ACLU Sues to Protect Immigrant's Gun Rights

[bulbvivid]

ACLU Sues to Protect Immigrant’s Gun Rights From Change in South Dakota Law

Keep in mind that the person in question is in the country legally.

I think it’s good the see the ACLU stand up for the 2nd. I also think that if you’re here legally, you should be able to protect yourself. I’m with the NRA on this 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.

[Skyyr]

This is potentially a very dangerous case, as it will set precedent. We all want to see people be able to carry to defend themselves and it’s easy to get gung-ho and emotional, but let’s face the truth:

Constitutional rights ONLY apply to citizens. Yep, it’s a slippery slope, but that’s ultimately what is defined in the Constitution. The Constitution gives rights to those that adopt it and agree to live by it. That guy has been here 30 years. For some reason, he’s chosen that he doesn’t want to adopt our country and the truths it holds self-evident. Therefore, Constitutionally, he has no right to claim it’s benefits, including the right to self defense.

It’s easy to try to win rights for him, to get another permit holder back on the streets, but look at the bigger picture. John Adams said that the Constitution is only adequate to govern a moral people and it is unfit to govern any other. Any man that cannot pledge allegiance to the Constitution that allows for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness after 30 freaking years should not be trusted with the rights granted from that same document.

I agree with the GOA: this guy is a poster-child for illegal immigrants everywhere (even if that isn’t his intent). The last thing we need is for some emotionally-driven pro-2A decision to come back and set precedent for non-citizen immigrants to get carry permits (do you seriously think they’ll be able to verify illegal vs legal with all the political red tape it comes with?); we’ve seen what’s happened in Mexico, South America, and many other places. We don’t need that here. Owning a firearm was intended to be the ultimate signifier of citizenship - to remind the government that you maintain the right to defend against tyranny and that you are a citizen, not a subject. The average, unfamiliarized immigrant has not been taught this and, until they are and until they can swear to uphold the Constitution, they cannot be trusted with one.

[kartoffel]

@Skyyr

Constitutional rights ONLY apply to citizens.

Exactly. I have no problem with legal aliens bearing arms, but they must realize they have no guaranteed right under the US Constitution.

Always cracks me up when the media interviews immigrants (usually illegal ones, but regardless), and they whine “we’re being treated like 2nd class citizens!” No, numbnuts, you’re NOT citizens.

[Belmont31R]

The Constitution may only apply to citizens but the theory of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights mainly, is that its just a list of some natural rights every human being is born with.

The Constitution can recognize rights for citizens but as pointed out, if we are a moral people, we would recognize the rights of non-Citizens inside the US as well.

Sorta the same reason we cannot just execute POW’s on the spot. We still owe them a certain level of due process as we do non-citizens in the US, and our legal doctrine says you cannot deny someone rights without due process of law.

If we completely throw out our legal doctrine for non-US citizens but legal immigrants then by which set of laws should they be governed under? Should they be able to be jailed indefinately, beat up upon arrest, denied a fair trial?

I think this is what sets us apart from the rest of the world…is that no matter how barbaric the rest of the world is, and not matter how much they squash the rights of people we will not do that. We will be there to protect the non-majority, not have different sets of laws for different people, ect. If you go back into history bad things tend to happen when nations adopt tiered legal systems. We did it to both the blacks and indians where the law and rights were only applied to whites, and white males in particular.

The right to self defense…basically the right to life…is applicable to every human being until a court can fairly revoke someones rights under due process. Not as a blanket law against a class of people.

[bulbvivid]

I think this is what sets us apart from the rest of the world…is that no matter how barbaric the rest of the world is, and not matter how much they squash the rights of people we will not do that. We will be there to protect the non-majority, not have different sets of laws for different people, ect. If you go back into history bad things tend to happen when nations adopt tiered legal systems. We did it to both the blacks and indians where the law and rights were only applied to whites, and white males in particular.

The right to self defense…basically the right to life…is applicable to every human being until a court can fairly revoke someones rights under due process. Not as a blanket law against a class of people.

I’m with Belmont on this one. All men are born with those rights elucidated in our founding documents, regardless of their country of origin. If a person has not willingly relinquished their rights through illegal activity, then they should not have to fight to have those rights recognized by the government.

[NinjaMedic]

Wow totally missed to point behind the Bill of Rights huh? The bill of rights simply codifies pre-existing god-given rights which the founding fathers recognized. It doesnt convey anything on us. The slipery slope is thinking that we as a country can take away someones god given right.

[Skyyr]

@Belmont31R

Sorta the same reason we cannot just execute POW’s on the spot. We still owe them a certain level of due process as we do non-citizens in the US, and our legal doctrine says you cannot deny someone rights without due process of law.

While the Liberals would love you to believe that, that’s completely incorrect.

We “can’t” execute prisoners of war for two reasons:

[ol]
[li]It doesn’t make strategic sense, as if we execute foreign POWs, they simply execute our soldiers when caught. It’s win-win for both sides if we don’t.[/li][li]We signed the Geneva convention that prohibits us from executing them for the sake of simply doing so.[/li][/ol]

It has nothing to do with the Constitution. Before the Geneva convention, we did execute POWs (though not routinely).

To many people, parts of the Constitution seem vague and it’s easy to assume it applies to every single person. That simply isn’t true. Any experienced writer, as well as most lawyers, will notice that the Constitution avoided using absolutes to avoid making itself dated and to avoid technicalities. If the Constitution had said “Every man has X right”, then only those rights and those alone could be argued for. This generalized, semi-unspecific wording is what gives the Constitution its power, as it relies on principles and philosophy instead of hard-defined rules.

Along those same lines, it was to be understood that while every man has certain unalienable rights, it’s the Constitution that guarantees those rights and that the Constitution only applies to those that adopt it (“We the People”). One could argue that any man coming to the States would have Constitutional rights back then. Yes, that’s true, but that’s because it wasn’t until recently that becoming a citizen at most only consisted of signing a sheet of paper with your signature and passing a health exam. The process of becoming a citizen has changed, the requirement for being one has not.

The Founding Fathers never intended this country to be a haven with instant Constitutional rights granted to anyone who comes here. Again, John Adams pointed out that the freedoms granted here are completely inappropriate for any people that did not share our morality (which is defined in the Constitution); that falls exactly in line with the wording of the Constitution. The idea of extending rights to those who simply reside here is absurd. Certain rights, such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness might be inalienable, but that doesn’t mean we have a duty to protect them for those who aren’t citizens. We have no duty to men that will not swear a duty to the document that grants them such protection. Once again, it’s absurd. Those rights are reserved for those who agree to uphold the Constitution, to respect the rights that We the People hold to be self-evident.

*** Edited to keep from starting a second debate and for clarity ***

[THCDDM4]

I’m with SKYYR on this. Surely he does have the natural born God given right to defend himself how he sees fit. But he doesn’t have the constitutional right/protection afforded under our constitution if he is not a US citizen.

By all means the guy should bare arms, but realize that since he isn’t a citizen of the US he has no constitutional right to do so.

[Belmont31R]

I never said the Constitution applies to all people. But all people have rights.

If you don’t think all people have rights then that means you believe the Constitution is what grants us our rights, and not that we are all born with them.

I think if someone has lived here for 30 years on a provisional basis they have more than proved they are capable of living in a nation of laws. Its my understanding green card holders can have their status revoked if they commit a crime.

Lastly…if you are arguing that non-US citizens in the US do not have to have any rights then does that mean I can murder one of them, and not get charged? If they don’t have the right to self defense (a sub category of the right to life) then why not? They don’t have any right to their own lives, right? Im not saying they necessarily have Constitutional protection (I largely agree the Constitution is for our government and citizens) but you’re basically arguing they have no rights. Can I also further that to say you believe people are not born with rights but are granted them by the government?

[RancidSumo]

@THCDDM4

I’m with SKYYR on this. Surely he does have the natural born God given right to defend himself how he sees fit. But he doesn’t have the constitutional right/protection afforded under our constitution if he is not a US citizen.

By all means the guy should bare arms, but realize that since he isn’t a citizen of the US he has no constitutional right to do so.

I can agree with this but in my mind it is just semantics. He already possess the right to be secure in his person and property just by virtue of being human. As such, he should be allowed to purchase a firearm and carry it in order to defend himself. Whether or not it is specifically in the Constitution does not matter in the least when it comes to basic human rights.

[THCDDM4]

@RancidSumo

I can agree with this but in my mind it is just semantics. He already possess the right to be secure in his person and property just by virtue of being human. As such, he should be allowed to purchase a firearm and carry it in order to defend himself. Whether or not it is specifically in the Constitution does not matter in the least when it comes to basic human rights.

