Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Patsone v. Pennsylvania — Opinion of the Court

With regard to that it was pointed out below that the equality of rights that it assures is equality only in respect of protection and security for persons and property. The prohibition of a particular kind of destruction and of acquiring property in instruments intended for that purpose establishes no inequality in either respect.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Patsone v. Pennsylvania — Opinion of the Court

But we start with the general consideration that a state may classify with reference to the evil to be prevented, and that if the class discriminated against is or reasonably might be considered to define those from whom the evil mainly is to be feared, it properly may be picked out. A lack of abstract symmetry does not matter.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Patsone v. Pennsylvania — Opinion of the Court

Under the 14th Amendment the objection is two fold; unjustifiably depriving the alien of property, and discrimination against such aliens as a class. But the former really depends upon the latter, since it hardly can be disputed that if the lawful object, the protection of wild life (Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519, 40 L. ed. 793, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 600) , warrants the discrimination, the means adopted for making it effective also might be adopted. The possession of rifles and shotguns is not necessary for other purposes not within the statute.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature