SAF, NRA SUE WASHINGTON STATE FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ALIEN RESIDENTS!

imported post

Mike wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

The problem is, the state constitution only expressly applies to citizens. However, under the federal constitution, the equal protection of the law applies to all persons. Also, the feds have decided that permanent residents have gun rights, and the state of WA has no business weighing in on the matter. Federal law trumps.

Click to expand...

Are you sure what the word "citizen" has been construed to mean in the WA constitution?

1. United States citizens?

2. Washington citizens?

3. Members of the public in good standing?

The fed. const. article IV privleges and immunities clause would invalidate number 2.

The fed. const. amend. XIV invalidates number 1.

Click to expand...

All I know is that the law is enforced against non-citizens of the US, including permanent residents. They are being charged with the felony, and they are being denied carry licenses.

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

Mike wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

The problem is, the state constitution only expressly applies to citizens. However, under the federal constitution, the equal protection of the law applies to all persons. Also, the feds have decided that permanent residents have gun rights, and the state of WA has no business weighing in on the matter. Federal law trumps.

Click to expand...

Are you sure what the word "citizen" has been construed to mean in the WA constitution?

1. United States citizens?

2. Washington citizens?

3. Members of the public in good standing?

The fed. const. article IV privleges and immunities clause would invalidate number 2.

The fed. const. amend. XIV invalidates number 1.

Click to expand...

All I know is that the law is enforced against non-citizens of the US, including permanent residents. They are being charged with the felony, and they are being denied carry licenses.

Click to expand...

OK, but that is a statute the aliens are violating, not the constitution- and that statute is the target of the suit.

imported post

Sea_Chicken wrote:

I dont get it? Their not citizens? If not i dont care about their "Rights".

Click to expand...

Our rights come from our "creator", not from being part of club citizen. If rights are restricted to citizenship, then they are not rights, they are only present upon membership within a certain group.

Some of my closest friends are resident aliens and a couple are even non-immigrant aliens. They seem to conduct themselves better than some "citizens" who under WA law would have no problem buying a gun.

That being said, about many American citizens, many people in the United States should not be citizens.... I'd say about 52 % of the population... because they don't deserve it and they are ruining freedom for the rest of us.

imported post

Mike wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

Mike wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

The problem is, the state constitution only expressly applies to citizens. However, under the federal constitution, the equal protection of the law applies to all persons. Also, the feds have decided that permanent residents have gun rights, and the state of WA has no business weighing in on the matter. Federal law trumps.

Click to expand...

Are you sure what the word "citizen" has been construed to mean in the WA constitution?

1. United States citizens?

2. Washington citizens?

3. Members of the public in good standing?

The fed. const. article IV privleges and immunities clause would invalidate number 2.

The fed. const. amend. XIV invalidates number 1.

Click to expand...

All I know is that the law is enforced against non-citizens of the US, including permanent residents. They are being charged with the felony, and they are being denied carry licenses.

Click to expand...

OK, but that is a statute they are violating, not the constitution- and that statute is the target of the suit.

Click to expand...

The complaint, in its current form, does not allege any violations of the state constitution.I assume Halbrook et al looked into this beofre filing it.

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

The complaint, in its current form, does not allege any violations of the state constitution.I assume Halbrook et al looked into this beofre filing it.

Click to expand...

OK, why would anyone sue for violation of the state constitution, even if this could be done in federal court, which it cannot.

imported post

Mike wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

The complaint, in its current form, does not allege any violations of the state constitution.I assume Halbrook et al looked into this beofre filing it.

Click to expand...

OK, why would anyone sue for violation of the state constitution, even if this could be done in federal court, which it cannot.

Click to expand...

Because if the state constitution had already been interpreted so that "citizen" was read broadly to include non-US citizens, then the statute would be in violation of the WA constitution, which guarantees a right to own guns. One would "sue for violation of the state constitution" if there was a statute that conflicted with it, the same as one would sue if a statute violated the US constitution.



And yes, you can assert state law claims in federal court. It's called supplemental jurisdiction. 28USC1367. Maybe they taught otherwise wherever you went to law school, but that's what they taught me.

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

And yes, you can assert state law claims in federal court. It's called supplemental jurisdiction. 28USC1367. Maybe they taught otherwise wherever you went to law school, but that's what they taught me.

Click to expand...

But not against the state. Pennhurst State Sch. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law).

imported post

This has affected a guy I work with. He was a Corrections Officer for Washington state. When the license expired and was not renewed He was forced to take another position that didn't require you to be armed at times. I.E. a mail room sorting incoming mail.

