Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: ACLU Sues to Protect Immigrant's Gun (carry) Rights From Change in South Dakota Law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998

    ACLU Sues to Protect Immigrant's Gun (carry) Rights From Change in South Dakota Law

    From Foxnews.com:

    In what might appear to be a shotgun wedding of opposites, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a non-U.S. citizen alleging that South Dakota's concealed weapons law violates his constitutional right to bear arms.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06...est=latestnews


    I think that this could shape up to hold some sway by clearly establishing carry as a right protected under 2nd Amendment and guaranteed to all by the 14th. I do, however, have to admit that I am very disappointed by the comments of GOA's Larry Pratt. I have always been a great admirer of his, but I believe that he is way off the mark with his views in this matter.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by VApatriot View Post
    From Foxnews.com:

    In what might appear to be a shotgun wedding of opposites, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a non-U.S. citizen alleging that South Dakota's concealed weapons law violates his constitutional right to bear arms.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06...est=latestnews


    I think that this could shape up to hold some sway by clearly establishing carry as a right protected under 2nd Amendment and guaranteed to all by the 14th. I do, however, have to admit that I am very disappointed by the comments of GOA's Larry Pratt. I have always been a great admirer of his, but I believe that he is way off the mark with his views in this matter.

    Larry Pratt is a bigot and a racist. He has made numerous comments about non white people and homosexuals. He want's total gun freedom.... for himself and people he approves of. This is typical of many people. They don't understand that if you want freedom, you need to respect that your neighbor deserves the same freedom, even if you don't approve.

    Mr.Smith is not an illegal alien, so who cares what his status is or why he hasn't become a citizen. Maybe he doesn't want to. The U.S. has draconian tax laws that most citizens don't know about, regarding foreign property and the like.

    Pratt is using the same logic that the brady people use. a CPL for a non-citizen doesn't mean that illegal aliens will be entitled to them just as "shall-issue" laws do not pave the way for felons to get carry permits.

    I wonder if Pratt would have held the same standard to his Brazilian wife (or ex-wife)? Oh, that's right, Virginia issues to non-citizens so this bigot never needed to worry.

    It also goes to show how dumb many people are who think this guy should not have a CPL. He can already open carry, he can already carry longarms in vehicles. He can already own any NFA item he wants... and his immigration background check was more stringent that most what anybody goes through to get a carry permit from any state.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    He is being denied a permit to conceal. Can he carry openly? If so, he is not being denied the right to carry, just the privilege to conceal. If the only way to carry is with a permit, then that is the problem, not the bar on non-citizens.

    I do think the ACLU is doing this trying to get rights for illegal aliens. (Yes, I know that the plaintiff is not illegal.) They tend not to care about the RKBA, so they likely have an ulterior motive.

    That all being said, every law-abiding, sane, and sober adult in the US should be able to carry openly sans permit or license. (The law-abiding part should eliminate carry by illegal aliens, as they are continuous law-breakers.)

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Echoing eye95, yeah... this quote from the news story is one of the stupidest things I have ever read:

    Constitutional attorney Matt Rinaldi disagrees.

    "There's been about 4 or 5 of those cases in federal district court, not relating to a permit but relating to the federal prohibition on firearm possession by illegal aliens. So regardless of the Sioux City law and permits the federal statute's going to trump that. All of the courts have upheld this statute… and the same principle would apply here that would apply to illegal aliens," Rinaldi told FoxNews.com.
    MAJOR difference, one is a CRIMINAL, one is NOT!

    TFred

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    I think that for legal, resident aliens, we should apply the "gun rights" of their nation of citizenship. Maybe that would help them decide which nation they REALLY wanted to be a citizen of...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 01-07-2011 at 12:33 AM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    Awesome, I totally support the ACLU on this one.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I think that for legal, resident aliens, we should apply the "gun rights" of their nation of citizenship. Maybe that would help them decide which nation they REALLY wanted to be a citizen of...
    That might sound like a good idea, but that is not how the Constitution should be applied. The Constitution already provides privileges and benefits for citizenship, such as voting and holding public office, but it also recognizes the fundamental human rights of all law-abiding people, among them freedom of speech and religion, as well as the right to bear arms.

