Please excuse the off-topic blog post, but I am a lawyer and this case needs to be discussed.

The Supreme Court is hearing the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago which most commentators will consider a gun rights case.  Specifically, whether individuals have a Constitutional right to bear arms that cannot be infringed upon by the states.  The petitioner’s opening brief is here.  The Seventh Circuit’s decision is here.

This case stands for much more than gun rights, but, as the brief points out, is truly about the meaning of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the import of the Privileges or Immunities clause.  The clause provides:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States ….

The question is to what extent do the Bill of Rights apply to the states?  Or conversely, to what extent is state regulatory power checked by the Bill of Rights?

After the Civil War and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the Supreme Court decided that the Privileges or Immunities Clause did not limit state conduct that infringed on rights set forth in the Bill of Rights.  These cases started with the Slaughterhouse Cases.

As such, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment became the mechanism by which the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states.  This continues to this day with the Privileges or Immunities clause being quaint text and the stuff of constitutional scholars.

Until now.  The petitioner in McDonald seeks to overturn Slaughterhouse and recognize that the federal Bill of Rights is applicable to the several States by operation of the Privileges or Immunities clause.

One to watch.