That is definitely true under the reading, but the reverse is also true.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"
Maybe I am reading this differently. If I live in "each State" which would mean any State, then I would be entitled to the priveledges and immunities of citizens in any other State. A state can not make something a crime which is solely dependent upon the "offender" simply possessing and object or engaging in an activity while being located in a specific geographic area. There was much discussion of this concept in early America. To not respect this, would mean that all "travelers" would have to know the laws of anywhere they pass through, and could be incarcerated for simply doing something that was fine and dandy where they came from.
Do you have links for this? I think that discussion might have had more to do with the commerce clause thatn the privileges&immunities clause, but I'd be interested in seeing what they had to say.
I think that reading is not accurate, as it would be a direct violation of the concept of states rights.
A state can not make something a crime which is solely dependent upon the "offender" simply possessing and object or engaging in an activity while being located in a specific geographic area.
They do it all the time. Obtain a one-ounce bag of pot in Colorado, get stopped and it is a summary offense. Now, drive with that bag of pot to Arizona, and you can get thrown in jail.
There was much discussion of this concept in early America. To not respect this, would mean that all "travelers" would have to know the laws of anywhere they pass through, and could be incarcerated for simply doing something that was fine and dandy where they came from.
Once again, that happens all the time.