• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

GOA's Larry Pratt Makes Comments Against LEGAL Non-Citizens Carrying

VApatriot

Regular Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
998
Location
Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
I know that this isn't strictly Virginia related, but since GOA and Larry Pratt are VA based and some here might know Larry personally, I thought that this would be a good place to post a discussion of thoughts on this matter.

I have already posted a thread regarding the specific case of a legal, non-citizen, U.S. perminate resident who was denied renewal of his South Dakota CC permit, and it can be found here:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...nge-in-South-Dakota-Law&p=1437071#post1437071

What I found troubling was Larry Pratt's comments to Fox News regarding this case.

From Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/0...pand-south-dakota-gun-rights/?test=latestnews

But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens.

"If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?," Pratt told FoxNews.com.

Pratt says the only reason the ACLU brought the suit is to pave the way for illegal aliens to have conceal carry permits.

"They want to make it so illegal aliens have the same rights as everybody else...every little bit chipping away," he said.


I have been a GOA supporter for a long time, and Larry has been a guest speaker at several VCDL meetings and events, but I can't help but feel that his arguing that this will lead to illegal immigrants getting CC permits is just as bad as Paul Helmke saying that surplus M1s and M1 Carbines will be used by terrorists.

Thoughts?
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
How about we do this:

The gun laws of a person's nation of citizenship shall apply to legal resident aliens of the US.

I bet that might influence the way some of these people view their citizenship situation...
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
There are grounds for his and SD's argument if one wishes to be strict in their reading of the Constitution. I hope I am not opening a can of worms here and I do NOT wish to start any other heated arguments or be flamed for my suggestion. I am only offering this as a consideration and to get other members' takes on it.

The first seven words of the Constitution are, "We the People of the United States". With this opening, everything which follows is for "We the People of the United States", not We the People of Canada or We the People of Central America or We the People of the world. It specifically and distinctly states, "We the People of the United States". If we were to keep a strict reading and follow strict adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then Mr. Pratt has a valid argument. Alas, we know this is not about to happen because of the concept of interpretation along with that of precedence and the historical record of the plundering of these documents.

Again, I do not wish to enter into any heated arguments or discussions with this and will not entertain same. My intent is only to get the comments (civil comments) from others about this issue.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
How about we do this:

The gun laws of a person's nation of citizenship shall apply to legal resident aliens of the US.

I bet that might influence the way some of these people view their citizenship situation...

Instead, why don't we stick with what the Constitution and the courts have already said? That the laws of the land shall be applied equally to all persons (did you note that citizenship is not mentioned) residing in the United States?

There are many laws that have been passed that restrict the things that non-citizens can do. Those laws were supposed to protect the United States and the citizens of the United States. I do not see how restricting a non-citizen from obtaining a permit/license to carry concealed protects me or the country.

And BTW - if the guy has been a resident alien for 30+ years there is probably a good reason he has not become a citizen. It might be nice to find out why before dumping on him for not seeking citizenship. As far as I care, as long as he pays taxes as required and obeys the laws he's welcome because our government said so - and they really do make it difficult to be welcomed.

stay safe.
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
Larry Pratt lost my confidence years ago when he made some bogus claims while speaking at a VCDL meeting to tarnish an AG candidate he didn't support, which I later verified to be bogus and anyone (Pratt included) would have known were bogus with some simple web research. SAF is who I stand behind these days.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
For the record, my own personal take on this is not exactly what I posed in my above post (#3) as I was only offering a different take on the issue. I tend to go along with what skidmark wrote in his subsequent post regarding legal residence, etc. I would prefer that a long term legal immigrant in good standing become a citizen, but I know a number who have not, for whatever reason, and have no problem with them owning arms. Of course, illegals..... most definitely not.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
If someone is here legally they should be able to enjoy the same Constitutional protections enjoyed by anyone else.

This is where I am conflicted about this case. On one hand we have a state who makes a condition for issuing the permit, this to me is the states right. On the other hand I think everyone should be allowed to carry as they want

This isn't a constitutional protection, if it where he wouldn't need the permit. No one is denying his right to own a gun, just to carry said gun. Currently (and I don't agree with it), you have to have a permit in most places to conceal and in some states to even OC. This is a case of a state making a condition to issue the permit. The only hope I have out of this case is if it somehow it forces constitutional carry.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Instead, why don't we stick with what the Constitution and the courts have already said? That the laws of the land shall be applied equally to all persons (did you note that citizenship is not mentioned) residing in the United States?
There are many laws that have been passed that restrict the things that non-citizens can do. Those laws were supposed to protect the United States and the citizens of the United States. I do not see how restricting a non-citizen from obtaining a permit/license to carry concealed protects me or the country.

And BTW - if the guy has been a resident alien for 30+ years there is probably a good reason he has not become a citizen. It might be nice to find out why before dumping on him for not seeking citizenship. As far as I care, as long as he pays taxes as required and obeys the laws he's welcome because our government said so - and they really do make it difficult to be welcomed.

stay safe.

That is the reality.


As an aside, given the nature of the BoR, there is a much stronger case for "BoR applies to all who reside..." The US Constitution and BoR does not grant those Rights, it simply annotates them as belonging to the People.
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Well SCOTUS rejected P&I Incorpration, so.....

In McDonald, the Priveledges and Immunities clause of the 14th was rejected as the means of incorporation, even though Alan Gura's logic was flawless.

The rejection would seem to indicate that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is God given to all people, and not a priveledge that attatches with American citizenship.
 

WhatTimeIsIt?

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
188
Location
$
Everyone is born with the same inalienable rights, whether they are born in Virginia or China. Because the Chinese government denies people their rights doesn't mean the American government should deny the rights of the Chinese born.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Everyone is born with the same inalienable rights, whether they are born in Virginia or China. Because the Chinese government denies people their rights doesn't mean the American government should deny the rights of the Chinese born.
That's the best perspective I've seen yet.

We would do well to remember that the Second Amendment only recognizes what we consider to be among those "certain unalienable Rights" which were granted to all, by the Creator of all mankind.

The only reason we can and do ever support the suppression of that right is when it has been shown that such a person will do harm to themselves or to others.

Obviously the implementation of that exception is not perfect, and we object to much of that poor implementation, but that is the intent of those who genuinely support the founding principles.

TFred
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
So people fromSwitzerland, could carry full auto, no problem!


Switzerland is not the Firearms Freedom dreamland that some purport it to be.


In fact, the laws regarding ownership of ammo, firearms, and carry are just as strict as most other European nations. If you're not in the militia, owning full-auto is nearly impossible (when you reach an age where you are no longer required to be in the militia, you turn in your Service Rifle, and it is modified by an armorer to be semi-auto only).

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

Ammo for military-issued weapons must be registered when purchased at a retail outlet. Ammo sold at ranges is not registered but by law, it must be used at the range and NOT leave the range.

All guns must be registered. Individual (private) sales require a "weapons acquisition permit".

Switzerland is NOT the gun haven that some have touted it to be.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
Switzerland is not the Firearms Freedom dreamland that some purport it to be.

In fact, the laws regarding ownership of ammo, firearms, and carry are just as strict as most other European nations. If you're not in the militia, owning full-auto is nearly impossible (when you reach an age where you are no longer required to be in the militia, you turn in your Service Rifle, and it is modified by an armorer to be semi-auto only).

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

Ammo for military-issued weapons must be registered when purchased at a retail outlet. Ammo sold at ranges is not registered but by law, it must be used at the range and NOT leave the range.

All guns must be registered. Individual (private) sales require a "weapons acquisition permit".

Switzerland is NOT the gun haven that some have touted it to be.


There you go with your facts again messing up a good rumor that is spread all over the Internet. I don't know why you want to keep throwing reality into a perfectly good discussion based on hearsay. :(
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
For the record, my own personal take on this is not exactly what I posed in my above post (#3) as I was only offering a different take on the issue. I tend to go along with what skidmark wrote in his subsequent post regarding legal residence, etc. I would prefer that a long term legal immigrant in good standing become a citizen, but I know a number who have not, for whatever reason, and have no problem with them owning arms. Of course, illegals..... most definitely not.

I used to think along the same lines.

Over time, though, my thinking has shifted.

Self-defense is a fundamental human-right.

The really dangerous illegal aliens are going to get guns anyway. The non-violent illegal aliens are not going to mis-use them.

I'm not excited about illegal aliens, violent or non-violent. I have no sympathy for sanctuary cities.

On the other hand, I concluded that certain basic human rights transcend political boundaries. Man's history these last few millenia has been a trend toward more freedom, aquiring more and more concessions (rights) from the ruling elites. We've got billions of people to go, yet.

And, there is no sense giving misgovernment a little bit more power over a fundamental human right. We all know how that tends to turn out. Plus, we just give misgovernment a wedge issue to divide people, using anti-immigration sentiment against self-defense rights.

Regarding legal resident aliens, I'm inclined for the moment to insist the misgovernment give permits to resident aliens same as a citizen. One more permittee is one more step towards recovering/expanding/normalizing armed self-defense.
 
Last edited:

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
The first seven words of the Constitution are, "We the People of the United States". With this opening, everything which follows is for "We the People of the United States", not We the People of Canada or We the People of Central America or We the People of the world. It specifically and distinctly states, "We the People of the United States". If we were to keep a strict reading and follow strict adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then Mr. Pratt has a valid argument.

The "people of the United States" were all illegals by today's standards.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I used to think along the same lines.

Over time, though, my thinking has shifted.

Self-defense is a fundamental human-right.

The really dangerous illegal aliens are going to get guns anyway. The non-violent illegal aliens are not going to mis-use them.

I'm not excited about illegal aliens, violent or non-violent. I have no sympathy for sanctuary cities.

On the other hand, I concluded that certain basic human rights transcend political boundaries. Man's history these last few millenia has been a trend toward more freedom, aquiring more and more concessions (rights) from the ruling elites. We've got billions of people to go, yet.

And, there is no sense giving misgovernment a little bit more power over a fundamental human right. We all know how that tends to turn out. Plus, we just give misgovernment a wedge issue to divide people, using anti-immigration sentiment against self-defense rights.

Regarding legal resident aliens, I'm inclined for the moment to insist the misgovernment give permits to resident aliens same as a citizen. One more permittee is one more step towards recovering/expanding/normalizing armed self-defense.

While I agree that self-defense IS a fundamental human right, I do not want to see illegal aliens be given that right within our borders. Let their native countries do as they see fit. Illegal aliens are here illegally and are therefore by definition, criminals. And we don't support Second Amendment rights for criminals... at least not in whole part yet.
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
If you prefer to look at it this way, nearly all people down throughout history would fall into this bucket.

Many people would. With what you are suggesting I'm not sure the government hasn't already set a precedent. A couple of years ago the government gave carte-blanch for interpol to operate in the borders of the US for the first time ever. No liason, or oversight required (I can't find the cite). No VISA, no respect for the laws of the US.
 
Top