Gun Owners of America Not Supporting Gun Rights for Legal Resident Aliens

[axiomata]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/0...'s_Gun_Rights_From_Change_in_South_Dakota_Law

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a non-U.S. citizen that alleges South Dakota’s concealed weapons law is discriminatory – a legal move that one gun-rights group warns will open the door to arming illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit was filed this week on behalf of British national Wayne Smith, who legally immigrated 30 years ago, and for years was able to get a concealed license. In 2002, however, South Dakota amended the law, making U.S. citizenship a requirement to carry a concealed weapon. When Smith went to renew his long-held permit last July, he was denied because he is permanent legal resident, not a citizen.

...

"Legal resident aliens—that is, non-citizens who legally live in the United States—have constitutional rights. No one, for example, would say that a state could prohibit a legal resident alien from freely practicing his religion or engaging in free speech," Francisco told FoxNews.com. "Thus, if Mr. Smith does not have a criminal background or hasn't done anything else that disqualifies him from getting a permit, it's not clear to me how a state could prohibit him from getting a permit when it allows an otherwise similarly-situated citizen to get one."

...

"If you're a law abiding citizen and you're allowed to buy a gun you should be allowed to carry it to defend yourself," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulananda told FoxNews.com. "Just because you're not a us citizen doesn't mean that you're somehow to immune to crime outside your home."

But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens.

 

[Anti Federalist]

A million injustices every year against gun owners.

The ACLU picks this one to fight in court.

*sigh*

 

[axiomata]

It is only a wedge if someone from our side in on the wrong side of the wedge. Otherwise it is just a triangular piece of steel.

 

[specsaregood]

If you're a law abiding citizen and you're allowed to buy a gun you should be allowed to carry it to defend yourself," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulananda told FoxNews.com. "Just because you're not a us citizen doesn't mean that you're somehow to immune to crime outside your home."

Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".

 

[axiomata]

Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".

Read it again. He's talking about two different people there. (It is not perfectly clear, I agree ... blame FoxNews' reporter)

First he's defending the existing right to conceal carry (for SD US Citizens). It, afterall, is a natural right, endowed by our Creator and protected by our government. It is not a privilege that the government grants us. But this right must necessarily also be naturally endowed to "All Men", including law-abiding resident aliens. Would you seek to prevent such a person from freely practicing his own religion, how about a trial by jury?

Here's Madison:

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It is only a wedge if someone from our side in on the wrong side of the wedge. Otherwise it is just a triangular piece of steel.

And just who determines that, hey?

 

[axiomata]

And just who determines that, hey?

Feel free to make Pratt's case if you wish.

 

[erowe1]

I would infer from Pratt's position on this that he opposes the idea of allowing concealed carry without any permit at all, which doesn't seem like him. Looks like he hasn't thought this through enough.

 

[specsaregood]

But this right must necessarily also be naturally endowed to "All Men", including law-abiding resident aliens. Would you seek to prevent such a person from freely practicing his own religion, how about a trial by jury?

Sure, why not? they don't have a right to be in the US. We put other restrictions on resident aliens. I'd much rather the states be deciding this stuff than the feds.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Feel free to make Pratt's case if you wish.

You just proved my point.

How do you know I support Pratt's position?

 

[Agorism]

Incorporation

Incorporation (Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.) from the civil war means that the Bill of Rights also applies to the states meaning that if the federal government can't restrict arms then neither can the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

[pcosmar]

You just proved my point.

How do you know I support Pratt's position?

I am not sure that I know what his position is. The quote is about the purpose of this lawsuit and not about gun rights in general.

If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?," Pratt told FoxNews.com.

Pratt says the only reason the ACLU brought the suit is to pave the way for illegal aliens to have conceal carry permits.

"They want to make it so illegal aliens have the same rights as everybody else...every little bit chipping away," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/#ixzz1ATLtqOu1

I think my position has been clear all along. I oppose all gun laws federal and state, and believe that virtually all state laws are the result of Federal mandates.

 

[LibForestPaul]

for years was able to get a concealed license

If it is a license it is not a recognized natural right by the state.

So the only question is can a state bar privileges for certain individuals based on citizenship.

 

[pcosmar]

If it is a license it is not a recognized natural right by the state.

So the only question is can a state bar privileges for certain individuals based on citizenship.

Only if you consider self defense to be a privilege.

 

[erowe1]

If it is a license it is not a recognized natural right by the state.

Natural rights are only natural rights if they don't need any state to recognize them for them to be rights. States that don't recognize them are in the wrong.

 

[agitator]

I would infer from Pratt's position on this that he opposes the idea of allowing concealed carry without any permit at all, which doesn't seem like him. Looks like he hasn't thought this through enough.

This.

If you're asking government for permission to do something, then it is a privilege, not a right.

 

[osan]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/?cmpid=cmty_other_ACLU_Sues_to_Protect_Immigrant%27s_Gun_Rights_From_Change_in_South_Dakota_Law

Wow that the ACLU is taking up a gun issue and is apparently on the right side.

Wow that South Dakota is such a shit hole.

Wow that GOA are turning out to be such cretinous imbeciles.

Plenty of wow to go around here.

 

[osan]

Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".

WTF? Are you serious? If you subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights and that RKBA is inalienable, there is then NO justification for denying ANYONE their RKBA.

Free nations deal with what has happened, not what might. When Paco Taco robs grandma for her SSI check and kills her, you grab his natty hide, try him, convict him, jail him, and toss the key down a rathole. You do not punish those who have committed no offense.

HELLO.

 

[specsaregood]

WTF? Are you serious? If you subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights and that RKBA is inalienable, there is then NO justification for denying ANYONE their RKBA.

Free nations deal with what has happened, not what might. When Paco Taco robs grandma for her SSI check and kills her, you grab his natty hide, try him, convict him, jail him, and toss the key down a rathole. You do not punish those who have committed no offense.

HELLO.

If he doesn't like it he can go back to his country of origin. I bet their gun laws are even stricter.

 

[osan]

Sure, why not? they don't have a right to be in the US. We put other restrictions on resident aliens. I'd much rather the states be deciding this stuff than the feds.

A legal resident alien has no right to be in the US? What in hell are you smoking?