And I totally agree with you. Rights are RIGHTS. No piece of paper or governing body can TRULY take them away, or GIVE them to us; merely aknowledge them; or try and ignore them. We as individuals and as larger communities/society’s can only allow them to be taken away, or fight for them to be preserved.

Every single person on this planet has the same rights enumerated under our constitution; becaue all our constitution is; is an aknolwedgement of natural born rights. However, not being citizens of the US; they are not protected by the United States constitution.

[Skyyr]

@Belmont31R

If you don’t think all people have rights then that means you believe the Constitution is what grants us our rights, and not that we are all born with them.

The Constitution does not grant us our rights, our Constitution tells us they are ALREADY our rights. I’m not arguing that. However, you must acknowledge the Constitution and swear an oath to it before you can expect it to protect you.

The Constitution protects our rights by limiting government and by guaranteeing certain rights expressly. However, the Constitution cannot be used in your defense if you refuse to become a citizen, which this guy has managed to do for 30 years. If he refuses to swear an oath to it, what makes him think he can use it for his own defense?

@Belmont31R

Lastly…if you are arguing that non-US citizens in the US do not have to have any rights then does that mean I can murder one of them, and not get charged? If they don’t have the right to self defense (a sub category of the right to life) then why not?

Becoming a citizen means acknowledging the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land. Once you become a citizen, you are agreeing to hold true the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for not only yourself, but all of your fellow countrymen (“We the People”). You are not only accepting the right to self defense, you are accepting the fact that you cannot harm another innocent human being inside of any area protected the Constitution (our country and all of its holdings).

Ironically, you can murder anyone you want outside of our borders and, unless the police from the country you did it in request you to be extradited, you can return and live as a free man inside this country. Why? Because the Constitution (and our reign of law) doesn’t extend past our own borders.

[Belmont31R]

If you look at the argument the ACLU is making…they cite the 14th Amendment…

Pertinent section:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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

You can clearly see there is a distinction in clauses between citizens, and ANY PERSON. It doesn’t say “…nor shall any State deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property;…”

Any person sounds like anyone who happens to be in that state, and doesn’t make the distinction between the two as the prior clauses did by saying citizens instead of any person.

[Skyyr]

@Belmont31R

If you look at the argument the ACLU is making…they cite the 14th Amendment…

Pertinent section:

You can clearly see there is a distinction in clauses between citizens, and ANY PERSON. It doesn’t say “…nor shall any State deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property;…”

Any person sounds like anyone who happens to be in that state, and doesn’t make the distinction between the two as the prior clauses did by saying citizens instead of any person.

Since when were they depriving him or life, liberty, or property? They aren’t. In fact, I predict that this will be the defense for the case.

As I stated, and as our Declaration of Independence states, every person has a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, carrying a weapon doesn’t fall under the truths we hold to be self evident (that’s why we needed the 2nd Amendment - it’s a Constitutional right, not a right endowed by the Creator). Don’t expect Constitutional rights if you’re not a citizen. Period.

Don’t misunderstand me. I want this guy to be able to carry, but I want to see the correct rights and liberties that our Founding Fathers intended more. Yes, it’s sad that this has to be a court case, but that’s what happens when people try to game the system. Our country was never supposed to be a host for people to leech off of, it was intended to be the ultimate refuge of freedom in this world. This man, for whatever reason, has determined that he doesn’t want what the Constitution offers. He’s also decided that he wants to challenge the Constitutional authority of a State. The Constitution is very clear and if he really wants it be him vs the Constitution, then he’s deciding his own fate. We must uphold the Constitution first or foremost, lest we allow emotion and fallible logic to undermine the very document that grants us these freedoms in the first place.

[RancidSumo]

@Skyyr

Since when were they depriving him or life, liberty, or property? They aren’t. In fact, I predict that this will be the defense for the case.

As I stated, and as our Declaration of Independence states, every person has a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, carrying a weapon doesn’t fall under the truths we hold to be self evident (that’s why we needed the 2nd Amendment - it’s a Constitutional right, not a right endowed by the Creator). Don’t expect Constitutional rights if you’re not a citizen. Period.

