Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74

Thread: No "CCW " permitted for Non US Citizen's

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Formerly of Ireland, now Martinsburg, WV, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    Well isn't that a kick in the head?

    (EDIT: I should have said that I'm here as a legal Alien )

    My wife and I are just in the process of sorting out our eventual move to Missouri, so she called about getting the application's for CCW permit's so we can have all our duck's lined up in a row as it were.

    Anyway, she had a conversation with an Officer from the Highway patrol, and was told under no circumstances would I be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon because I am not a U.S Citizen. She should be fine, but I was out of luck.

    It seems as though the Officer was very knowledgeable, he told her the chapter of the State Code where is state's plainly:

    571.101. 1. All applicants for concealed carry endorsements issued pursuant to subsection 7 of this section must satisfy the requirements of sections 571.101 to 571.121.

    If the said applicant can show qualification as provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, the county or city sheriff shall issue a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement. Upon receipt of such certificate, the certificate holder shall apply for a driver's license or non driver's license with the director of revenue in order to obtain a concealed carry endorsement. Any person who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement on a driver's license or non driver's license and such endorsement or license has not been suspended, revoked, canceled, or denied may carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or within a vehicle. A concealed carry endorsement shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of issuance or renewal. The concealed carry endorsement is valid throughout this state.


    2. A certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to subsection 7 of this section shall be issued by the sheriff or his or her designee of the county or city in which the applicant resides, if the applicant:

    (1) Is at least twenty-three years of age, is a citizen of the United States and either:

    (a) Has assumed residency in this state; or

    (b) Is a member of the armed forces stationed in Missouri, or the spouse of such member of the military;


    So, Im wondering just how popular is Open carry in the Cape Girardeau area and surrounds?


  2. #2
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Check Utah, it might work for you. No OC in Cape and I think Sikeston has OC ban, rest should be ok. I think there are 2-3 guys that OC in Jackson all the time.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    irish_ironsight wrote:
    Well isn't that a kick in the head?



    So, Im wondering just how popular is Open carry in the Cape Girardeau area and surrounds?
    Uhm, No, it is not a kick in the head IMHO at all.

    When / if you choose the become an American citizen, you are then granted all the rights and responsibilities afforded one, until then, all you get is a friendly welcome.


    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  4. #4
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    irish_ironsight wrote:
    Well isn't that a kick in the head?



    So, Im wondering just how popular is Open carry in the Cape Girardeau area and surrounds?
    Uhm, No, it is not a kick in the head IMHO at all.

    When / if you choose the become an American citizen, you are then granted all the rights and responsibilities afforded one, until then, all you get is a friendly welcome.

    +1 to that!

    i'm all for legal immigrants who come to the US to walk the path of citizenship, but until that path is completed there are some things that should not be afforded them. this is one of those things.


    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    FL will issue you a permit if you are a lawful permanent resident alien and have proof of such.

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/app...structions.pdf


    If you are a lawful permanent resident alien you should be able to have the same self protection as the rest of us.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    9026543 wrote:
    FL will issue you a permit if you are a lawful permanent resident alien and have proof of such.

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/app...structions.pdf


    If you are a lawful permanent resident alien you should be able to have the same self protection as the rest of us.
    I disagree 100%

    If you want the rights guaranteed to you, naturalize, if you don't, then you have made the choice.

    If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not have ownership or possession of arms.

    It is certainly not against the OP at any level or those whom come here seeking a different life than their home country afforded them, but if you want the cream, step up and help milk the cows.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    O'Fallon, MO, ,
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not have ownership or possession of arms.
    Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for this? The reason we want to be able to have a gun on us is to defend us from criminals. Why shouldn't a foreigner have that same right to defend himself or herself? Again, as we all like to say, criminals don't care about laws; all you'd be doing by barring foreigners from having firearms is allowing more people to be victimized, and you'd be telling criminals that a particular class of this country are going to be defenseless against attack.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    9026543 wrote:
    FL will issue you a permit if you are a lawful permanent resident alien and have proof of such.

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/app...structions.pdf


    If you are a lawful permanent resident alien you should be able to have the same self protection as the rest of us.
    I disagree 100%

    If you want the rights guaranteed to you, naturalize, if you don't, then you have made the choice.

    If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not have ownership or possession of arms.

    It is certainly not against the OP at any level or those whom come here seeking a different life than their home country afforded them, but if you want the cream, step up and help milk the cows.
    I see. Then you think that he should not be entitled to any means ofself defense while he is working toward citizenship maybe. The last I knew citizenship was not granted overnight and was a lenghty process.

    God help the poster if he has a strong Irish accent and some scumbag jumps him because he thinks this person has no means of protection.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Sure, an' its a kick in the head, O'Riley.

    Self-defense is a basic human right. Right up there next to the right to life itself.

    As Ted Nugent said in that interview video, I do not need another man telling me when, where, how, and whether I can defend myself. At another point in the interview he says the 2nd Amendment is his concealed carry permit.

    Down in the legal weeds, as far as I know, legal aliens enjoy the same 4th and 5th Amendment rights as citizens.

    I see no legitimate reason toinfringe their right to defend themselves by infringing the means.

    It is too fundamental, a natural right.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,629

    Post imported post

    Sure glad that we did not refuse these men arms.
    http://americanfounding.blogspot.com...-american.html

    Don't know what objection some might have to to legal residents from other nations. Some of the posters here have been so qualified. Perhaps the most prolific and dedicated was TrueBrit, may he rest in peace.

    It is the law in many states - it should be universal IMO.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    You know, I formerly believed that all human beings possessed the God given right to effective self defense and that the Constitution only guaranteed this.

    Evidently, I was wrong. God given rights only belong to us 'Mericans!

    Only in America will you find people who will give their lives and die for the freedom of people in other countries...then proclaim that the rights granted by the creator to all human beings only belong to those who meet certain qualifiers. Namely: You have to have a piece of paper saying you're American or else God doesn't care.


    Irish: I would also suggest performing research on other states that issue non-resident permits as Missouri recognizes all.

    As for your question about Open Carry in Cape Girardo: NO GO.

    Themajority of laws in Missouri are written to ban a specific action and to later exempt certain actors (i.e. police, CCW holders)

    In
    Cape Girardo, it seems as if they have banned OC, yet failed to exempt CCW holders, therefore, making OC illegal for we second class citizens who don't posess shiny metal badges. (and especially for you non-citizens who God deigns unworthy of rights he grants to the rest of us.)

    http://library.municode.com/HTML/105..._C17_AV_s17-96



    Sec. 17-98. - Unlawful possession or use of weapons.


    (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful possession or use of weapons if he knowingly:


    (1) Carries, concealed upon or about his person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

    (2) Possesses or discharges a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated; or

    (3) Discharges a firearm or projectile weapon; or

    (4) Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where people have assembled for worship, or into any school, or into any election precinct on any election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof, or into any public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose; or

    (5) Openly carries a firearm readily capable of lethal use.


    (b) Subsections (a)(1), (3), (4) and (5) of this section shall not apply to or affect any of the following:


    (1) All state, county and municipal law enforcement officers possessing the duty and power of arrest for violations of the general criminal laws of the state or for violations of ordinances of counties or municipalities of the state, or any person summoned by such officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while actually engaged in assisting such officer;

    (2) Wardens, superintendents and keepers of prisons, penitentiaries, jails and other institutions for the detention of persons accused or convicted of crime;

    (3) Members of the armed forces or national guard while performing their official duty;

    (4) Those persons vested by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution of Missouri with the judicial power of the state;

    (5) Any persons whose bona fide duty is to execute process, civil or criminal.


