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

SouthernBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see.

I think the distinction between our positions is subtle, but important.

I assume they already have the right by virtue of being alive, and that misgovernment has no power to interfer with it. I would not support granting misgovernment the power to deny the right, which is another way of saying I would not support government criminalizing gun possession by illegals.

Your position seems to say government should not openly recognize such a right. I'm basing this on the assumption you were speaking figuratively about granting a right, meaning, I'm assuming you as an experienced 2Aer fully understand government does not grant rights, thus it can only recognize them.

I would tend more towards something like this: if an illegal alien is caught, and he possesses a firearm, handle him as an illegal alien. And, ignore the gun legally speaking. Seize the gun as part of the arrest and deportation if arrest and deportation are the correct handling for that exact alien, but do not treat the gun possession as an offense. Put it right up there with breathing air and drinking water. Unless the gun was used illegally, meaning for a robbery, kidnapping, or murder. Then treat the gun the same as any other gun used in a crime, and treat the criminal misuse of the gun the same as a citizen criminal.

As a tangent, I have little support any longer for criminalizing gun use separate from the crime. For example, additional time in prison for using a gun in a robbery, as opposed to a knife. Such serves only helps vilify guns. Robbery is robbery--knife, gun, or bludgeon. Murder is murder--knife, gun, or poison. "Oh my god! He used a gun!" Oh, for Pete's sake. It was a robbery! Of course, he used a weapon! Criminalize the criminal act, not the damn weapon. This is really just an off-shoot of the idea that a gun cannot act by itself. Its just an implement.

Edited to Add the word "not" in the third section above. The underline is to call attention to which "not" was added, rather than to emphasize disagreement.

Citizen said:

Your position seems to say government should not openly recognize such a right. I'm basing this on the assumption you were speaking figuratively about granting a right, meaning, I'm assuming you as an experienced 2Aer fully understand government does not grant rights, thus it can only recognize them.

Click to expand...

Yes, I clearly misused my native tongue and stepped on all of my former postings about this topic by suggesting that rights are created and conveyed by government. I no more believe that rights are instruments of any ruling entity to be parsed among those of favor than I believe the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. You caught me on that mistake.... thanks for the yield you offered.

SouthernBoy said:

Yes, I clearly misused my native tongue and stepped on all of my former postings about this topic by suggesting that rights are created and conveyed by government. I no more believe that rights are instruments of any ruling entity to be parsed among those of favor than I believe the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. You caught me on that mistake.... thanks for the yield you offered.

Click to expand...

I understand.

I wasn't doing much better. )) I left out a really important word. Changed the whole tone of the third section of that post.

Citizen said:

Oh, I see.

I think the distinction between our positions is subtle, but important.

I assume they already have the right by virtue of being alive, and that misgovernment has no power to interfer with it. I would not support granting misgovernment the power to deny the right, which is another way of saying I would not support government criminalizing gun possession by illegals.

Your position seems to say government should not openly recognize such a right. I'm basing this on the assumption you were speaking figuratively about granting a right, meaning, I'm assuming you as an experienced 2Aer fully understand government does not grant rights, thus it can only recognize them.

I would tend more towards something like this: if an illegal alien is caught, and he possesses a firearm, handle him as an illegal alien. And, ignore the gun legally speaking. Seize the gun as part of the arrest and deportation if arrest and deportation are the correct handling for that exact alien, but do not treat the gun possession as an offense. Put it right up there with breathing air and drinking water. Unless the gun was used illegally, meaning for a robbery, kidnapping, or murder. Then treat the gun the same as any other gun used in a crime, and treat the criminal misuse of the gun the same as a citizen criminal.

As a tangent, I have little support any longer for criminalizing gun use separate from the crime. For example, additional time in prison for using a gun in a robbery, as opposed to a knife. Such serves only helps vilify guns. Robbery is robbery--knife, gun, or bludgeon. Murder is murder--knife, gun, or poison. "Oh my god! He used a gun!" Oh, for Pete's sake. It was a robbery! Of course, he used a weapon! Criminalize the criminal act, not the damn weapon. This is really just an off-shoot of the idea that a gun cannot act by itself. Its just an implement.

Edited to Add the word "not" in the third section above. The underline is to call attention to which "not" was added, rather than to emphasize disagreement.

Click to expand...

+1

Robbery is robbery--knife, gun, or bludgeon. Murder is murder

Rights are rights unless 'granted' then they are privileges.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Illegal aliens have already proven their willingness to break American laws, however. While past performance may not always predict future actions, a person who has broken one law - even if he has obeyed every one since, though I'd find it hard to believe an illegal alien in America could perform such a feat - has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is more concerned about himself than he is in following the law.

Tess said:

Illegal aliens have already proven their willingness to break American laws, however. While past performance may not always predict future actions, a person who has broken one law - even if he has obeyed every one since, though I'd find it hard to believe an illegal alien in America could perform such a feat - has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is more concerned about himself than he is in following the law.

Click to expand...

I understand. Good point, too. I think the answer lies in looking a little deeper.