    As the article states, case-law has already established that individuals who are in this country legally are governed by the same laws and deserve the same due process and equal protection of the law that citizens enjoy. I don't see any reason that this should be any different for the 2nd Amendment than it is for the 1st, 4th, 5th or any other Amendment.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    I am skeptical about motive, but the fact that the ACLU actually refers to the RKBA as a right means that while they won't fight for it generally, they are on our side. Maybe a silent partner, but a partner nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I think that for legal, resident aliens, we should apply the "gun rights" of their nation of citizenship. Maybe that would help them decide which nation they REALLY wanted to be a citizen of...
    It's not really about someone wanting to be a citizen or not. I have a good friend of almost 20 years, and he has been my shooting buddy for a couple of years. As a Dutch citizen, he has been a legal resident for nearly 35 years. He pays taxes like everyone else, and there is nothing about him or his life that distinguishes him from any US citizen, except his accent and having to travel to the Dutch embassy in Houston every few years to renew his foreign passport. By remaining a Dutch citizen, he can more easily deal with his aging mother (lots of paperwork verifying her continuing existence each year, etc.). The other day, he commented that he might go ahead and apply for citizenship soon, but there is nothing that would change if he does, or doesn't.

    BTW - along the border and to the south, people believe that you have to renounce your Mexican citizenship and walk on the Mexican flag in order to become a US citizen (as if it is part of the ceremony). Really. I know several people that were hesitant to apply for that reason alone.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I think that for legal, resident aliens, we should apply the "gun rights" of their nation of citizenship. Maybe that would help them decide which nation they REALLY wanted to be a citizen of...
    That's kind of funny coming from the guy who rants and raves about Maryland. No one can mention anything about Maryland without you going ballistic over the state.... and you want to restrict anyone's rights????

    It goes to show how sometimes even people who complain about the lack of freedom are the first to complain about other people's freedom, whatever the reason, it doesn't matter, whether they are a different color or from a different spot on the planet. Any non violent felon deserves the right to protect themselves.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    He is being denied a permit to conceal. Can he carry openly? If so, he is not being denied the right to carry, just the privilege to conceal. If the only way to carry is with a permit, then that is the problem, not the bar on non-citizens.

    I do think the ACLU is doing this trying to get rights for illegal aliens. (Yes, I know that the plaintiff is not illegal.) They tend not to care about the RKBA, so they likely have an ulterior motive.
    Not necessarily, you can't carry on a motorcyle in any manner in SD without a CPL. So his rights are being violated; however, the case is about the 14th amendment. Strict Scrutiny is required to discriminate against a suspect class.

    That is the primary focus of this case. It is actually a slam dunk, he will get his permit and the bigot in Pierre who added the citizenship requirement will be embarrassed.

    The ACLU is all about the 14th amendment. I have been told that this is being done again (ACLU did this in Kentucky a few years back) to incrementally get the ACLU to get on board with the second amendment. Equal Protection issues may be the bridge that they cross to get there.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    [QUOTE=Jared;1437357]That's kind of funny coming from the guy who rants and raves about Maryland. No one can mention anything about Maryland without you going ballistic over the state.... and you want to restrict anyone's rights????

    It goes to show how sometimes even people who complain about the lack of freedom are the first to complain about other people's freedom, whatever the reason, it doesn't matter, whether they are a different color or from a different spot on the planet. Any non violent felon deserves the right to protect themselves.[/QUOTE]

    No... 18 USC Gun Control Act of 1968 sez otherwise 'bout firearms. The only rights illegal aliens have is due-process. They're criminals. As for agreeing with the ACLU (as in 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'...) I wouldn't be all that hasty to get in bed with that bunch. Given that many States/Municipalities still deny/restrict their own LACs RKBA in any form beyond their own doorstep (if that) in spite of McDonald vs Chicago or Heller vs DC... you don't hear the ACLU beatin' that drum do you? Why for this guy? It's not as tho he can't carry at all. The contrivance of permit to exercise a right is unconstitutional no matter what else... and the 2A neither mentions what type of arms or any caveate for mode of carry. SCJs Scalia and Ginsburg put all that to bed awhile ago. Nahhh.... I smell a rat here.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Not necessarily, you can't carry on a motorcyle in any manner in SD without a CPL. So his rights are being violated; however, the case is about the 14th amendment. Strict Scrutiny is required to discriminate against a suspect class.

    That is the primary focus of this case. It is actually a slam dunk, he will get his permit and the bigot in Pierre who added the citizenship requirement will be embarrassed.

    The ACLU is all about the 14th amendment. I have been told that this is being done again (ACLU did this in Kentucky a few years back) to incrementally get the ACLU to get on board with the second amendment. Equal Protection issues may be the bridge that they cross to get there.
    There's no 'right' to operate or even ride on a motorcycle. (You sure do throw this bigot and race card around a bit more than necessary.) He's a UK citizen. States can do what they will under the 10A IAW the USC. Often they are not in agreement with the USC. Unconstitutional Yes... Illegal in the states that adopted such laws... No. Nothing is preventing White from obtaining a Utah or Florida CCW non-resident permit... is there? SD considers concealment by permit (CPL) to be a privilege, as do most states. Unconstitutional... but there it is.

    Wanna talk about unconstitutional? Maryland... front to back. New Jersey, New York City, Chicago... yada yada yada etc etc... ad nauseum. Where's the ACLU?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    There's no 'right' to operate or even ride on a motorcycle. (You sure do throw this bigot and race card around a bit more than necessary.)
    I never said there was a right to ride on a motorcycle. I did say that South Dakota law requires a CPL to carry in ANY MANNER on a motorcycle. Just because there is no right to operate a motocycle doesn't mean you give up your rights. Do you give up free speech when you are in a car? Driving a car isn't a right.

    I highly doubt the ACLU is up to something here. In the Say case the ACLU lawyer in Kentucky was pro RKBA and wanted Mr Say to get his CCDW renewal. Not everyone in the ACLU is anti-gun.

    When the Mosby case in RI went to the State Supreme Court. We at CRAL wrote a brief in support of Mosby and..... so did the ACLU. Later that year on the last day of the general assembly session, every lobbyist was in town. I was sitting in a committee room having a drink when I saw Steve Brown, the head of the Rhode Island ACLU. I thanked him for his support in the Mosby case and I asked him why he supported it. He said that he had concerns about how the chiefs and the Attorney General applied the law and it bothered him.

    Take help where you can get it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    Nothing is preventing White from obtaining a Utah or Florida CCW non-resident permit... is there?
    I'm sure you must of overlooked it in your research.... but South Dakota law only recognizes out of state permits while you are a non-resident of the state. A Utah or Florida permit would have done nothing for him in South Dakota.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998
    As far as the ACLU involvement goes, I'll just point out this is the ACLU of South Dakota, not the national ACLU or say the ACLU of California. Being that SD is a rather "red" state, it is possible that the members of the ACLU there are actually interested in protecting ALL civil liberties.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I think that for legal, resident aliens, we should apply the "gun rights" of their nation of citizenship. Maybe that would help them decide which nation they REALLY wanted to be a citizen of...
    It's not all that easy. For example, there is a certain "waiting period" (3 to 5 years, generally, depending on immigration circumstances) between getting a green card (i.e. becoming a US Permanent Resident) and being eligible to apply for Citizenship. Then, processing also takes time. Person might have decided from day one that he wants to be a US Citizen and act like any good hard working American - work, pay taxes, abide the law, etc. - but he cannot choose to appy for Citizenship until a certain date, arbitrarily set by the government.

    In addition to that, many countries have a requirment that a person must renounce their Citizenship prior to applying for any others. That might create undue hardships for people who have family and/or propery in their country of birth. They can be more faithful to the US than many natural born Citizens (actually, they usually are, because of all the legal and financial harships they had to go through to live legally in the US), but they may choose to keep their Citizenship of birth for family reasons.

    I myself was born in the USSR and came from Russia a few years ago. I have been working hard and paying taxes since about a month after I landed. I was only able to apply for Citizenship last summer and got naturalized last December, but I have gotten my VA CHP a few years ago and carried ever since. I also did apply for the Citizenship the first day I was eligible to do that, but I got my CHP before then.

  17. #17
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    If a man or woman is here legally (has their green card), I personally see no valid reason for denying them a concealed carry permit. Not everyone wants to, or is of a mindset to, openly carry. There are people here from countries which severely restrict or outright ban private ownership of firearms. These folks have to really ramp up their courage just to touch a firearm, let alone carry one. Concealed carry for them is about as far as they are willing to go.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Not necessarily, you can't carry on a motorcyle in any manner in SD without a CPL. So his rights are being violated; however, the case is about the 14th amendment. Strict Scrutiny is required to discriminate against a suspect class...
    Then it is not the non-citizen's rights that are being violated. It is everyone's. The fix is not to force the State to extend a privilege to everyone, it is to ensure that the right to carry is not infringed through a requirement to have a license to carry on a motorcycle.

    Having a right to a license is not just oxymoronic. It is moronic.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Then it is not the non-citizen's rights that are being violated. It is everyone's. The fix is not to force the State to extend a privilege to everyone, it is to ensure that the right to carry is not infringed through a requirement to have a license to carry on a motorcycle.

    Having a right to a license is not just oxymoronic. It is moronic.
    I agree. I wish SCOTUS saw it that way.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaingun81 View Post
    It's not all that easy. For example, there is a certain "waiting period" (3 to 5 years, generally, depending on immigration circumstances) between getting a green card (i.e. becoming a US Permanent Resident) and being eligible to apply for Citizenship. Then, processing also takes time. Person might have decided from day one that he wants to be a US Citizen and act like any good hard working American - work, pay taxes, abide the law, etc. - but he cannot choose to appy for Citizenship until a certain date, arbitrarily set by the government.