    (c) Subsections (a)(1), (2), (4) and (5) of this section do not apply when the actor is transporting such weapons in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible or when such weapons are not readily accessible. Subsection (a)(1) of this section does not apply when the actor is in his dwelling unit or upon business premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. Subsection (a)(3) of this section does not apply when the actor discharges a firearm or projectile weapon in a safe manner at a suitable firearm, air gun or archery range. Subsection (a)(3) of this section does not apply when the actor is in his dwelling unit or upon business premises over which the actor has possession and reasonably discharges a firearm or projectile weapon in defense of himself, a third person or property. Subsection (a)(5) of this section does not apply when the actor openly carries a firearm readily capable of lethal use at a suitable firearm range.


    (d) Subsections (a)(1) and (4) of this section shall not apply to any person possessing a valid authorization to carry concealed weapons under Section 571.094 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, to the extent that statute prohibits the enforcement of those subsections, and subject to the location limitations, and other limitations contained in that statute.

    Note: lack of (5) in exemption section (d) (blue type)for CCW holders making OC illegal.


  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Although I won't go into all the details on this forum at this hour, I will say that Missouri's citizenship requirement is unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment. Similar requirements have been successfully challenged in other states, but apparently no one has yet challenged Missouri's law.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    mofalloncarry wrote:
    LMTD wrote:
    If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not have ownership or possession of arms.
    Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for this? The reason we want to be able to have a gun on us is to defend us from criminals. Why shouldn't a foreigner have that same right to defend himself or herself? Again, as we all like to say, criminals don't care about laws; all you'd be doing by barring foreigners from having firearms is allowing more people to be victimized, and you'd be telling criminals that a particular class of this country are going to be defenseless against attack.
    Because I am old enough to remember when prison overcrowding in Mexico resulted in the Mexican authorities releasing and busing hundreds to this country.

    Because while we have our issues with the system in place, it is not at all unheard of for foreign countries to hide the criminal past of immigrants to get them here.

    Because I do not think social security, medicaid, food stamps, HUD housing, Education, ect, ect should be provided to those whom are not citizens.

    If one has applied for citizenship and is on the path then yes, all the rights guaranteed, if not even in the process, then not at all.

    I am actually unsure why folks are so eager to grant the same guarantees to those whom are not citizens, or as pointed out on the path to citizenship.

    No offense to the OP
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote:
    Although I won't go into all the details on this forum at this hour, I will say that Missouri's citizenship requirement is unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment. Similar requirements have been successfully challenged in other states, but apparently no one has yet challenged Missouri's law.
    When you get the chance, I would like to see the cites where this has been challenged and won by a non-citizen of the US.

    Equal protection 14a issues surrounded our pathetic past of not classifying black and Indian persons in this country as citizens. We also failed to allow the ladies to be citizens as well, but to my knowledge, we have never granted foreign nationals constitutional guarantees as they are under the flag of another country.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    mofalloncarry wrote:
    LMTD wrote:
    If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not have ownership or possession of arms.
    Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for this? The reason we want to be able to have a gun on us is to defend us from criminals. Why shouldn't a foreigner have that same right to defend himself or herself? Again, as we all like to say, criminals don't care about laws; all you'd be doing by barring foreigners from having firearms is allowing more people to be victimized, and you'd be telling criminals that a particular class of this country are going to be defenseless against attack.
    Because I am old enough to remember when prison overcrowding in Mexico resulted in the Mexican authorities releasing and busing hundreds to this country.

    Because while we have our issues with the system in place, it is not at all unheard of for foreign countries to hide the criminal past of immigrants to get them here.

    Because I do not think social security, medicaid, food stamps, HUD housing, Education, ect, ect should be provided to those whom are not citizens.

    If one has applied for citizenship and is on the path then yes, all the rights guaranteed, if not even in the process, then not at all.

    I am actually unsure why folks are so eager to grant the same guarantees to those whom are not citizens, or as pointed out on the path to citizenship.

