Guns and the Law Part II

In part I of Guns and the Law we examined the similarities and differences between firearms ownership on federal territory and state territory and how the Bills of Rights have been applied to the states piecemeal over time. The Court seems to have settled in DC v Heller that the 2^nd Amendment applies to individuals and state militia. But The Court waited until McDonald v. Chicago to decide if and how the 2^nd Amendment applies to the states and the individuals who live therein.

The 14^th Amendment to the constitution has been used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Section I reads:”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In McDonald v Chicago, McDonald’s lawyers argue that the privileges or immunities part of Section I to the 14^th Amendment makes the 2^nd Amendment applicable to the states. They also argue that the 2^nd Amendment applies to the states through substantive due process. In this installment of Guns and the Law we will investigate the privileges or immunities clause.

The privileges or immunities clause is one of the most confusing parts of the constitution. Looked at historically, it was probable included to apply the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states. But in 1873, the Supreme Court ruled in Slaughter-House Cases that each citizen has dual citizenship; belonging to the United States and to the state the citizen resides in. The 14^th Amendment’s privileges or immunities was applied only to the Federal government, while Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution applied to the states.

 The Court held that the privileges or immunities clause did not restrict the police powers of the individual states. In part III of Guns and the Law we will take a closer look at the Slaughter-House Cases to demonstrate how a well intentioned activist court can have far reaching negative consequences.

Read Part I of Guns and the Law