Replies

"they said he would be able to carry a gun wherever he went"

I'm white and I can't do that.

Does federal law prevent me? No, state laws prevent me.

My guess is that the P&I to which the court was referring dealt with the P&I of each state.

"Neither does it apply to a person who, being the citizen of a State, migrates to another State. For then he becomes subject to the laws of the State in which he lives, and he is no longer a citizen of the State from which he removed. And the State in which he resides may then, unquestionably, determine his status or condition, and place him among the class of persons who are not recognized as citizens, but belong to an inferior and subject race; and may deny him the privileges and immunities enjoyed by its citizens."

"But if he ranks as a citizen in the State to which he belongs, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then, whenever he goes into another State, the Constitution clothes him, as to the rights of person, with all the privileges and immunities which belong to citizens of the State (not the United States -rp)."
-- DredScott case. The Opinion of the Court: Mr. Chief Justice Taney

robertpaulsen said: "My guess is that the P&I to which the court was referring dealt with the P&I of each state."

Perhaps.

Here is the quote from the decision:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. A reasonable person might attach to the reference to "keep and bear arms" the same limitation expressed in the phrase "upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak" but such a limitation is not explicit.

Here now is is the relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; To suggest that the "immunities" of citizens of the United States do not include protection from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is to ignore the Second Amendment. Your "Even if" in a posting above has allowed you to remain non-committal with respect to this very important part of the Bill of Rights.

IF there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, as referred to in the Second Amendment, and IF citizens of the United States are immune to federal infringement of such right, and IF such immunity is among the "privileges and immunities" referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment, THEN why does my right to keep and bear arms depend in any way on the Constitution of California?

I am not suprised you should misquote Dred Scott - here is what else Chief Justice Taney had to say "...For if they [blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Taney actually said exactly the OPPOSITE of what your partial and out of context excerpt implies, since the right to bear arms is a Federal right and the states are under obligation to respect the supremacy of the Federal Constitution. Notwithstanding the efforts of many judges to twist the evident and clearly stated meaning of the Constitution, and the existence of a number of cases which are in ERROR, the BOR applies to the states, as it did before the 14th Amendment, and surely after.

robertpaulsen said: I'm white and I can't do that [carry a gun wherever he goes].
Does federal law prevent me? No, state laws prevent me.

"No"???

State law prevents you from carrying firearms in National Parks? State law prevents you from carrying firearms on a commercial aircraft? State law prevents you from carrying firearms within 1000 feet of a school?

Once again, it seems to me that you want to have it both ways.

When it suits disarmament, you support the idea that there are no "unalienable rights" and only rights enumerated in state constitutions cannot be infringed.

When it suits disarmament, you support the idea that the Second Amendment does not "create" or "confer" a right to keep and bear arms, despite having enumerated such a right by its clear prohibition against infringement.

When it suits disarmament, you support the fantasy "collective rights" concept to restrict the protections of the Second Amendment to militias, and not to the people explicitly protected by that amendment.

When it suits disarmament, you support exclusion of the unfettered right to keep and bear arms from the "privileges and immunites" which were enjoyed even by free blacks at the time of our nation's founding.

When it suits disarmament, you support ignoring the clear language of the Fourteenth Amendment, extending the privileges and immunities of United States citizens to the citizens of every state, by suggesting that states alone may decide what privileges and immunities citizens will have and that only "due process" is relevant.

We are about to become two nations, due to conflicts between Federal District courts which no amount of "compromising" can make go away. Just as Lincoln observed that the nation cannot continue half-free and half-slave, our nation cannot continue half-armed and half-disarmed.