    No offense to the OP
    I'm gonna stick my neck out a little.

    Even if they are here illegally, aliens deserve the right to defend themselves. Deport or imprison them for being here illegally, no doubt about it. But, there isinsufficient reason to deny them the fundamental human right to defend themselves from violent criminals.

    As soon as we start giving government the power to regulate self-defense...well,look tothe history ofgun control in this country.

    I'll even go so far as to say that Isuspect an illegal immigrant who legitimately knocks off one of our violent criminals while defending himself against that criminal has maybe done us a favor. He might be somebody we should consider keeping around. God knows we have enough limp-wristed,panty-waist citizenswho would faint or curl up in a fetal ball ata criminal's assault.Maybe we should consider givinga defender alienan automatic work visa so he can earn his way to citizenship. A sort of amnesty in recognition for having reduced the violent criminal population and proving he has some mettle.

    (Boy, wouldn't that proposal drive Pelosi nuts. A tide of illegal immigrants on the hunt for violent crimes to interrupt so they could get citizenship. Put the police out of the street patrol business practicallyovernight.)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    mofalloncarry wrote:
    LMTD wrote:
    If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not have ownership or possession of arms.
    Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for this? The reason we want to be able to have a gun on us is to defend us from criminals. Why shouldn't a foreigner have that same right to defend himself or herself? Again, as we all like to say, criminals don't care about laws; all you'd be doing by barring foreigners from having firearms is allowing more people to be victimized, and you'd be telling criminals that a particular class of this country are going to be defenseless against attack.
    Because I am old enough to remember when prison overcrowding in Mexico resulted in the Mexican authorities releasing and busing hundreds to this country.

    Because while we have our issues with the system in place, it is not at all unheard of for foreign countries to hide the criminal past of immigrants to get them here.

    Because I do not think social security, medicaid, food stamps, HUD housing, Education, ect, ect should be provided to those whom are not citizens.

    If one has applied for citizenship and is on the path then yes, all the rights guaranteed, if not even in the process, then not at all.

    I am actually unsure why folks are so eager to grant the same guarantees to those whom are not citizens, or as pointed out on the path to citizenship.

    No offense to the OP

    It doesn't matter what you think. Case law is against you, SCOTUS said that the constitution even applies to illegal aliens.

    If the bill of rights are pre-existing rights then how can the government limit them.

    Myself and Gray Peterson got the ball rolling and that led to Washington repealing their law discriminating against non-citizens.


    The Supreme Court already spoke on this issue in Grahm v Richardson and the author of the 14th Amendment spoke on this matter.

    Good thing that your bigoted view is constitutionally inaccurate and bigoted laws such as the one in MO have been vanishing over time.

    There are plent of U.S. Citizens that have no business and most Americans (who probably never left the country) don't know how much goes into getting a Resident Alien card or even a non-immigrant visa. I can tell you that it is more work than what the average U.S. Citizen in a trailer park somewhere does to get a "CCW permit"

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    SNIP It doesn't matter what you think. Case law is against you, SCOTUS said that the constitution even applies to illegal aliens.
    Ouch. That was a bit harsh.

    He was being fairly tame. No name calling, no cussing. Hardly any strong language at all. No sneaky tactics. Put his thoughts on the line with no hidden agenda, nor any carefully hiddenimplied assumptions.Persuasion is still called for.

    An old rhyme goes: "A man convinced against his will is of his former opinion still."

    Pulling out the big guns and telling him his thoughts don't matter...well, I guess you know what I mean.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369

    Post imported post

    LMTD Wrote:

    I am actually unsure why folks are so eager to grant the same guarantees to those whom are not citizens, or as pointed out on the path to citizenship.

