ACLU finally takes a firearms case

[WeedWacker]

Even if you didn't understand the 2nd Amendment (which it appears you don't), a read of the decisions in Heller and (especially) McDonald makes it crystal clear that the RKBA protected by the 2nd Amendment is in no way predicated on service in a militia, or on anything else. It also imposes no requirement to be a citizen.

No, I never said "participate in a militia" I said the definition of a militia being that of able bodied men between 17 and 45 "who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

Quotes from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

Hence my questioning whether this man falls under the qualifications to be the unorganized militia (standard civilian) since he, as far as I know, has made no "declaration of intention to become" a citizen. He is a resident alien and I think the law as it stands would exclude such a person. Then again we give Miranda rights to known terrorists and enemy combatants now.

But in my own honest opinion I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed the means to defend himself. I'm just saying the law seems slightly exclusionary in this regard as it stands.

ETA: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall no be infringed"

From the Heller interpretation this means that firearms will not be denied to the people of the United States. CCW is another matter. I'm all for "constitutional carry" but it's not going to happen any time soon. Without the legislation at this point the man may be excluded from our right to bear arms in a concealed fashion.

 

[MLeake]

Without knowing the history on the change in the state's law...

.... I have to wonder if the change for legal resident aliens was consciously noted by most of those who voted for it. Call me cynical, but I suspect a lot of people were thinking in terms of illegal aliens.

I've got legal resident friends, and can think of no reason why I'd deny them a permit.

Wonder what was the rationale of the people who drafted this?

 

[alan]

Re the complaining party, a foreign national, who has been legally resident in this countrry for "20 Years", holder of a "Green Card "one assumes, how come this person had not become a U.S. Citizen, a question that leaves me curious, especially given, correct me if I'm wrong, that "dual citizenship" is allowed between the U.S. and GB

 

[MLeake]

Don't know about the complaining party...

... but in the cases of resident aliens I know, they are married to US citizens, and choose to reside here, but they do not want to change their own citizenship.

They still have to pay taxes, etc. I have no issue with it.

 

[BikerRN]

Irrespective of court rulings and law, I am of the personal opinion that the right to keep and bear arms, as well as any and all protections provided under the Constitution should be reserved for citizens only.

That's my personal opinion, and not likely to change anytime soon.

Biker

 

[red headed stranger]

Well, then I guess the RTKBA shouldn't be called a right then. It's just a privilege granted by the state.

Rights are inalienable and granted by the Creator.

 

[red headed stranger]

They still have to pay taxes, etc.

And can be drafted.

 

[Tom Servo]

Irrespective of court rulings and law, I am of the personal opinion that the right to keep and bear arms, as well as any and all protections provided under the Constitution should be reserved for citizens only.

Could you elaborate on that? I'm curious as to why.

As I see it, everyone within the jurisdiction of out government should have their rights protected. Should a foreign national not receive the benefit of due process because he's not a citizen? Imagine where that could lead.

If the right to self-protection is as fundamental and inalienable as some of us claim, how could it be limited to only citizens of a given country?

 

[Buzzcook]

Irrespective of court rulings and law, I am of the personal opinion that the right to keep and bear arms, as well as any and all protections provided under the Constitution should be reserved for citizens only.

So slavery is ok as long as it's not a citizen?

 

[WeedWacker]

So slavery is ok as long as it's not a citizen?

See US code title 10

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

And I am starting to agree. if you are a US citizen you are entitled to the rights of a citizen. In a slightly more perfect world than this one but not an ultimately perfect world (where firearms wouldn't be necessary) the free world would be provided with the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech, freedom to self defense and firearms to keep freedom, as well as the other enumerated constitutional inalienable rights. Those who choose not to become citizens and rather remain slaves in their own country are not free men by color of law. In my mind this particular resident alien has foregone his right by remaining a subject of his respective country where firearms are prohibited to the masses. He is ignoring the calling of freedom and remains here without renouncing the slavery of his home country. Why? 20 years and he could already have been a citizen.

 

[maddyfish]

I question whether constitutional rights should be afforded to non citizens.

On an individual note, the guys sounds like he is probably a good guy, but do we want to set the precedent of having legally armed foreigners running around the country?

 

[Al Norris]

I question whether constitutional rights should be afforded to non citizens.

Questions on alienage laws have been with us since before we were colonies... Way before that, even. The answer to most of these questions were settled with the adoption of the 14th amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

On an individual note, the guys sounds like he is probably a good guy, but do we want to set the precedent of having legally armed foreigners running around the country?

There is no precedent to set. Many States have issued to responsible, law-abiding resident aliens. As did SD, until a recent change in law. Remember, this person was already issued a CCW, he was only renewing the license.

Tom? I failed to rebut your previous. The Schultz Decision was a State circuit court of the couonty of Clark and created no binding precedent, even within Wisconsin itself. The State chose not to appeal, therefore only the county in which that court resides is affected by the decision.

 

[BGutzman]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't just a second amendment right... So many people loose sight that the right to protect yourself is a inalienable human right that has a long history dating back to time immorial.

It doesnt take much research to find example after example in history of nations and states of all sizes recognizing that every individual was allowed to bear arms for personal protection and in some cases a level of personal protection was required by law.

Men and women through the middle ages and prior ages not only carried firearms but various knives, swords, pins and all manner of improvised weapons.

The 2A is an acknowledges our history that defense is a right that transends time and age. The ability to protect ones self and ones loved ones and the right to bear arms capable of providing such protection are as natural as the air we breath and without such a right no man nor woman can truly ever be free.

 

[alan]

In post # 16, 44AMP mentions "a few extra paperwork hoops to jump through", which strikes me as problematic to say the very least, for re recent USSC rulings, didn't they overturn what some described as "a few paperwork hoops", never mind whether or not they were, in actual practice, surmountable.

Also, re that presumably harmless "paperwork", seemingly a rather large presumption, who is it that creatures the hoops? Do they come down to The Great Unwashed via bureaucratic decree, or might they be the expressed desires of those who so obviously know best, what is good for the rest of us peasants. Might they be the work product of our "elected tings" a mob that has gotten quite far out of touch with the thinking or desires and concerns of those they supposedly serve.

The foregoing strike me as things that should be considered, questions that need to be answered. How do they strike others?