I think if we stop once we find a directly opposed concept, we miss what lies beyond. Especially if we ourselves put that concept in place. From another angle, its probably not too hard to find a directly counter-opposed idea for pretty much anything. This is the nature of a problem in the mental sense (not mathematical). The issue arises when two ideas are counter-opposed in equi-poise. Since it is almost impossible for two things or ideas to be exactly identical in value, the trick is to sort out which one has the greater value, and which the lesser--basically, figure out how they are not really equally balanced. The instant the ideas are seen to be not equally balanced, the seeming problem starts to evaporate. So, let me take a crack at it:

We have all broken laws of one sort or another. Does that mean none are productive members of society? Are dangerous criminals? Of course not. I'm thinking the first question (after assuming their illegal presence) is, "Are they human beings?" And, the second, "Do they contribute/are they productive?"

I may have a little bit of an advantage here. As an OCer I make it a point to be friendly with clerks and counter help and so forth. I've met an awful lot of immigrants, and know a good number superficially. I cannot believe they are all legal. Some just have to be here illegally. They are almost all decent people. And, since I am meeting them on their jobs, they are productive. Hell, the ones I know are willing to work hard more than some Americans I know.

While I would have some regret at seeing the good ones that I know go, I agree that the illegals should go as general policy (exceptions can made for humanitarian reasons, etc.) Yet, just because they are here illegally does not, in my mind, nullify their basic human rights such as the right to self-defense.

And, even if I did agree they shouldn't have the right of self-defense, I would never be dumb enough to advocate government get involved against their right to self-defense. Nope. No way. Nuh-uh.

Tess said:

Illegal aliens have already proven their willingness to break American laws, however. While past performance may not always predict future actions, a person who has broken one law - even if he has obeyed every one since, though I'd find it hard to believe an illegal alien in America could perform such a feat - has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is more concerned about himself than he is in following the law.

Click to expand...

Not every illegal alien is here to break the law. Most are here to look for honest labor. Although the largest negative is how they get here, hence illegal alien, but I put forth tell me how else they can come here? Do you know the onerous process for a poor Mexican (or other) to come here. If a person from another country is not rich then they aren't coming here, even students usually have rich sponsors before coming here. There are no reasonable avenues for workers to enter, go to work and return home.

nuc65 said:

Not every illegal alien is here to break the law. Most are here to look for honest labor. Although the largest negative is how they get here, hence illegal alien, but I put forth tell me how else they can come here? Do you know the onerous process for a poor Mexican (or other) to come here. If a person from another country is not rich then they aren't coming here, even students usually have rich sponsors before coming here. There are no reasonable avenues for workers to enter, go to work and return home.

Click to expand...

Not my problem. We Americans need not "save" everyone. We should offer a welcome and an opportunity to those who make or find a way to arrive legally. We cannot, and should not, give everyone the advantages of being in America just because they are humans. Not our job.

Citizen said:

I understand. Good point, too. I think the answer lies in looking a little deeper.

I think if we stop once we find a directly opposed concept, we miss what lies beyond. Especially if we ourselves put that concept in place. From another angle, its probably not too hard to find a directly counter-opposed idea for pretty much anything. This is the nature of a problem in the mental sense (not mathematical). The issue arises when two ideas are counter-opposed in equi-poise. Since it is almost impossible for two things or ideas to be exactly identical in value, the trick is to sort out which one has the greater value, and which the lesser--basically, figure out how they are not really equally balanced. The instant the ideas are seen to be not equally balanced, the seeming problem starts to evaporate. So, let me take a crack at it:

We have all broken laws of one sort or another. Does that mean none are productive members of society? Are dangerous criminals? Of course not. I'm thinking the first question (after assuming their illegal presence) is, "Are they human beings?" And, the second, "Do they contribute/are they productive?"

I may have a little bit of an advantage here. As an OCer I make it a point to be friendly with clerks and counter help and so forth. I've met an awful lot of immigrants, and know a good number superficially. I cannot believe they are all legal. Some just have to be here illegally. They are almost all decent people. And, since I am meeting them on their jobs, they are productive. Hell, the ones I know are willing to work hard more than some Americans I know.

While I would have some regret at seeing the good ones that I know go, I agree that the illegals should go as general policy (exceptions can made for humanitarian reasons, etc.) Yet, just because they are here illegally does not, in my mind, nullify their basic human rights such as the right to self-defense.

And, even if I did agree they shouldn't have the right of self-defense, I would never be dumb enough to advocate government get involved against their right to self-defense. Nope. No way. Nuh-uh.

Click to expand...

Not looking deeper. Yes, everyone breaks laws. Illegal immigrants have built a life on an illegal act.

I'm the most welcoming person in the world. I seek out immigrants of all types; I can learn so much from them. When I go to a store, or hire a handyman (from a licensed firm), or see someone walking down the street, I will not assume that person is illegal.

Nor will I reward illegal behavior by granting the most precious of American possessions. Everyone has the right to self-defense. NOT everyone has American citizenship. Those of us born with it should cherish and use it wisely; those who earn it legally certainly do.