    No offense to the OP

    ----------------------------

    i am also unsure.

    since the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are god given does that mean that all immigrants should be granted them? including illegals? where is the line drawn?

    how about the Hamas refugees that our resident is paying for to come here? should they have all the privileges that US citizens enjoy? how about Mohammed Atta? gun for him too?

    seriously, where is the line drawn? my personal belief is that it ends with citizenship. if an individual goes thru the process of attaining US citizenship then i am behind them 100%. if they just want to come here because it's better than where they come from, but pledge no allegiance to the United States of America, then too bad so sad.

    if i were to relocate to another country as a non-citizen would i be granted full citizenship privileges? i think not.

    no offense intended to the OP but come on, you want to have your cake and eat it too? if your intent is to become a citizen, GREAT! if not then enjoy what America has to offer you as a non-citizen and deal with the limitations of that as well.


    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Broondog wrote:
    SNIP i am also unsure.

    since the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are god given does that mean that all immigrants should be granted them? including illegals? where is the line drawn?


    seriously, where is the line drawn?
    I'm betting one can draw the line where ever he wants. If citizenship is the line for you, according to your conscience, go with it.

    I was once a citizen-only person. The more I thought about it--meaning the more I looked it over--the less certain I became.

    For example,if one's main angle is to discourage illegal immigration, or encourage legal citizenship, that would certainly have somevalidity. Those are worthy things to discourage and encourage. And, it would beeven more valid to decide whether rights are sufficientlyunimportant to use them as a negotiating tool.

    You justgotta look it over for yourself and see where you land.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Jared wrote:
    SNIP It doesn't matter what you think. Case law is against you, SCOTUS said that the constitution even applies to illegal aliens.
    ..well, I guess you know what I mean.
    No, he doesn't, but that's ok too.

    While my opinion is different than his, I simply requested cites which he tried to provide, though it was the length of residency that shifted SCOTUS in Grahm, but that's an entirely different issue.

    Jarad,
    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing opinion.
    The term is also used to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion etc.
    Thank you for providing the example that makes it clear.


    Citizen,
    I understand your point on fundamental rights to self defense. I think it is a valid point, however, its validity does not give it enough merit in the big picture in my book.
    I am not a fan of foreign ownership of property here either. I stated that knowing I may get blasted again. That does not change that I am old enough to remember Japan being the purchaser of over 90% of the real estate sold in the late 80's in Hawaii, I believe we had to establish one of those bigot kind of laws to prevent the entire state from becoming foreign owned.
    I personally am not going to jump up and down trying to obtain, maintain or prevent the rights of foreigners, I prefer to work for the rights of the citizens of this country first.

    Once every and any US citizen can walk into a gun store, buy a firearm, load it, put it in their pocket or strap it on, walk out of the store perfectly legally in all fifty states, perhaps then I will worry a bit about how our government regulates the alien population.


    If I am going to be unpopular on this board for fighting for citizens rights first and not being concerned about non-citizens rights, well it will just have to be that way.



    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Formerly of Ireland, now Martinsburg, WV, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    I will say I personally don't believe that anyone should be automatically entitled to become a citizen and to be permitted all that goes with it.

    Surely it should be something for us legal immigrant's to aspire to in the future, but an entitlement NO, not under any circumstances.

    I just don't believe that anyone coming to this country has a right to be a US citizen, or even to residency, or that we should expect the U.S authorities to let everybody become a citizen.

    I see no advantage to the people/citizen's of the U.S in making the citizenship process easier, such a move would only serve to encourage an even greater flood of illegals all wishing be become legal resident's or citizen's.

    Before anyone, Myself included should be permitted to seek citizenship, there should be a mandatory residency term, and that individual should be seen to be of a positive benefit for these United State's.

    But I fail to understand why the laws should be different for a legal resident.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    There is a very important reason why the founders of this nation assured the rights of all people regardless of their citizenship. That was because while the king assured the rights of the citizens the king also had the power to remove citizenship. That meant that no one's rights were safe since the protections of a fair trial and against cruel punishment could be removed at the whim of the king.

