P AND I and/or P OR I as re: National Reciprocity

From the Critisim portion of the Slaughterhouse Wiki page

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe writes that “the Slaughter-House Cases incorrectly gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause.” Similarly, Yale law professor Akhil Amar has written “Virtually no serious modern scholar—left, right, and center—thinks that Slaughter-House is a plausible reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.”[13]
Click to expand...

A spinoff ofthis case was later again heard by SCOTUS in the Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. (1884) case, with the U.S. Supreme Court holding that Crescent City Co. did not have a contract with the state, and that revocation of the monopoly privilege was not a violation of the Contract Clause.
 
Vibe has it right, and so does Wikipedia. The Slaughterhouse cases are a joke, and the legal community knows it.

If I brought some otherwise-legit case before SCOTUS, and the govt said, "speedrrracer should lose this case because of this precedent from Slaughterhouse", the SCOTUS justices would bitchslap the govt in a heartbeat.

Basing anything off Slaughterhouse is a bad idea. The best you'd get is SCOTUS trying to give a little respect and give it the treatment like Miller got in Heller, where SCOTUS would pigeonhole it and say something like, "Slaughterhouse only means X in circumstance Y, and has no other value".

I will grant you that if some case arose which was politically unpleasant to the SCOTUS justices, and they needed Slaughterhouse to justify an otherwise clearly unconstitutional decision, they would not hesitate to use it to serve their ends. Legal yoga is the primary function of SCOTUS, not accurately interpreting the Constitution.

On an unrelated note, I wanted to add that I also enjoy your '101' threads -- keep 'em up!
 
What about my hypothesis that P AND I is different than P OR I, with different precedent, and a possibly different result because it brings a different set of precedent?

I have fun too. I get to learn, while I do a little research so I'm hopefully doing more than emulating a monkey throwing crap at the wall until the real lawyers tell me what sticks.

Plus as I was telling Spats, I get to daydream about saving our hobby and rights for everyone and imagine what I'd buy with the millions Mr. Gura would share with me for using my ideas that I present in such an innovative and insightful manner.

So far I'm still fixating on the Browning 725 over/under, though realistically aiming for a 4 pack of Walmart special trap loads may be aiming too high :D But it's still fun to dream.
 
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.
 
Simplistic

From the Corfield v. Coryell opinion quoted:
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
Click to expand...
From which JimDandy posits the following:
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
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
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?
 
but I still get the other two!
Click to expand...

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:

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.
Click to expand...


And half of this was trying to prove we do have the right to bear outside the home.
Click to expand...

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".
 
then non-resident citizens have a right to carry previous
Click to expand...

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.

including the constitutional right of bearing arms
Click to expand...

Which is another nail in the coffin of "inside the home" as that's not "bearing" as people have been referring to it.
 
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.
 
You have the Right to "Bear", and in carry, presumably openly - since concealed has been reduced to a priveledge
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top