-
The 2nd Circuit (Bach v. Pataki) reaffirmed two idiotic notions Friday: that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean anything, and that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment Article IV also doesn't mean anything.
In a unanimous decision, the three judge panel said they were bound by the 1886 US Supreme Court decision Pressler v. Illinois and must rule that the 2nd Amendment binds only the federal government, not the states. Never mind that this ruling came before the incorporation doctrine where the Bill of Rights was retroactively imposed upon the states. Apparently this won't apply to the 2nd Amendment until the Supreme Court says so. They also ruled that "privileges and immunities" don't apply if the if the discrimination "has a substantial and legitimate connection" with a state purpose. Which could mean nearly anything.
It should be noted that Bach is not some right-wing crank or wife-beater seeking a gun for nefarious purposes. He is by all accounts just the kind of person who one would choose to license: an ex-Navy SEAL with a top secret security clearance. He has a carry permit in his home state and simply wished to be permitted to carry the weapon into another state (New York) on periodic visits to relatives. New York, however, limits permits to residents, so he is completely SOL, and cannot be trusted with a gun.
Given a few minor changes at the Supreme Court, this would be an ideal case to overturn Pressler after far too long.
You're right about the Second Amendment, but I'm 90% sure you're wrong on the P&I clause. Having read only the story you linked, and not the case itself, I'm pretty sure they were talking about the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, not Amendment XIV. The Article IV P&I clause does get enforced every now and then, in cases alleging discrimination against out of staters, usually in professional contexts.
Posted by: Xrlq at May 9, 2005 11:02 PMooops. You're right. Reading the decision more carefully, it was an Article IV claim they disallowed as a "reasonable" discrimination.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at May 9, 2005 11:36 PM