marshaul
Campaign Veteran
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:
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.
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: