The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 22, 2013, 04:13 PM   #26
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 212
We see no need to reconsider that interpretation here. For many decades, the question of the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state infringement has been analyzed under the Due Process Clause of that Amendment and not under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. We therefore decline to disturb the Slaughter-House holding.

From McDonald v Chicago. No mention of the case being decided correctly, just that it's basically easier to do the due process clause runaround.
press1280 is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 04:23 PM   #27
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
More precedent on 14A. That's why I'm suggesting we base it on Article 4, Section 2- avoid Slaughterhouse entirely.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 07:53 PM   #28
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,472
Simplistic

From the Corfield v. Coryell opinion quoted:
Quote:
The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union
From which JimDandy posits the following:
Quote:
Any US citizen should be able to travel from their state, to any other state bearing arms in some fashion.

Requiring FOID type permits to purchase long guns, and/or ammunition or for the simple act of bearing arms is unconstitutional if those cards are not readily available for non-resident citizens without foricng the disarmament of those citizens by an unarmed trip to the location.

A state that allows concealed carry must either allow a non-resident permit of equal cost, effectiveness, and availability as the one to residents OR honor the permit of any and every other State and Territory of the Union
But do we know that possessing or carrying a weapon outside the home is a fundamental right (outside the 7th Circuit)? If not, then a citizen of one state cannot have the right to actively bear arms in another because it is not a fundamental right.

So, let's don't put the cart before the horse. Let's get an explicit decision from the Supreme Court holding that the 2A includes the fundamental right to bear arms outside the house. Then we can worry about the other stuff.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 08:44 PM   #29
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
OK maybe there, but I still get the other two!

And half of this was trying to prove we do have the right to bear outside the home. The Reception Statutes, remember?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 10:50 PM   #30
Hugh Damright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 609
Quote:
but I still get the other two!
How do you construe a nondiscriminatory provision (Article IV, Section 2) to mean that if a State requires carry permits, then non-resident citizens have a right to carry previous to obtaining such permits? Isn't that what is meant by "without forcing the disarmament of those citizens by an unarmed trip to the location" in the statement that:

Quote:
How Requiring FOID type permits to purchase long guns, and/or ammunition or for the simple act of bearing arms is unconstitutional if those cards are not readily available for non-resident citizens without forcing the disarmament of those citizens by an unarmed trip to the location.

Quote:
And half of this was trying to prove we do have the right to bear outside the home.
Not under Article IV, Section 2.

But if we focus on nondiscrimination, I seem to get some traction on the idea that a State's carry laws must have a provision for non-resident citizens (per Article IV, Section 2) ... for that matter, it also seems that the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause requires that a State's carry laws have provisions for any person to carry ... in the legislative history of the 14th, the preceding Freedmen's Bureau Bill specifically mentioned the RKBA in its equal protection clause, regarding "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms".
Hugh Damright is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 08:42 AM   #31
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
then non-resident citizens have a right to carry previous
Not necessarily. If they allow a LEO local to the out-of-state citizen to perform fingerprinting, and sign off on So-And-So really being So-And-So- similar to other states such as Florida (I think) that will take mailed or electronic submissions of this data from out of state.

Quote:
including the constitutional right of bearing arms
Which is another nail in the coffin of "inside the home" as that's not "bearing" as people have been referring to it.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 09:18 AM   #32
Vibe
Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2002
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 73
You have the Right to "Keep", as in own and store, presumably on your premises.
You have the Right to "Bear", and in carry, presumably openly - since concealed has been reduced to a priveledge.

But under no circumstances do you have the RIGHT to discharge a firearm, or weapon of any type, offensively or without defensive purpose.
__________________
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
- Marcus Aurelius -

TFL Member #17104
Vibe is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 09:25 AM   #33
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
You have the Right to "Bear", and in carry, presumably openly - since concealed has been reduced to a priveledge
Actually currently that's only law in those jurisdictions under the 7th? Circuit. Other Circuits either haven't ruled, or have ruled differently and are "in tension" is I think the technical term from the Alphabet Soup people.

Beyond that, even the 7th Circuit doesn't tell you HOW you bear is a right. Just that SOME way of bearing is a right. i.e. Either or, even both, but not none. A state can allow Concealed carry, but ban Open carry, like Texas, or Allow Open Carry but not(or heavily heavily restrict) Concealed. Like...- somebody I guess.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 03:51 PM   #34
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
And some States have a right to keep and bear that is more stringently worded.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 30, 2013, 07:15 AM   #35
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 590
Here in NJ, the state constitution has no wording on the RKBA. Even if it did, the constitution gets changed on a whim so many times that it probably wouldn't matter, as it would've been struck by now.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old April 30, 2013, 08:49 AM   #36
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Then it defaults to the Federal RKBA, which has been incorporated.
JimDandy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10149 seconds with 9 queries