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.