Examiner.com: Gun rights are for immigrants too

imported post

Make it 3.

I'm aRussian citizen resident alien (US green card holder), lived in the US only since 2006. I own a number of firearms and hold a VA CHP since 2007.

I might be new to the US, but franly I speak and write in English better than many Native born Americans and probably know more about US history, political system and laws - pardon my attitude.

My point is that not all immigrants are leeches - I have a masters degree in engineering and I've held a professional, germaine to my education job since about a month after I came to the US and up until today. I never commited any crimes. I neverapplied fora single benefit from the US or VA or a local government, quite the contrary I've been paying quite a bit in taxes and that not counting all the USCIS fees.

I'm conservative, pro-gun, pro-freedom, ANTI-illegal immigration, anti-socialism. By the way, I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone who went through the LEGAL immigration processwill strongly oppose illegal immigration. It's normally young lefty hippieish local youth who somehow view supporting illegals as fighting for immigrants rights. I don't want any special treatment. Treat me as equal and I'll live up to it.

imported post

Immigrants aren't the threat, it is the voting ILLEGAL immigrants that are the
problem. Since they can't own they want everyone disarmed. I only
know one legal immigrant and she can't wait to purchase her first gun.
Moving to a register city soon, but state wide preemption and OC legal.
Picked up a spare lower for her just in case the feds preempt ownership
before they allow her to buy them.

I only hear of gun control from the politicians and crooks who are
afraid to ply their trade. For that matter I have never heard of even
one time where a crook is shot dead complaining that the victim was
exercising their god given right. Did the VA gut shot perp from a couple of
weeks ago complain the citizen had a gun? If he did the media suppressed
the story and as anti as they are I don't think they would.
No, criminals who carry don't have a problem with armed people.
They don't like it, and prefer the GFZ but they at least they know it is legal,
unlike out "leader" obama.

imported post

Mike wrote:

The 2 immigrants may still be citizens of their country of birth, but they claimed to now be US citizens on their applications.

Click to expand...

Yes, they can be dual citizens (of both the US and their home country) and legally claim to be US citizens. However, if they are onlyresident aliens, claiming to be a US citizen is a serious offense which triggers deportation.

I doubt that any resident alien would be stupid enough to claim to be a US citizen and put their future in jeopardy, especially toget a benefit they are already eligible for as is.

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

Immigrants aren't the threat, it is the voting ILLEGAL immigrants that are the
problem. Since they can't own they want everyone disarmed. I only
know one legal immigrant and she can't wait to purchase her first gun.
Moving to a register city soon, but state wide preemption and OC legal.
Picked up a spare lower for her just in case the feds preempt ownership
before they allow her to buy them.

I only hear of gun control from the politicians and crooks who are
afraid to ply their trade. For that matter I have never heard of even
one time where a crook is shot dead complaining that the victim was
exercising their god given right. Did the VA gut shot perp from a couple of
weeks ago complain the citizen had a gun? If he did the media suppressed
the story and as anti as they are I don't think they would.
No, criminals who carry don't have a problem with armed people.
They don't like it, and prefer the GFZ but they at least they know it is legal,
unlike out "leader" obama.

Click to expand...

+100

FYI, be careful buying a lower (which is considered a firearm for FFL purposes)for someone else, espically someone who is currently inelgible to purchaseone. This can be easliy construed as a straw purchase.

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

espically someone who is currently inelgible to purchaseone. This can be easliy construed as a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

It IS a straw purchase. It is the very definition of a straw purchase. No construed about it.....

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Chaingun81 wrote:

espically someone who is currently inelgible to purchaseone. This can be easliy construed as a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

It IS a straw purchase. It is the very definition of a straw purchase. No construed about it.....

Click to expand...

It's not a straw purchase if he keeps it until such time as she is legal to own/possess it and then gifts it to her. It is currently his property and his to do with as he sees fit. Doesn't matter his ultimate motives. His current actions determine legality, not intent (committed crime vs pre-crime).

It's no different than me going and buying a handgun for my eldest daughter (she's currently 12) for the purpose of gifting it to her upon her turning age 18. A gift can be given at any time unrelated to the purchase. As long as the actions between the purchase and the gifting are legal, no one has room to complain (or a legal basis to whine about).

imported post

old dog wrote:

You seem bent on not following my thought so I'll type slowly.

I suppose we have no choice but to accept some refugees, but under no circumstances would I give them firearms or voting rights. Such precious gifts should be limited to the native-born.

Go to any Walmart on Saturday. Would you really have these people legally armed? Of all people, a Floridian should understand.

Now I hope you got it this time because I'm bored with you and I'm unwatching.

Click to expand...

Go to any large city to a sketchy neighbourhood any day. Do you want these Native born people legally armed?

Whom would you rather be armed - a native born thuggish borderline-retarded elementary school dropout drug addict who haven't YET been caught and therefor is not a prohibited person or an immigrant MD from India or a PhD from China for example?

