View Single Post
Old April 19, 2013, 04:20 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
Con Law 101: P AND I and/or P OR I as re: National Reciprocity

Originally Posted by Founding Fathers
Article IV Section 2,

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This clause has been most famously defined by Associate Justice Bushrod Washington - a founding father as a State Delegate for Virginia in 1787, as well as a Delegate for the Virginia convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution in 1788.1 In Corfield v. Coryell (6 Fed. Cas. 546, no. 3,230 C.C.E.D.Pa. 1823) 2
he states:
Originally Posted by Associate Justice Bushrod
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 the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.
The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised. These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities, and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each state, in every other state, was manifestly calculated (to use the expressions of the preamble of the corresponding provision in the old articles of confederation) "the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states of the Union
Additionally we have our own second amendment, and the English Bill of Rights from 1689- Which acts as both a source of common law via Reception Statutes in every state but Louisiana3 So the right-
Originally Posted by Unknown British dudes similar to our founding fathers
no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law
is probably not covered by a reception statute, but it is informative as to the general purpose of our own Second Amendment, according to Blackstone's Commentaries Book 1 Ch 1 – "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject ... is that of having arms for their defence". as reported in the footnote number 18 4

So now as I string things together, The right to keep and bear arms is arguably a Fundamental Rght and Associate Justice Bushrod holds that the Priveleges AND Immunites
which are, in their nature, fundamental
are the ones protected from state to state deviance by the Priveleges AND Immunities Clause of the Constitution. Now because this is Privileges AND Immunities, not Privileges OR Immunities, I believe we sidestep both the 14th Amendment, AND the Slaughterhouse Cases.
  • 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

Now, what I don't have a handle on, is the Slaughterhouse Case, and what it means above and beyond the straightforward facts in it's case.. the esoteric/philosophical/nuanced type of effects that case has.

Last edited by JimDandy; April 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM.
JimDandy is offline  
Page generated in 0.05420 seconds with 7 queries