PDA

View Full Version : South Dakota CCW case, my take.


nicki
02-11-2011, 8:38 AM
No I am not an early riser, just trying to go to sleep, but before I do I want to hit you with something that is keeping up.:D

Mr Smith wins his CCW lawsuit against South Dakota because they won't issue CCW permits to non US citizens.:mad:

So, South Dakota has lost, now what. Well what they have to do is appeal all the way to the US Supreme court.:TFH:

So, what could possibly be their "defense". Well, here it is.:43:

South Dakota argues that "bearing arms" is a "privilege and immunity" of "Citizenship" and that since Mr Smith is not a citizen, he does not have the "privilege to bear arms".

South Dakota argues the the "Second Amendment" protects the right to bear arms, and takes the position that open carry is a constitutional right, concealed carry is a "privilege and immunity" of citizenship.

They could even cite "Dredd Scott" , the most racists ruling the SCOTUS ever made which ruled that Blacks were not citizens and therefore had no rights for precendence since Dredd Scott actually rules on bearing arms.

If he really wanted to be a smart a**, he could say he has the same handgun carry rights as an common British subject in Britian.

This could be a case that breaths life into the "Privileges and Immunities" Clause of the 14th amendment. Something Alan Gura tried to do in MacDonald.

Justice Thomas already has shown he is game, the issue though is do the four "liberals" want to do it. Are they committed to open another venue to expand personal rights?

In fact, Justice Thomas would be appropriate for this case since it is a "equality under the law" case.

And as a bonus, Mr Smith's case was handled by the South Dakota Chapter of the ACLU, so the lead attorney's in his case will not be the NRA, it will be the ACLU.

The national ACLU will be in a jam because they actually want "privilege and immunities. Will they hold their nose and accept a gun victory to get Privileges and Immunities.

What do you guys think?

Nicki

cindynles
02-11-2011, 8:52 AM
And as a bonus, Mr Smith's case was handled by the South Dakota Chapter of the ACLU, so the lead attorney's in his case will not be the NRA, it will be the ACLU.

The national ACLU will be in a jam because they actually want "privilege and immunities. Will they hold their nose and accept a gun victory to get Privileges and Immunities.

My WAG is that they would based on the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The National ACLU disliked the intrusion of the federal goverment much more than is dislikes gun rights.

Untamed1972
02-11-2011, 9:03 AM
The thing I noticed in reading the ruling is that the judge was saying because of Smith's 30yr history in the US the state had a sufficient track record to look at to determine if he was a dangerous person by means of the "triple I" system.

But how does that apply then to someone who has only been in the country for say a few months?

Window_Seat
02-11-2011, 10:09 AM
I hate to be nit-picky here, but:

1: privileges or immunities clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause)

2: Privileges and Immunities clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause)

We know what #1 is above.

# 2 is Article IV, Section 2.

Maybe it shouldn't have, but it drove me a bit crazy when SCOTUS Justices used "and" more often than "or" in the McDonald orals.

Has/could #2 ever been argued for any of our cases, or is it better to argue the other?

Otherwise (IMO), EP would be the better thing to argue, especially when it allows that person to work certain jobs that deal with dangerous equipment (like vehicles transporting firearms and/or ammunition) (which is a privilege).

Erik.

Scarecrow Repair
02-12-2011, 8:20 AM
I hate to be nit-picky here, but:

It's both. If a restaurant promises bacon and eggs for breakfast, they don't get to ask if you want bacon or eggs, you get both. The conjunction changes depending on usage. It's nothing tricky.

Window_Seat
02-12-2011, 10:29 AM
It's both. If a restaurant promises bacon and eggs for breakfast, they don't get to ask if you want bacon or eggs, you get both. The conjunction changes depending on usage. It's nothing tricky.

Someone here (might have been you) gave me that same analogy quite some time before McDonald was decided, and I still can't figure it out. I just know (for now) that there are 2, one with an and, and one with an or. :laugh:

Or could it be that (using the same analogy) that when the 14th was ratified, was it that the ratifiers wanted to make it so that they could not take away either my bacon or my eggs, as well as both all together by virtue of the fact that they put or instead of and in the 14th? Is this where we fight SF for taking away my toy but letting me keep my happy meal?

Is it as if I "go eat a sandwich (on sourdough or rye), and take a nap"? It's been a lot for me to digest, but I'm coming along... :laugh:

On a rather serious note... Would it be more likely for Slaughterhouse to be OT if litigants argued the case directly instead of through some other court action, or would SCOTUS never take it, or does it just not work that way?

Erik.