Obie,
Here's where your argument comes off the rails
The senator that proposed the 14th amendment even made reference to Priv AND Immunities and Priv OR Immunities in his discussion of the proposed and subsequently ratified ammendment as being one in the same
Heck he even refers back to Judge Washington's assessment of Corfield vs Coryell where Washington states:
Priv's and/or Immunities are not Rights and throughout the 18th and most of the 19th century were NEVER used interchageably.
P and/or I is and always has fundamentally been about equal application of law to all citizens
Heck, to further dispel the 20th century notion that P and/or I = Rights let alone "Civil Rights" we should turn to the Senator who proposed 14a and his own comments that 14A was NEVER intended to provide blacks with the right to vote,
This is OBVIOUSLY not something that I in any way, shape or form support but it is nonetheless evidence that the rubber don't meet the road in your assertion than Rights = P and/or I.
The 20th century "Interpretation" of 18th and 19th century language is a fatal stumbling block that has led to 100 plus years of justification, perversion and horrible case law that has trampled the rights of citizens.
Trying to use a perverted interpretation of a constitutional ammendment and 100 years of bad case law as justification for forcing a framework of regulation (CCW) on all states is insanity and will only lead to a one size fits none approach to RKBA......
68 GCA was a trainwreck for us as was the previous one.......Brady and every other federal regulation have always had a net effect of further restricting and violating our rights.....not further liberating them.....anyone that things Fed mandated CCW wont result in further trampling of RKBA is ignoring the last 125 years of federal on this and ALMOST every other issue of rights
Here's where your argument comes off the rails
The senator that proposed the 14th amendment even made reference to Priv AND Immunities and Priv OR Immunities in his discussion of the proposed and subsequently ratified ammendment as being one in the same
Heck he even refers back to Judge Washington's assessment of Corfield vs Coryell where Washington states:
"The next question is whether this act infringes that section of the Constitution which declares that
'the citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities
of citizens in the several states?'
"The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immun
ities of citizens in the several States? We feel
no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature
fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times
been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States
which compose this Union from the time of their
becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would, perhaps, be
more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following
general heads: protection by the Government, the enjo
yment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire
and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to
such restraints as the Government may justly prescrib
e for the general good of the whole. The right of a
citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture,
professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of
habeas corpus
; to institute and
maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the Stat
e; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real
personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State,
may be mentioned as some of the particular priv
ileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly
embraced by the general description of privileges deem
ed to be fundamental,, to which may be added the
elective franchise, as regulated and established by the la
ws or constitution of the State in which it is to be
exercised. These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and
immunities, and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each State in every other State was manifestly
calculated (to use the expressions of the preamble of
the corresponding provision in the old Articles of
Confederation) 'the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of
the different States of the Union.'
Priv's and/or Immunities are not Rights and throughout the 18th and most of the 19th century were NEVER used interchageably.
P and/or I is and always has fundamentally been about equal application of law to all citizens
Heck, to further dispel the 20th century notion that P and/or I = Rights let alone "Civil Rights" we should turn to the Senator who proposed 14a and his own comments that 14A was NEVER intended to provide blacks with the right to vote,
This is OBVIOUSLY not something that I in any way, shape or form support but it is nonetheless evidence that the rubber don't meet the road in your assertion than Rights = P and/or I.
The 20th century "Interpretation" of 18th and 19th century language is a fatal stumbling block that has led to 100 plus years of justification, perversion and horrible case law that has trampled the rights of citizens.
Trying to use a perverted interpretation of a constitutional ammendment and 100 years of bad case law as justification for forcing a framework of regulation (CCW) on all states is insanity and will only lead to a one size fits none approach to RKBA......
68 GCA was a trainwreck for us as was the previous one.......Brady and every other federal regulation have always had a net effect of further restricting and violating our rights.....not further liberating them.....anyone that things Fed mandated CCW wont result in further trampling of RKBA is ignoring the last 125 years of federal on this and ALMOST every other issue of rights
Last edited: