Thundar
Regular Member
They are subjects, not citizens, in the U.K.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
ACLU Sues to Protect Immigrant's Gun (carry) Rights From Change in South Dakota Law
- Thread starter VApatriot
- Start date
They are subjects, not citizens, in the U.K.
Passive101
Regular Member
This is one I fully support the ACLU on.
djstaehlin
Campaign Veteran
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/
nonameisgood
Regular Member
ACLU motives
This link might explain where they are going with 14th Amendment cases and state laws:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants...u-lens-citizenship-birth-under-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?
This link might explain where they are going with 14th Amendment cases and state laws:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants...u-lens-citizenship-birth-under-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:
eye95
Well-known member
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.
oldbanger
Regular Member
NavyMike
Regular Member
I'm curious as to where you draw the line between a right versus a privilege and when courts should be used versus the ballot box. What should Rosa Parks have done? After all, she could ride the bus; just not sit up front. Would sitting up front have been a privilege versus a right? Would this have been one of those state privilege / policy issues that courts shouldn't interefere with?
actually she could sit up front. but if a white person wanted the seat, then she had to move.
eye95
Well-known member
I didn't draw the line. The authors of the 2A did. It states that you have the right to keep and bear arms, not to hide them about your person. That makes the hiding of the arms subject to laws that outlaw or license the practice.
The only problem I have with the licensing or the outlawing of concealment would be when it is done in a way that infringes on the enumerated right. For example, in Alabama, you must have a CPL to carry in a car, openly or concealed. That infringes on carry and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
I think that laws licensing or outlawing concealment are bad policy, but not unconstitutional. The legislature is the body that makes policy decisions, not the courts. It amazes me that some who claim not to want the courts making policy decisions advocate for such when the courts would be making policy decisions that they favor.
We need to be careful to distinguish between policies we don't like and policies that are unconstitutional. The former should be changed through the legislature or at the ballot box. The latter should be challenged in court. Mixing the two up does not serve the cause and makes us look dogmatic, not principled.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
Where is it said that "keep and bear" requires them to be visible? Nothing in "keep and bear" makes "hiding of the arms subject to laws that outlaw or license the practice."
Last edited:
NavyMike
Regular Member
Why do you refer to them as Policies; rather than state Laws?
It seems to me that if this legislation can land you in court, with possible legal ramifications, then it is a state law not a policy.
If it is a law, then it cannot be contrary to the Constitution - as The Supreme Law of the US. As such it can be subjected to Constitutional scrutiny, right?
eye95
Well-known member
I didn't say that it required the arms to be visible. The 2A is silent on visibility. What it protects is ownership and carry. As long as a law or regulation does not materially make either of these activities harder to do, it does not "infringe." Therefore a law that does not limit the right to carry, but does limit the privilege of concealment, does not run afoul of the 2A.
That being said, as a matter of policy, I support all lawful, sane, and sober citizens being able to both carry (the right) and conceal (the privilege).
eye95
Well-known member
Courts and legislatures both make law. "Policy" type law is the purview of legislatures. Those who complain about judicial activism are generally bemoaning "policy" type law being issued from the bench.
Regulating, licensing, or barring a privilege (not a right) is a "policy" type of law and is, therefore, not the task of the courts, but of the legislature.
It is a mistake to advocate for courts issuing policy law, even if it is policy law with which we agree. That is how we got into the judicial situation we find ourselves--courts doing what some thought was the "right" thing, even though doing so was outside the court's intended power.
NavyMike
Regular Member
Thanks for clarifying. I had a city attorney, here in WA, tell me that their ban on loaded firearms in parks was a policy and not a law; despite it being in the City Code as a misdemeanor with a large fine. He claimed this meant that it was not subject to our state preemption on all firearm laws.
If a state passes a law and that law discriminates against one class of people,based on alienage in this case, why do you believe that it should not be subject to scrutiny as a 14th Amndt issue? Namely, under the 'equal protection' section, where previous courts have set the precedent that discrimination based on alienage must be subject to Strict Scrutiny.
MamaLiberty
Regular Member
Rights: Life, liberty, property - these are the ONLY "rights" and belong to all human beings.
The "rights" being discussed, such as concealed carry, are state granted PRIVILEGES, not rights - whether or not they should be. Vermont, Alaska and Arizona could easily decide to withdraw their present carry laws. Just because the legislature voted one way at some point doesn't change the fact that they consider this sort of thing to be within their authority to decide for everyone in that state. The feds will do their best to impose whatever it is THEY decide.
"Citizenship" is also a privilege dispensed by the state. A "citizen" is required to give allegiance and tribute to the state to which he belongs. The citizen is the property of the state to which he pledges allegiance. Remember: ownership equals control. We are owned by others to the extent that they control us.
It makes perfect sense for the state not to extend privileges to non citizens. What doesn't make any sense to me is the idea of being owned by the state in the first place.
Don't confuse rights with privileges granted by the state.
Groups do not have "rights," only the individuals do. And the ACLU has never been interested in anything but manipulating groups for their own purposes.
I've been very disappointed in GOA for a long time.
The "rights" being discussed, such as concealed carry, are state granted PRIVILEGES, not rights - whether or not they should be. Vermont, Alaska and Arizona could easily decide to withdraw their present carry laws. Just because the legislature voted one way at some point doesn't change the fact that they consider this sort of thing to be within their authority to decide for everyone in that state. The feds will do their best to impose whatever it is THEY decide.
"Citizenship" is also a privilege dispensed by the state. A "citizen" is required to give allegiance and tribute to the state to which he belongs. The citizen is the property of the state to which he pledges allegiance. Remember: ownership equals control. We are owned by others to the extent that they control us.
It makes perfect sense for the state not to extend privileges to non citizens. What doesn't make any sense to me is the idea of being owned by the state in the first place.
Don't confuse rights with privileges granted by the state.
Groups do not have "rights," only the individuals do. And the ACLU has never been interested in anything but manipulating groups for their own purposes.
I've been very disappointed in GOA for a long time.
wrightme
Regular Member
If it does not say it "required the arms to be visible," it has no mechanism for creation of laws against hiding them; which WAS what it appeared you were claiming.
It could be that I misinterpreted your intent.
Being silent on visibility to me does not give legislatures a "pass" upon enacting laws against concealment. If a case could be made that this is an infringement, it sure would end up being covered. For one, given temperature differences in winter, it can be difficult to "keep and bear" without concealing, intentionally or unintentionally. Now, since this case is in South Dakota, I can see a route to an infringement determination for prevention of cc.
It could be that I misinterpreted your intent.
Being silent on visibility to me does not give legislatures a "pass" upon enacting laws against concealment. If a case could be made that this is an infringement, it sure would end up being covered. For one, given temperature differences in winter, it can be difficult to "keep and bear" without concealing, intentionally or unintentionally. Now, since this case is in South Dakota, I can see a route to an infringement determination for prevention of cc.
Last edited:
NavyMike
Regular Member
However you slice it, SD has passed a law that discriminates between 2 classes of people: citizen v legal resident alien. The 14th Amndt Equal Protection clause states "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Courts have ruled that where alienage is a condition of a law, then that law is subject to the strict scrutiny test, under the 14th. This is where SD's law will be weighed and measured in this lawsuit.
wrightme
Regular Member
And, stipulating CC as privilege, denying cc to a legal resident alien and not to a citizen is like denying a driver's license to a legal resident alien.
It does look like a solid case, where the legal resident alien does not have equal protection of the law.
NavyMike
Regular Member
If the ACLU was doing this to gain gun rights for illegals, why would they choose SD as the battle ground?
Surely, if that was the case, they'd file suit in a state that already issues CPLs to legal resident aliens. For example WA or even your home state of Alabama.
Edit to add: There are at least 20 states that will issue to permanent residents (greencard holders).
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
First let me try to bust an axiom that most people hold: There is nothing wrong with discrimination. We do it all the time. Saying someone has discriminating tastes is actually a compliment. Racial discrimination got folks thinking that all discrimination is wrong. It isn't.
What makes discrimination immoral is using inappropriate criteria in order to disadvantage one group for nefarious or ignorant purposes. Citizenship is a perfectly reasonable criteria to use for discrimination. We do it for the privilege of voting, for example.
Whether or not discrimination against non-citizens for the privilege to conceal is a policy-type law decision that should be made by the legislature, not the courts. Personally, I'd prefer that all law-abiding, sane, and sober adult persons should be permitted to conceal as a matter of policy. However, that is not a hill I'd die on.