divemedic
Member
In conducting some research, I found an interesting SCOTUS case that has some important 2A implications. Griffin v Maryland, 378 US 130 (1964) This was a case where a cop working as a security guard asked some black guests to leave a segregated amusement park, and arrested them when they refused to leave.
Some quotes from that decision:
If an individual is possessed of state authority and purports to act under that authority, his action is state action. It is irrelevant that he might have taken the same action had he acted in a purely private capacity, or that the particular action which he took was not authorized by state law. ... Thus, it is clear that Collins' action was state action. ... The only question remaining in this case is whether Collins' action denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment.
and then, this:
It cannot be disputed that, if the State of Maryland had operated the amusement park on behalf of the owner thereof, and had enforced the owner's policy of racial segregation against petitioners, petitioners would have been deprived of the equal protection of the laws. to the extent that the State undertakes an obligation to enforce a private policy of racial segregation, the State is charged with racial discrimination, and violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is argued that the State may nevertheless constitutionally enforce an owner's desire to exclude particular persons from his premises even if the owner's desire is, in turn, motivated by a discriminatory purpose. The State, it is said, is not really enforcing a policy of segregation, since the owner's ultimate purpose is immaterial to the State. In this case, it cannot be said that Collins was simply enforcing the park management's desire to exclude designated individuals from the premises. The president of the corporation which owned and managed the park testified that he had instructed Collins to enforce the park's policy of racial segregation. Collins was told to exclude Negroes from the park and escort them from the park if they entered. He was instructed to arrest Negroes for trespassing if they did not leave the park when he ordered them to do so. In short, Collins, as stated by the Maryland Court of Appeals, was "then under contract to protect and enforce . . . [the] racial segregation policy of the operator of the amusement park. . . ." Pursuant to this obligation, Collins ordered petitioners to leave and arrested them, as he testified, because they were Negroes. This was state action forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment.
How this could affect us as gun owners is interesting.
1 The SCOTUS has held that the 2A is an individual right under Heller.
2 In all likelihood, the 14A will be used to apply the 2A to the States
3 In the Heller case, it sounds as though "bear arms" is going to eventually include open carry:
we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
4 Since open carry will be held to be a protected right, and will also be applied to the states via the 14A, and via Griffin, police working in a private capacity cannot deny a person his rights under the 14A, if they are working as security will not be able to enforce a property owner's prohibition on carrying of weapons
Although somewhat speculative, this theory shows that the Heller case is starting to have a larger and larger impact than I thought originally. This case will wind up being the most important case since Brown v Board of Education
Some quotes from that decision:
If an individual is possessed of state authority and purports to act under that authority, his action is state action. It is irrelevant that he might have taken the same action had he acted in a purely private capacity, or that the particular action which he took was not authorized by state law. ... Thus, it is clear that Collins' action was state action. ... The only question remaining in this case is whether Collins' action denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment.
and then, this:
It cannot be disputed that, if the State of Maryland had operated the amusement park on behalf of the owner thereof, and had enforced the owner's policy of racial segregation against petitioners, petitioners would have been deprived of the equal protection of the laws. to the extent that the State undertakes an obligation to enforce a private policy of racial segregation, the State is charged with racial discrimination, and violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is argued that the State may nevertheless constitutionally enforce an owner's desire to exclude particular persons from his premises even if the owner's desire is, in turn, motivated by a discriminatory purpose. The State, it is said, is not really enforcing a policy of segregation, since the owner's ultimate purpose is immaterial to the State. In this case, it cannot be said that Collins was simply enforcing the park management's desire to exclude designated individuals from the premises. The president of the corporation which owned and managed the park testified that he had instructed Collins to enforce the park's policy of racial segregation. Collins was told to exclude Negroes from the park and escort them from the park if they entered. He was instructed to arrest Negroes for trespassing if they did not leave the park when he ordered them to do so. In short, Collins, as stated by the Maryland Court of Appeals, was "then under contract to protect and enforce . . . [the] racial segregation policy of the operator of the amusement park. . . ." Pursuant to this obligation, Collins ordered petitioners to leave and arrested them, as he testified, because they were Negroes. This was state action forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment.
How this could affect us as gun owners is interesting.
1 The SCOTUS has held that the 2A is an individual right under Heller.
2 In all likelihood, the 14A will be used to apply the 2A to the States
3 In the Heller case, it sounds as though "bear arms" is going to eventually include open carry:
we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
4 Since open carry will be held to be a protected right, and will also be applied to the states via the 14A, and via Griffin, police working in a private capacity cannot deny a person his rights under the 14A, if they are working as security will not be able to enforce a property owner's prohibition on carrying of weapons
Although somewhat speculative, this theory shows that the Heller case is starting to have a larger and larger impact than I thought originally. This case will wind up being the most important case since Brown v Board of Education