Should non-citizens have equal access to firearms?

fisherman66

New member
I'm not sure I would expect (not to speak of my desire to have that opportunity if I saw it to be fit) that if I were visiting another part of the world.

I guess I'm disturbed by our country's latest mass murderer. Should individuals on a work visa or school visa, who are entitled to certain inalienable rights, count the right to bear arms as one of those inalienable rights? I'm conflicted. Is it legal? There are records, so I assume it is.
 
yes, it's the simple right of self defense. An Illegal alien on the other hand makes it a nonissue since they are a criminal and should either be out of the country or in jail
 
The kid was here 14 years ago at the age of 10. He likely had an American accent (easy assumption at that age), and was one "I pledge allegiance to the flag" away from being a citizen.

The citizenship is easier to get than the requirements to fill out a yellow form (you can have more criminal record and other blemishes). They'll be voting within 5 years max.

It's a dead end. Move on.
 
Since all rights are equal one another, yes. They have as much right to defend themselves as they have a right to free speech and to a fair trial.
 
As I said in another post, I feel 0% chance they could be restricted in any meaningful way. The rights of immigrants are protected under the "strict scrutiny" provisions of Supreme Court Judicial Review. That means to pass a law having to do with immigrants, you have to have a compelling governmental interest, using the least restrictive means, and a narrowly tailored law.

Seeing as how we're on the mainland, and keeping & bearing is a constitutional right, I can't imagine any significant limitation not being struck down as unconstitutional nearly immediately.
 
junkpile said:
I can't imagine any significant limitation not being struck down as unconstitutional nearly immediately.
junkpile you write like an attorney.

Foreign nationals have every legal right to own a firearm. They are Americans in all ways except for the final swearing of allegiance. This guy was legal owning the firearms he had (a Glock 19 and a Walther P22) up to the point where he shot his first victim. At that point it became illegal for him to own firearms.

Just so you will know, the U.S. has foriegn nationals in every branch of the military and all of you have heard of The High Road (THR), the other gun forum, which is owned by Oleg Volk who also is a foriegn national.
 
For the record, I'm a resident alien, living in Washington state. Washington state law requires resident foreign nationals to acquire a state Alien Firearms License before they are allowed to "possess, carry, or have control over a firearm." This is very much a "shall-issue" type thing; the primary requirement is that the applicant produce a letter from his consulate stating that he does not have a criminal record in his country of origin. This requirement is waived if the applicant can demonstrate that his consulate refused or failed to issue such a letter within 90 days of his requesting it, or if the country in question has no diplomatic representation in the state. Essentially, it's a background check, and I for one have no problem with it, any more than I have a problem with American citizens with a felony conviction being prohibited from owning firearms.

New York state, by contrast, prohibits all non-US citizens from possessing any "deadly or dangerous weapon." This, I have bit more of a problem with, though it's not so much about the weapons as such, but rather, the constitutional ramifications. Essentially, New York state claims that legally resident aliens do not have the right to keep and bear arms; that implies that legal aliens are not part of "the people" (you know, whose right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and while you can quibble over what really constitutes infringement, there's no question that a blanket prohibition is infringing). That in turn implies that much of the Bill of Rights supposedly doesn't apply to legal aliens: the second half of the First Amendment, the first half of the Fourth, all of the Ninth and Tenth speak of rights reserved to "the people."

Okay, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all persons on American soil due process and "the equal protection of the laws," so you're (notionally) protected from arbitrary search and seizure, but I'd still like to be able to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances.
 
I used to be a foreign national. I gave up Soviet citizenship in 1989, upon leaving the USSR. Got US citizenship in 1994.
 
"Whether aliens should have guns" is not the issue. This guy didn't murder 32... (Is 32 a legit number? Have we finally stopped counting?) He didn't murder all those people because he was an "alien." He murdered all those people because he was a "crazy SOB"!

You want to speak constructively on prevention of incidents like this? Don't devise a way to keep guns out of the hands of "non-citizens." Figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of "crazy SOB's."

Let's not start wildly discriminating, just because we're upset at one nut-job's rampage. That makes us no better than the gun-grabbers.
 
Let's not start wildly discriminating, just because we're upset at one nut-job's rampage. That makes us no better than the gun-grabbers.

I wasn't under the impression there was wild discrimination occuring on this thread. It seems the vast majority here at TFL are in support of giving non citizens access to firearms if this poll can be generalized.

