• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Texas Senate Passes Guns On Campus

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
A few years back Virginia instituted a law which created hefty new fines, but only for residents. This was done away with fairly quickly due to immense unpopularity, but there was quite a bit of talk at the time that it was likely unconstitutional to create penalties which did or did not apply depending solely on where you lived.

It's one thing to have slightly different processes for in- and out-of-state residents. It's quite another to create an entire class of crime (in this case, carrying a concealed weapon) which simply doesn't exist for one group of people (in this case, residents).

That sure seems like denying that group "within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But I'm not familiar with much case law about this issue.



Edit: There was a SCOTUS case earlier this year over Virginia's FOIA being available only to residents. I found the following bit of dicta:

This does not mean, we have
cautioned, that "state citizenship or residency may never
be used by a State to distinguish among persons." Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont., 436 U. S. 371,
383 (1978). "Nor must a State always apply all its laws or
all its services equally to anyone, resident or nonresident,
who may request it so to do." Ibid. Rather, we have long
held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects
only those privileges and immunities that are "fundamental."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...al-right-to-virginias-foia-law.shtml#comments

The court goes on to explain that FOIA act requests are not a "fundamental" privilege.

It would seem to me that, in a previous age, this sort of thing wasn't a big deal. States could simply prohibit carrying weapons, but make an exemption for permit-holders. Nothing would require them, however, to offer the permit-granting service to non-residents.

However, today we have an undisputed individual right to keep and bear arms. (Note that the SCOTUS expanded "privileges" from merely acts created by the fedgov, such as voting, to essentially all "fundamental" rights, such as owning property and traveling interstate). Moreover, laws such as Wyoming's are passed in explicit recognition and furtherance of this fact.

It seems quite audacious to recognize that something is a right, do away with the licensure thereof, but then, oh well, forget that pesky 14th amendment, this right doesn't apply to non-residents after all.
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Sort of. WY's "Constitutional Carry" only applies to its own residents, not other visiting citizens of the United States.

what's wyoming's "stop and identify" law? are open carriers required to prove identity?
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
"I opposed the bill because, given today’s climate and the rise of crime on ours campuses"

Is there a "climate and rise of crime" on our campuses? I wasn't aware of such a situation. I am aware that we are at a 4 decade low for crime nationwide, but I can't speak for Texas campuses. Is this referencing an actual situation in the real world?
 
Top