    In addition to that, many countries have a requirment that a person must renounce their Citizenship prior to applying for any others. That might create undue hardships for people who have family and/or propery in their country of birth. They can be more faithful to the US than many natural born Citizens (actually, they usually are, because of all the legal and financial harships they had to go through to live legally in the US), but they may choose to keep their Citizenship of birth for family reasons.

    I myself was born in the USSR and came from Russia a few years ago. I have been working hard and paying taxes since about a month after I landed. I was only able to apply for Citizenship last summer and got naturalized last December, but I have gotten my VA CHP a few years ago and carried ever since. I also did apply for the Citizenship the first day I was eligible to do that, but I got my CHP before then.
    Now you are just making too much sense here. Not many people realize this because they don't care. They think the United States is the whole world and nothing else matters. Many people move here for more freedom (in some areas) but have reasons not to naturalize but some people are ignorant like Larry Pratt so don't expect them to understand stuff like this. They want freedom for them, and those they approve of, not for anyone else.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    He's a UK citizen.
    They are subjects, not citizens, in the U.K.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    223
    This is one I fully support the ACLU on.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    They are subjects, not citizens, in the U.K.
    Apparently, there are relatively few British subjects. The vast majority of people in the UK are, in fact, citizens.

    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    ACLU motives

    This link might explain where they are going with 14th Amendment cases and state laws:
    http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-...14th-amendment

    I find it disturbing that people who claim the First and Second Amendments are so integral to life as we know it are so quick to jump all over a group recognizing the provisions of another Amendment are being relegated to the dust bin.

    I find it disingenuous of Fox News to frame the OP's story as "ACLU Sues to Expand Immigrant Rights..." when in fact they are suing to prevent erosion of those rights arbitrarily. Most ordinary people didn't even notice that the rights (or privileges) of their neighbors had been taken away by the rule change in 2002. I am still astounded that the ACLU uses an argument that the Second Amendment gives the (unrestricted) right to bear arms as a basis for this suit. The ACLU is essentially backing the idea that while the right to bear may be regulated, it may not be prohibited arbitrarily (requiring a permit to carry concealed is OK, but the permits must be issued unless there is proper justification.)

    But that does beg the question: Are non-citizens accorded the same rights and privileges as citizens, or not? Is there a hierarchy of rights and privileges for citizens only (voting)-> permanent resident aliens-> temporary aliens-> undocumented/illegal aliens... like a list of who gets what? And is the end game of the ACLU to move that bar to the right, while the xenophobes try to move it to the left?
    Last edited by nonameisgood; 01-10-2011 at 05:10 PM. Reason: to correct poor sentence construction

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    This link might explain where they are going with 14th Amendment cases and state laws:
    http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-...14th-amendment

    I find it disturbing that people who claim the First and Second Amendments are so integral to life as we know it are so quick to jump all over a group recognizing the provisions of another Amendment are being relegated to the dust bin.

    I find it disingenuous of Fox News to frame the OP's story as "ACLU Sues to Expand Immigrant Rights..." when in fact they are suing to prevent erosion of those rights arbitrarily. Most ordinary people didn't even notice that the rights (or privileges) of their neighbors had been taken away by the rule change in 2002. I am still astounded that the ACLU uses an argument that the Second Amendment gives the (unrestricted) right to bear arms as a basis for this suit. The ACLU is essentially backing the idea that while the right to bear may be regulated, it may not be prohibited arbitrarily (requiring a permit to carry concealed is OK, but the permits must be issued unless there is proper justification.)

    But that does beg the question: Are non-citizens accorded the same rights and privileges as citizens, or not? Is there a hierarchy of rights and privileges for citizens only (voting)-> permanent resident aliens-> temporary aliens-> undocumented/illegal aliens... like a list of who gets what? And is the end game of the ACLU to move that bar to the right, while the xenophobes try to move it to the left?
    It isn't a "rights" issue. It is a "privileges" issue. Carry is a right. Concealment is a privilege that is licensed. Privileges can be allowed or disallowed by the State based criteria that they set.

    I don't like that they are choosing citizenship as a criteria, but I see that as within their authority. If the people of the State don't like that policy, they should settle it at the ballot box with an initiative or by voting out the representatives who vote against their beliefs. The courts are not the place to settle policy on privilege issues.

    Again, though, the participation of the ACLU is to normalize illegal alienship by obtaining for them every privilege available to citizens and legal residents. This case, being about legal resident aliens, is just the camel's nose. But, that is not why their position is wrong and dangerous. It is because it would assist in the movement of the authority to set policy from the People and their representatives to the courts.

    One more step toward oligarchy and away from a Republic, away from a nation of laws.

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
  •