Judge the character, not nationality. Or advocate for more discretion for everyone, but be aware that you are essentially advocating restrictive "may issue" which will later be abused and turned against more groups of people based on other arbituaryfactors which might eventually include yourself too...

imported post

darthmord wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Chaingun81 wrote:

espically someone who is currently inelgible to purchaseone. This can be easliy construed as a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

It IS a straw purchase. It is the very definition of a straw purchase. No construed about it.....

Click to expand...

It's not a straw purchase if he keeps it until such time as she is legal to own/possess it and then gifts it to her. It is currently his property and his to do with as he sees fit. Doesn't matter his ultimate motives. His current actions determine legality, not intent (committed crime vs pre-crime).

It's no different than me going and buying a handgun for my eldest daughter (she's currently 12) for the purpose of gifting it to her upon her turning age 18. A gift can be given at any time unrelated to the purchase. As long as the actions between the purchase and the gifting are legal, no one has room to complain (or a legal basis to whine about).

Click to expand...

Actually, you are right. I was just warning him that based on latest semi-legal activities of the ATF and their tactics, I'd take caution doing such things and especially announcing them on a public forum...

I'd personally stay away from doing that alltogether, but I always try to err on the safe side.

imported post

darthmord wrote:

It's not a straw purchase if he keeps it until such time as she is legal to own/possess it and then gifts it to her.

Click to expand...

Then he didn't really buy it for her , did he?

darthmord wrote:

It's no different than me going and buying a handgun for my eldest daughter (she's currently 12) for the purpose of gifting it to her upon her turning age 18.

Click to expand...

You could purchase a handgun today for your 18 year old daughter and gift it to her tomorrow. Absolutely legal.

imported post

*

imported post

Pointman wrote:

A person can legally buy a gun for someone else, but not on behalf of someone else.

Click to expand...

"Straw Purchase" defined:

“the acquisition of a firearm(s) from an FFL by an individual (the “straw”) done for the purpose of concealing the identity of the true intended receiver of the firearms.” (ATF Order 3310.4B, Firearms Enforcement Program, Chapter K, Section 143(ee).)

Click to expand...

imported post

It is the grandfather clause, if they ban new ones I have a preban for her, if
not I have a spare. No reason someone doing the right thing should get shafted
by our government.
That is the worst part of going the legal route, one misstep and they go after you.
Illegal - and murder doesn't rate a deportation.
But no straw man as it is my money, and my gun. Just hedging my bet that
the government cannot be trusted.
I just wish my forefathers had thought to get me a lower back before the 30's and 80's bans.
Currently thought police only enforce recognized hate crimes.
And if they want to watch my make a gift to a fellow legal citizen they are
welcome to stop by and say hi.

After all BHO doesn't want my guns.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

Make it 3.

Click to expand...

Make it 4!

"gun rights are for immigrants too."

imported post

buster81 wrote:

Chaingun81 wrote:

Make it 3.

Click to expand...

Make it 4!

"gun rights are for immigrants too."

Click to expand...

:celebrateWhere are you from?

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

That is the worst part of going the legal route, one misstep and they go after you.
Illegal - and murder doesn't rate a deportation.

Click to expand...

This is so true! :banghead:

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

It is the grandfather clause, if they ban new ones I have a preban for her, if
not I have a spare.

Click to expand...

Anyone who has a lower should find a friendly FFL that will let you transfer it to them and then back to you as a "rifle" after you build it if a ban ever comes again. There is no such thing as a preban "other". Only a "rifle" or "pistol".

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

SlackwareRobert wrote:

It is the grandfather clause, if they ban new ones I have a preban for her, if
not I have a spare.

Click to expand...

Anyone who has a lower should find a friendly FFL that will let you transfer it to them and then back to you as a "rifle" after you build it if a ban ever comes again. There is no such thing as a preban "other". Only a "rifle" or "pistol".

Click to expand...

What is the point of this elaborate plan? Just buy a lower now, build the rifle, own it, hope ban never comes. If it does, chances are you will be grandfathered.

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

What is the point of this elaborate plan? Just buy a lower now, build the rifle, own it, hope ban never comes. If it does, chances are you will be grandfathered.

Click to expand...

Letter of the law. CYA... Proof that it is grandfathered. The only time you would have to engage in this "elaborate" plan is if the ban has already passed and has not yet gone into effect.

imported post

Make it 5! While my wife (lawful permanent resident) does not have a permit she does have her own pistol.

I'd much rather criminals and illegal immigrants have firearms too than for everyone be disarmed.

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

I'd much rather criminals and illegal immigrants have firearms too than for everyone be disarmed.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think that illegal immigrants should have any rights whatsoever. As for criminals, I'd say the same if definition of "prohibited person" criminal was what it supposed to be - someone convicted of a true violent crime.

In a world where one can become a criminal for simply say carrying their legal firearm into a National Park or into invisible 1000' around a school, I don't think that all criminals should be barred from firearms.