Is it safe to assume you believe a non citizen has the right to ccw? Should they have access to NFA tagged guns given they complete the paperwork and tax? Is there a line anywhere in the sand?
 
...Should individuals on a work visa or school visa, who are entitled to certain inalienable rights, count the right to bear arms as one of those inalienable rights? I'm conflicted. Is it legal? There are records, so I assume it is.

The right to self defense is an unalienable or natural right and independent of any government. All peoples of the world equally possess this right without regard to their nationality or immigration status. It is certainly true that nations, included these United States, continuously and egregiously violate this natural right so a greater or lessor extent. Some have argued that the right to keep and bear arms is distinguishable from the natural right to self defense, but I find such arguments to be largely without merit.

If I travel to the state of Massachusetts, or California, and I am not allowed to carry my Sig, then those jurisdictions are violating my natural and unalienable right to self defense. This may be legal but is is also repugnant. The same is true of Canada or England, or China or any other nation that would infringe my unalienable right.

The 2nd Amendment codifies this right within our law, but the 2nd Amendment did not create this right as the right to self defense predates our federal Constitution or any other human document and transcends individual nationality or citizenship. The government has no power either to create or destroy our unalienable rights. The government can only act to protect or to infringe our natural rights and any government that does the latter is unjust just as if it had denied the right to the liberty of conscience, the right to free expression, the right to free association or any other natural rights properly possesses by all free men.

Thus, it is my view that aliens have an equal right to keep and bear arms in their own defense, equal to mine own, and any law that would infringe their natural right to do so is just as unjust and repugnant to the spirit of liberty as any law that would infringe my right to do the same.

Most Respectfully,
Richard
 
While I would like to see the right extended only to citizens of nations who recognize our right I see the importance that it also apply to all legal residents of the USA.
 
yes, it's the simple right of self defense. An Illegal alien on the other hand makes it a nonissue since they are a criminal and should either be out of the country or in jail

I think that pretty well sums it up!
 
Richard, you make a great argument. Unfortunately government steps all over inalienable individual rights. That's the nature of any government...the "good" of the people over the "good" of the individual (where as the "people" are those in control).

When the VT shooting occured my mind went to political/fanatical reasons, not the sick mind of an individual (which would seem to be the case in reality, not that I'm sold on that.)

I view the 2nd as an internal check (part of the checks and balances) on the government. The right to have means to revolt under tyranical rule. I might guess that most TFL members view this differently and relate the 2nd as a right to defend themself from other individuals.
 
Is it safe to assume you believe a non citizen has the right to ccw? Should they have access to NFA tagged guns given they complete the paperwork and tax? Is there a line anywhere in the sand?
No. Unless one also believes there should be a line in the sand as to what how "fair" a trail a non-citizen can have or how much free speech a non-citizen can have then no, there's no line.
 
If I may play devil's advocate...So what do citizens enjoy beyond noncitizens, Redworm? Is it just the right to vote? Since non-citizens should be given equal rights, why make voting tied to citizenship?

Individuals convicted of felonious crimes have their right to bear arms stripped even if the crime was unrelated to arms. While I am straying from topic I think it is related. There are citizens who have not demonstrated misuse of guns who have that right removed legally.
 
Oleg Volk said:
I used to be a foreign national. I gave up Soviet citizenship in 1989, upon leaving the USSR. Got US citizenship in 1994.
Oleg, I stand corrected. No disrespect intended. Your work in the area of Second Amendment issues is well documented especially by your artistic ability. Thank you for your work.
Richard Hanson said:
The 2nd Amendment codifies this right within our law, but the 2nd Amendment did not create this right as the right to self defense predates our federal Constitution or any other human document and transcends individual nationality or citizenship.
Richard, very well put.

Many people argue that there should be NO restrictions on the purchase, ownership, or the possession of firearms and perhaps there is some validity to those arguments. I will fight to the death to keep my rights, however, I am willing to sacrifice some of that freedom to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would do harm to us (NIC checks). I personally have no desire to own a fully automatic weapon, but I would do all I could to allow those who do want them to have them...as long as they were not criminals.

I think the mish-mash of laws throughout the country concerning the ability to purchase and possess firearms is ludicrous and must be addressed. The VT tragedy is just that, a tragedy. Let's move on and try to see that this does not happen again. Let's fight to get the power mongers to allow us to protect ourselves and let's pray that the D.C. ban is forever gone!
 
Back
Top