    Anyone that finds themselves within the borders of the USA has the rights as protected by the Constitution. That includes all immigrants, even the illegal ones.

    If an illegal alien does not have the same rights that we do then our own rights can be removed on the suspicion of being in the country illegally. We could have our homes broken into without warrant, jailed without trial, all because we did not have our "papers in order".

    This goes beyond just being a foreigner in our borders but all conditions placed on our right to self defense. No convicted felon should be prohibited arms once released from jail. No drug user, or abuser, should be prohibited arms. No wanted fugitive, no domestic abuser, or person dishonorably discharged from the military should be barred from the tools of self defense. Until the prohibitions on weapons are lifted then we cannot truly have unlicensed carry of weapons since there will always be some suspicion of someone meeting some condition that prohibits the tools of self defense. We all can be presumed guilty of that offense while armed until proven innocent. We will need to have our "papers" at all times to keep our rights.

    Our right to life is unconditional, so should our right to protect it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    I disagree 100%

    If you want the rights guaranteed to you, naturalize, if you don't, then you have made the choice.

    If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not have ownership or possession of arms.

    It is certainly not against the OP at any level or those whom come here seeking a different life than their home country afforded them, but if you want the cream, step up and help milk the cows.
    LMTD,

    Plenty of legal resident aliens are "helping to milk the cows". In addition to working hard and payingtheir taxes, the ranks of the US Armed Forces contain plenty of non-citizens. I guess that you are happy for them to defend the US overseas; yet don't recognize their God given right to defend themselves and their familywhen they gethome.

    The 14th Amdrecognizes that other rights, such as the 4th and 5th apply to non-citizens, through the due process clause. SCOTUS ruled the 2nd is an individual right, therefore the same legal argument should apply, through the 14th. (I guess we'll find out when SCOTUS rules on the Chicago handgun ban).

    Personally, I moved here 5 years ago to Washington State. At that time, I was prevented from possessing a firearm by our own Alien Firearms licence requirement. The catch was that the WA Dept of Licencing was refusing to issue them. This meant that we could not have a firearm in the home and therefore my wife, a US citizen, was effectively stripped of her 2nd Amd rights. I was also reduced in my ability to defend my 2 US citizen children, who are too young to defend themselves.

    Thanks to the SAF, NRA and certain members of this board, WA was forced to amend state law and drop the Alien Firearms Licence requirement for permanent residents. Iremain deeplygrateful for the efforts they made on behalf of non-citizens.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Isn't beinghere illegallya crime?

    I know the OP isn't an illegal immigrant but this topic has been touched upon in this thread already.

    If being an illegal alien is a crime, we know that some criminals aren't afforded their full rights including a right to bear arms, so maybe this should apply to illegal aliens as well?

    My personal opinion, and I know it goes against the laws as well as popular opinion, but I feel even convicted felons should be granted the right to bear arms and be able to protect themselves with the use of a firearm. I think that everyone should be able to protect themselves and should they then commit a crime with a weapon, they should be punished for that crime.

    That's my opinion and I can definitely respect other's opinions to the contrary. Its also not a fight I am willing to go out on a limb and fight for either but just my own personal feeling. Ifell that convicted felons, once free from incarceration, should have all their rights restored including the right to possess and bear arms.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    NavyMike wrote:
    LMTD,

    I guess that you are happy for them to defend the US overseas; yet don't recognize their God given right to defend themselves and their familywhen they gethome.

    The 14th Amdrecognizes that other rights, such as the 4th and 5th apply to non-citizens, through the due process clause. SCOTUS ruled the 2nd is an individual right, therefore the same legal argument should apply, through the 14th. (I guess we'll find out when SCOTUS rules on the Chicago handgun ban).


    Thanks to the SAF, NRA and certain members of this board, WA was forced to amend state law and drop the Alien Firearms Licence requirement for permanent residents. Iremain deeplygrateful for the efforts they made on behalf of non-citizens.
    NavyMike

    Since I don't make presumptions about your thoughts, perhaps you could avoid doing the same regarding mine.

