Discrimination based on state of residence, CCW

J

JimDandy

New member
So I've seen a case around here of a guy who sued- I think Denver- because he couldn't carry concealed while visiting there. And I've seen people point out both that he may have chosen his respondent poorly, and that states cannot discriminate against US citizens based on their state of residence.

Which brings me to my quasi-hypothetical question. Given the case law, why not sue New York, which will not give an ownership license, let alone a concealed carry permit to a non-resident?
 
The first problem is standing. In order to have standing, there must be an actual "case or controversy." For example, I would not be able to sue NY at this point in my life because I: (1) do not live in NY; (2) do not travel to NY; (3) have no concrete plans to visit NY. Accordingly, I cannot say that I am harmed in any sort of concrete, particularized manner by NY's Safe Act. NY residents, those who travel regularly to NY and (maybe) folks with some concrete plans to travel to or do business in NY might have standing.
 
So to do so, one has to declare- I want to see the Empire State Building and Ground Zero while engaged in a patently American activity like concealed carrying of a firearm, sock away the money to pay for the trip in a Savings account, and then either sock away enough extra money to pay a lawyer, OR convince a SAF type organization to take it pro-bono?
 
If we're talking discrimination, you'd have to show that you're part of a protected class. "Out of towner" doesn't qualify.
 
You'd have a lot better argument using the "full faith and credit" clause. It'd still be a losing argument, but it wouldn't be so embarassingly easy to shoot down.
 
I may not be using the right terminology as a layman...

So why couldn't I cite Corfield v Coryell, and
...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...
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be being denied the second amendment right for not being a state citizen be an imposition?
 
JimDandy:

The best US Supreme Court cases against the idea that states can discriminate against visitors and/or recent immigrants from other states are Ward v. Maryland 1870 and Saenz v. Roe 1999.

I recommend reading them. I think Ward is actually more on point myself but the fact that Ward's logic was repeated in 1999 is important too.

Also: the McDonald decision specifically didn't over-turn Slaughter-house and the Slaughter-house decision praises the logic in Ward. So Ward is absolutely still good case law.
 
I can cite all three couldn't I? And have the historians on my side as the Judge who wrong the Corfield opinion was actually involved in writing the Constitution?
 
Has anyone challenged and won on the difference in hunting license costs.
In VA a regular hunting license is $23 out of state is $111 plus extra on both to cover deer, bear etc. $86 for non-residents $23 for residents. So to hunt deer the total is $46 in-state and $197 for out-of-state. Of course the same thing is done for college tuitions. In the case of colleges a large part of the income for the college does come from state revenues, I am not sure what the excuse is for the hunting fees. The charge for non resident conceal carry permits is also higher, $100 versus, I think, a maximum of $50 for residents. My county has dropped their fee to $30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top