If you are living here legally you should have the right to defend your self and not stop you from properly providing for your family.

imported post

Mike wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

The problem is, the state constitution only expressly applies to citizens. However, under the federal constitution, the equal protection of the law applies to all persons. Also, the feds have decided that permanent residents have gun rights, and the state of WA has no business weighing in on the matter. Federal law trumps.

Click to expand...

Are you sure what the word "citizen" has been construed to mean in the WA constitution?

1. United States citizens?

2. Washington citizens?

3. Members of the public in good standing?

The fed. const. article IV privleges and immunities clause would invalidate number 2.

The fed. const. amend. XIV invalidates number 1.

Click to expand...

Well that sucks, if you’re pointing out that #3 is all we're left with.

How about a number 4? 4.If the country you fled, or left any reason would not honor me as a Alienin furnishing me with gun ownership rights, the right to bear arms and carry than you cannot have the same here.

Sure it's crazy of me to suggest before I even research, and know I’ll get blasted, But at that risk how many foreign countries do we figure willallow us gun rights as non citizens?

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

The plaintiffs are legal permanent residents, green card holders if you will. This is one step removed from citizenship, and often a state in which immigrants remain for years due to the backlog of processing naturalization applications.

Click to expand...

Once someone becomes eligible for citizenship, the whole process takes less than a year end to end. There is no backlog that requires people to languish for "years and years" to make the jump from green card to citizen.

I guess I am one of the ones who thinks gun ownership should be a privilege of citizenship. Maybe it's because I don't really believe in god, so the "endowed by the creator' justification means little to me.

imported post

Mike wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

And yes, you can assert state law claims in federal court. It's called supplemental jurisdiction. 28USC1367. Maybe they taught otherwise wherever you went to law school, but that's what they taught me.

Click to expand...

But not against the state. Pennhurst State Sch. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law).

Click to expand...

Gotcha. I must have been sick that day...

imported post

tai4de2 wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

The plaintiffs are legal permanent residents, green card holders if you will. This is one step removed from citizenship, and often a state in which immigrants remain for years due to the backlog of processing naturalization applications.

Click to expand...

Once someone becomes eligible for citizenship, the whole process takes less than a year end to end. There is no backlog that requires people to languish for "years and years" to make the jump from green card to citizen.

I guess I am one of the ones who thinks gun ownership should be a privilege of citizenship. Maybe it's because I don't really believe in god, so the "endowed by the creator' justification means little to me.

Click to expand...

Then the Heller analysis must be wrong then as to the holding that gun rights belong to the "people."

imported post

tai4de2 wrote:

Once someone becomes eligible for citizenship, the whole process takes less than a year end to end. There is no backlog that requires people to languish for "years and years" to make the jump from green card to citizen.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing you never worked with immigration before.... because this is definately not the case.

tai4de2 wrote:

I guess I am one of the ones who thinks gun ownership should be a privilege of citizenship. Maybe it's because I don't really believe in god, so the "endowed by the creator' justification means little to me.

Click to expand...

If something is a privilege of citizenship, then it's not a right. You can't have it both ways. Especially when people say self-defense is a fundamental human right.

Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant. Not all the founding fathers believed in God either. They agreed with that language because whether God is real or not, it is other humans who try to take away other peoples rights, not God.

imported post

OK. First of all, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. That being said, I am married to a Legal Resident Alien, and as such, I know a little about the immigration process, since I did all of the paperwork to get my wife her citizenship.

The process takes AT LEAST5 years, since that is the length of time you MUST reside in the United States before you can apply for citizenship. Then it take 6 -12 months+ for the red tape to unwind.

REF: http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/M-476.pdf See chart on page 18

These individuals are Legal residents, andare employed in some way. (One has a job, and the other some kind of income since hehas a gun collection) They have commited no serious crimes, since if they had, ICE would have deported them straight back to where they came from, and revoked theirResident Alien Cards. (Trust me, I know. Saw a lady sent back to Korea because she was a repeatshoplifter. See crimes of moralturpitude in the USCISguide) Since they are employed, have a Social Security number, and pay taxes, FICA, Medicare, and all the other crap the govt pulls out of OUR paychecks every month, why shouldn'tthey have the rightto own a firearm? Especially since the State is the one with asystem thatdoes not work, and these individuals are having a RIGHT we take for granted taken away through no fault of their own??? If they are criminals/mental patients/etc, thensure, they should not have the same firearm rights as a law abiding citizen. American citizens who are convicted felons have, through their own actions,lost certain rights as well. ( I consider an illegal alien a criminal. See definition of the word illegal.)

BTW: I know of no other country where ANYONE has the same right toown a firearm. Look at Great Britain, Canada, and Australia to name a few. These people camehere for freedom, not to be discriminated against because Washington State has abroken system. Two of the individuals in question are from great Britain, and they have lost virtually ALL gun rights in their own country. From the look of things, I would say that knives, bats, and pool cues are the next things in Great Britain to be banned as well, since they have tried banning guns, and the criminals keep finding weapons to use on the law-abidingsubjects, I mean citizens.

Thus endeth the sermon.

imported post

I would think if they are in this country illegally, then they are criminals. They have the same rights as criminals.

imported post

Jared wrote:

I'm guessing you never worked with immigration before.... because this is definately not the case.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

My wife just got citizenship last year. My relationship with her started in her country and has involved lots of immigration issues, the whole way from visitor visas through green card through the citizenship process. So I'm quite familiar with the entire process, thanks.

I don't deny that it can take people a l-o-n-g time to get a green card... but that's not what we are talking about here, right? And once you have that green card you are eligible for citizenship after 5 years or 3 if by marriage. There's no "massive backlog" -- once you start the application process it takes less than a year.

I am genuinely sorry that some people are affected negatively by the situation with alien licenses in Washington and I do agree that people who were granted this right -- and then made some important and long-lasting decisions based on it -- should not have it yanked away.

It still does not change my mind that gun ownership should be a right of citizenship, similar to voting. I would have no problem grandfathering in people who already have licenses (so they can get 'em renewed) but if no new licenses are issued I would not have any problem with that. Again, I am sorry, this is not intended to be a personal attack on anyone.

imported post

I have to agree, my example, I came to the States in the 90's, legally, was then fortunate enough to obtain a lottery visa ......enabling me to become a "Permanent Resident Alien".

I'm an avid shooter and live in Maine, a state that does not hinder the use of Firearms and where the use of guns are essentially a part of the way of life up here. This is why I live here as hunting and shooting were a childhood norm for me back in the old country growing up. So let me state shooting rights are not necessarily exclusive to the US.

I also work in Law enforcement in the technical realm including weaponry applications which is another scope of experience I have been exposed to here in the USA.

MY TAKE.... LEGAL RESIDENTS SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO LEGALLY OWN AND USE FIREARMS AND BE AFFORDED THE SAME RIGHTS AS OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZENS The exception being voting rights. Voting rights should only be afforded to Bona Fide
Citizens who have unequivocally taken the OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. "You want a voice you have to be a part of the family"

Washington is quite simply misguided, LEGAL residents should be allowed to own firearms to hunt or sport shoot & or for personal protection etc. Some of us have had those liberties in our originating countries anyway.............so what's the big deal...........and all of us Permanent Resident Aliens have been put through complete background checks when we first received our so called "green cards". (No Longer green , rather they are now almond colored high tech holographically encrypted modern versions I might add)

Myself ...........I'm becoming a fully fledged US Citizen immenetly and I'm extremely proud to be able to do so as this is the best and most free country on the planet. This country has afforded me opportunities, liberties and experiences I could never have even dreamed possible.

ILLEGAL ALIENS quite simply are not legal residents so legal rights cannot be given to people who are not supposed to be resident in the first place.

& there's my 2 cents.

Mark

imported post

tai4de2 wrote:

My wife just got citizenship last year.

Click to expand...

It still does not change my mind that gun ownership should be a right of citizenship, similar to voting.

Click to expand...

....So your own wife would not have had the fundamental human right to protect herself for those 3 years she was a Resident Alien (CR-1/IR-1).

God forbid something happened to her but under your belief system you'd rather see her dead then fend off a robber/rapist because she was nota citizen; therefore, she wasn't a human being.

This makes no sense. Just trying to break down your logic.

I guess it just irks me because I lump the brady bunch into the same category as those who would restrict the 2nd amendment to citizens. Either belief denies the existence of a fundamental human right... therefore, they are one of the same.

imported post

jbone wrote:

Mike wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

The problem is, the state constitution only expressly applies to citizens. However, under the federal constitution, the equal protection of the law applies to all persons. Also, the feds have decided that permanent residents have gun rights, and the state of WA has no business weighing in on the matter. Federal law trumps.

Click to expand...

Are you sure what the word "citizen" has been construed to mean in the WA constitution?

1. United States citizens?

2. Washington citizens?

3. Members of the public in good standing?

The fed. const. article IV privleges and immunities clause would invalidate number 2.

The fed. const. amend. XIV invalidates number 1.

Click to expand...

Well that sucks, if you’re pointing out that #3 is all we're left with.

How about a number 4? 4.If the country you fled, or left any reason would not honor me as a Alienin furnishing me with gun ownership rights, the right to bear arms and carry than you cannot have the same here.

Sure it's crazy of me to suggest before I even research, and know I’ll get blasted, But at that risk how many foreign countries do we figure willallow us gun rights as non citizens?

Click to expand...

What if that's the sort of thing they were trying to get away from?

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."

Flee oppression much?