    I think your second paragraph likely exposes some fundamental differences of opinion on how things are going to change for the better for one and all involved. For whatever reason I did not recognize this difference, but this thread has exposed it for what it is in reality.

    I am glad to hear your position was supported and settled in a way that is positive for you.

    The difference I am speaking about is the change in the laws that have come about for the last roughly 70 years incrementally gnawing away at the 2a rights the Constitution guarantees.

    Only two branches of our government shall likely be effective in the reversal of the damage done. The legislative and the judicial as the executive is not going to be effective for a while.

    Many think the changes shall come through the judicial system, I do not agree. While your comments regarding an "individual right" from the Hellar ruling, SCOTUS made it quite clear they were not impeding states / local ability to "regulate" in that same ruling. To some that is acceptable, to others it is not and that is just how it remains. The upcoming decision on the Chicago case may make that more defined and I certainly hope myself that it does and upholds a much higher standard on the governments ability to regulate, we shall see.

    I personally do NOT like the judicial branch approach. Far too many variables, interpretations, opinions and frankly weasel words for lawyers to play with to distort the true meaning of what was said.

    I am a fan of using the legislative branch to bring about change. It is NOT the fastest approach, however it has produces SOME results and while it may not be fast, it does not come with the far reaching negatives that a poor decision in the judicial branch can bring. In other words, a law that does not pass fails to achieve the goal but does not directly result in regression. A case that fails is not simply a loss, it is a precedent by which other decisions can be linked and a far reaching impact can spread like wild fire. The Chicago case is a fine example, if Chicago wins, it is without any doubt in my mind that THOUSANDS of cities may indeed choose to "regulate" and restrict the very people they are supposed to represent.

    Since I choose to seek restoration of rights through legislation, I am forced to look at the big picture. This means one has to look not at whats right in ones own mind, but what one can sell and convince others to buy into.

    Mo has a law, says OC is ok, but allows cities / counties to regulate it as they see fit. If a law came for consideration that did change this and preempted cities and counties from being able to regulate it, I would think that most would be quite happy.

    If that law read similar to the existing CCW law, would you vote for it?

    IE: Qualification for open carry:

    (1) Is at least eighteen years of age, is a citizen of the United States and either:

    (a) Has assumed residency in any state; or

    (b) Is a member of the armed forces, or the spouse of such member of the military;

    Its a simple question really, it is a yes or no answer. Could it be improved? Yes, I even improved it myself reducing the 23 to 18, residency requirement, or service without the Missouri requirement.

    IE IE: Qualification for open carry:

    (1) Is at least eighteen years of age.

    (a) Has assumed residency in, or is legally visiting any state; or

    (b) Is a member of the armed forces, or the spouse of such member of the military;


    The second version removes the citizenship requirement. It also opens a lot more arguments of opposition. Personally I would vote YES for either one.

    The problem is however, when folks talk about instant felon rights, illegal alien rights, when it comes to the gun issue, it grants the ability of spin and contains buzz words that change folks thinking away from the values they actually have and believe in based upon slick marketing tactics.

    Because I lean to the legislature for the changes we seek, I am far more prone to observe my back and constantly look for the knife the Brady bunch is willing to plunge at any given moment.

    It IMHO is not an effective approach for me to associate with a candidate to effect change if the anti's get to go public with headlines in the anti-press like "his contributors want to hand criminals assault weapons the day they walk out of prison as convicted felons" because the average Joe does not CARE to know what a felon is, the term to them means murder, armed robbery, criminal assault etc.

    So again, without regard for popularity on the boards here, I will continue on the same quest for change as others, I will continue to evaluate thoughts not only on what is right, but how they can be spun and twisted to mean things they never did, and I will toss my money where I think it will be effective in obtaining change with the minimal risk to damage to the rights we all hold dear.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •