by Michael Ramsey
David S. Cohen (Drexel University -- Earle Mack School of Law) has posted McDonald's Paradoxical Legacy: State Restrictions on Non-Citizens' Gun Rights (Maryland Law Review, vol. 71, p. 1219, 2012) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
For originalists who agree with Justice Thomas that the privileges or immunities clause is the best source of incorporation this issue may be a broader problem than just the paradox of McDonald. Does that position commit one to the proposition that non-citizens have very few rights against the states (e.g., no free speech rights, no right against cruel and unusual punishment)? And is there Fourteenth-Amendment-era evidence that this is how the Amendment was understood?
Relying on the Supreme Court's recent
decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of
Chicago, the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts recently ruled that the Second Amendment's individual
right to possess a gun for self-defense, which the Supreme Court found
in Heller and incorporated against the states in McDonald, protected a
lawful permanent resident's right to bear arms and that the
Massachusetts statutory scheme with respect to non-citizens violated
that right. The district court found that the Second Amendment applies
to non-citizens because the court read McDonald as incorporating the
Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause, which protects against
states infringing on the rights of "persons." However, the court erred
when it ignored the voting paradox within the McDonald decision. This
Essay attempts to resolve McDonald's paradox in the context of
non-citizens by applying a modification of the familiar rule for dealing
with fragmented Supreme Court opinions. Under that modified rule, there
is no basis for finding that the Second Amendment, applied to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects non-citizens from gun
restrictions. There may be other reasons to find that states cannot
restrict non-citizens from owning or possessing firearms, but based on
Supreme Court precedent, incorporation of a fundamental right is not one of them.
In case it isn't clear from the abstract, the problem is that only four Justices in McDonald
thought the right to bear arms was incorporated against the states
through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause; four thought it
was not incorporated at all, and Justice Thomas, on originalist grounds,
thought it was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment's
privileges or immunities clause. But the privileges or immunties
clause, unlike the due process clause, applies only to "citizens of the
United States" -- hence the difficulty identified in the article.For originalists who agree with Justice Thomas that the privileges or immunities clause is the best source of incorporation this issue may be a broader problem than just the paradox of McDonald. Does that position commit one to the proposition that non-citizens have very few rights against the states (e.g., no free speech rights, no right against cruel and unusual punishment)? And is there Fourteenth-Amendment-era evidence that this is how the Amendment was understood?
No comments:
Post a Comment