Actually carrying a weapon is a pre-existing right as a branch of property rights. You have the right to the product of your labor so who is the government to tell you that you cannot use it to purchase a firearm? Is it their money? Once you own that firearm, why should the government be allowed to tell you that you cannot carry it? The only people who should be allowed to tell you that you cannot carry is a private property owner who tells you that you can’t carry on their property.

I’m not saying that the guy is protected by the Constitution but we as a society should not take away someones rights simply because we can.

[Skyyr]

@RancidSumo

Actually carrying a weapon is a pre-existing right as a branch of property rights. You have the right to the product of your labor so who is the government to tell you that you cannot use it to purchase a firearm? Is it their money? Once you own that firearm, why should the government be allowed to tell you that you cannot carry it?

You’re right, it shouldn’t be an issue, but due to previous court cases started by people like the man in question, it is. This is exactly why cases like these are extremely dangerous.

And unfortunately, yes, the government can tell us what to do with our property. This is why the Second Amendment was created, to separate the carrying of arms so that it could not fall under some miscellaneous, Draconian law to prevent people from carrying them. The very fact that the Constitution has the Second Amendment shows that there was indeed room for the government to address how we use our belongings.

That leaves him with his only defense being the Second Amendment which, unfortunately, doesn’t apply to him.

[kartoffel]

@Belmont31R

If you look at the argument the ACLU is making…they cite the 14th Amendment…

Makes sense.

The gist of it I’m getting is this: no State can deprive a non-citizen of life, liberty or property. That still leaves it open for the federal government can deprive non-citizens of same.

But now we end up moving towards a slippery slope that Arizonans might not want, i.e. the lack of State-level jurisdiction over non-citizens.

[RancidSumo]

@Skyyr

You’re right, it shouldn’t be an issue, but due to previous court cases started by people like the man in question, it is. This is exactly why cases like these are extremely dangerous.

And unfortunately, yes, the government can tell us what to do with our property. This is why the Second Amendment was created, to separate the carrying of arms so that it could not fall under some miscellaneous, Draconian law to prevent people from carrying them. The very fact that the Constitution has the Second Amendment shows that there was indeed room for the government to address how we use our belongings.

That leaves him with his only defense being the Second Amendment which, unfortunately, doesn’t apply to him.

I am not saying that the government can’t or doesn’t tell us what we can do with our property every single day, I’m simply saying that they shouldn’t. The guy may very well not have a case legally speaking but as far as what is actually right, he should be allowed to purchase and carry a firearm.

[Belmont31R]

@Skyyr

Since when were they depriving him or life, liberty, or property? They aren’t. In fact, I predict that this will be the defense for the case.

As I stated, and as our Declaration of Independence states, every person has a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, carrying a weapon doesn’t fall under the truths we hold to be self evident (that’s why we needed the 2nd Amendment - it’s a Constitutional right, not a right endowed by the Creator). Don’t expect Constitutional rights if you’re not a citizen. Period.

Don’t misunderstand me. I want this guy to be able to carry, but I want to see the correct rights and liberties that our Founding Fathers intended more. Yes, it’s sad that this has to be a court case, but that’s what happens when people try to game the system. Our country was never supposed to be a host for people to leech off of, it was intended to be the ultimate refuge of freedom in this world. This man, for whatever reason, has determined that he doesn’t want what the Constitution offers. He’s also decided that he wants to challenge the Constitutional authority of a State. The Constitution is very clear and if he really wants it be him vs the Constitution, then he’s deciding his own fate. We must uphold the Constitution first or foremost, lest we allow emotion and fallible logic to undermine the very document that grants us these freedoms in the first place.

DOI is not considered a legal document in the US.

Self-defense is a subset of the right to life.

If you think the Constitution grants rights as opposed to recognizes pre-existing rights then your opinion is contrary to the entire doctrine of the BOR and rights in general.

Are you saying that the 14th Amendment does not protect any people inside a state from actions by that state? Again your opinion is contrary to the much of the purposes of the 14th Amendment. It was written to protect people from abuses by the states both citizens and non-citizens alike. The language is pretty clear, and I suggest you do a bit of reading into the history of that amendment. They used two terms (citizen and any people) for a reason.

Why he is here or how long he has been here is irrelevant so long as he is legally here according to the law which apparently he is. The 14th Amendment grants protections to non-citizens…which is clearly stated as the right to life cannot be taken away without due process, and self-defense is clearly a subset of the right to life.

[Belmont31R]

Heres some reading for everyone: http://davekopel.org/2a/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf