar? Right. Just checking. Ok, back on topic, we have a court who basically declared that one group of people cannot vote to infringe upon the “rights” of another group of people. I’m not sure where in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution that a right exists allowing homosexuals to marry, but regardless, you have a court who said one group can’t vote and pass a law infringing on the rights of another. Well, let’s take a look at something that actually is a right: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s an actual right. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This means, in keeping consistent with the California court who said one group cannot pass a law infringing on the rights of others, that every single voter approved gun law on the books today MUST BE STRUCK DOWN AND REPEALED. The people who support anti-gun legislation cannot vote and pass any legislation that infringes on my rights, or anyone else’s rights for that matter, to carry a gun or what types of Arms we’re allowed to keep and bear.
Second point, we’ll look at more from the Constitution. Article IV, Section 2: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Does that not mean that any Privilege and Immunity a citizen in California is entitled to, that every other citizen in every other state is also entitled to? Right, they are, that’s what I thought. So, now that California has struck down gay marriage and the citizens of California are now entitled to the “right” to gay marriage, every other citizen in every other state, by the Constitution, is entitled to gay marriage. Back to guns. Since the right of one group of people cannot be infringed by the vote of another group of people, as seen by the court in California who struck down a gay marriage ban, and every citizen in every other state is entitled to what the citizens in California are entitled to, does that not mean that a permit to carry a firearm issued to me, a citizen of Pennsylvania, must be respected by every other state? Does that not mean that the citizens of Illinois are entitled to a permit to carry a firearm since I am able to obtain a permit to carry a firearm by the state of Pennsylvania?
I have to ask, when are we going to learn, as a people, that the decisions made by our courts, when legal, are not eligible for cherry picking on the issues convenient to those who are in charge? If the constitution says we are entitled to the rights of citizens in other states, and a court has ruled that one group of people cannot vote to infringe on the rights of another group of people, that means all states must recognize carry permits and every state must allow its citizens to apply for a carry permit.
All of this is really a mere fantasy as I can’t see this ruling holding up in a real court. The court does not have the constitutional ability to use their power to correct a social “injustice.”