What does the right of self-defense have to do with immigration? If, as it appears most of us here believe, the former is an inherent human right, then how can this right be rationally denied to any member of the human race?

From a more practical perspective, 2A rights issues notwithstanding, and inferring only from crime reports as published in various media, violent crimes performed by immigrants within their "own communities" appear to be the most prevalent of such in Fairfax County. Denying immigrant populations the right to legal self-defense encourages such crimes by emboldening aggressors, and turns entire neighborhoods into dangerous territories.

Perhaps it would be better that we encourage those who wish to make a life here to adopt perspectives that are congruent with our traditions and values?

As an added bonus, when we send the illegal ones back, we are helping their freedom-hating homelands too! :lol:

I agree that the U.S. charter, as amended, provides that the people of every state have the absolute right, though their state government, to regulate gun ownership, possession, and use, as well as speech and religion. The United States doesn't have any business telling the states what to do with respect to anything covered by the Bill of Rights.

However, Marbury v. Madison established the principle that the Constitution is the property of the United States and means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States says it means. (That case does NOT establish the principle of "judicial review", which had been law for centuries prior to that decision.) The Great War between the United States and the States was fought over that principle ("Who gets to decide what "property" is?"). Unfortunate, immoral, unChristian, and idiotic circumstances giving rise to the perception that the war to establish imperial federal supremacy was a "just" war. And, since that time, the four worst things to happen to this country, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush, have accompanied the development of what used to be called "the selective incorporation doctrine", by which specific items from the Bill of Rights were applied to the states as a matter of federal law under the legal fiction that there exist "substantive" due process rights. Or rights to due substance. Or procedural due substance. Or something.

The recent decision of Heller v. the City of Washington finally put the last nail in the coffin of federalism. That case stands for the proposition that the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states as a matter of federal law. Why? Because the United States Supreme Court says so.

I, myself, being a Constitutional fundamentalist, feel that it is right, proper, and just, that the citizens of the State of Maryland choose to subject themselves to criminal depredations without the right to defend themselves if they wish to do so. I am a Virginian, and Article 1, Section 13, of the Constitution of Virginia applies on this side of the water, and I couldn't care less what happens in Maryland. I try hard to avoid doing business with anyone who lives in Maryland (Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, California, or Hawaii too, for that matter), because I don't want to have to be subjected to, or to support, uncivilized legal systems. But if it is the choice of law abiding citizens in Prince George's County (for example) to allow criminals exclusive access to firearms, I don't regard that as my problem, because my respect for each state's ability to decide its own fate is the cost of federalism.

The U.S. has turned Jesus' statement into a model of power acquisition: "He who would be greatest among you must be servant unto all." Hey! Let's give 'em health care, that way we'll have absolute power of life or death over each and every person, and isolate each person from his family and deprive him of the protection of his state government all at once! What a plan!

user said:

SNIP I, myself, being a Constitutional fundamentalist, feel that it is right, proper, and just, that the citizens of the State of Maryland choose to subject themselves to criminal depredations without the right to defend themselves if they wish to do so.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. There's the whole concept of a bill of rights purposing to prevent the majority from denying rights of the minority.

And, as Ayn Rand said (paraphrase), "The smallest minority is one individual."

I lean more towards nobody, not even a majority, having the power to refuse certain rights.

As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We holds these truths to be self-evident...to protect these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (emphasis by Citizen)

I know its more than a little dangerous to parse language with an attorney of your experience, but I'll risk it and call attention to the idea that it would make no sense to use the word "just" in front of "powers" if the consent of the governed was in and of itself always valid. If consent-of-the- governed alone bestowed validity in all matters, there would be no point in using the word "just".

It looks like we have two issues.
The right to carry a gun, which I feel everyone should have....

and the right to be here, which I will remain silent on.

peter nap said:

It looks like we have two issues.
The right to carry a gun, which I feel everyone should have....

and the right to be here, which I will remain silent on.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed too that the discussion was heading that way. Thanks for pointing it out.

user said:

...And, since that time, the four worst things to happen to this country, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush, have accompanied the development of what used to be called "the selective incorporation doctrine", by which specific items from the Bill of Rights were applied to the states as a matter of federal law under the legal fiction that there exist "substantive" due process rights. Or rights to due substance. Or procedural due substance. Or something.

!

Click to expand...

Could you add Wilson onto your list of statist scoundrels?

If I buy what you are selling User, prey tell, what is the purpose and place of the 14th A?

Thundar said:

Could you add Wilson onto your list of statist scoundrels?

If I buy what you are selling User, prey tell, what is the purpose and place of the 14th A?

Click to expand...

Hell Thundar...we haven't had a good President in my lifetime. I didn't even "Like Ike".:lol:

Too many supposed 2A people are all PO'd because this case involves immigrants. News flash: the Bill of Rights is about basic HUMAN rights. It doesn't matter if you live in Beijing or NYC or Baltimore or Pierre SD, it doesn't matter what your citizenship is, you have the same right to be armed just be being alive.

That is a human right.

The rights that are specific to American citizens are limited to voting and holding certain public offices. Those are the only things that are truly Constitutional rights. The BoR merely recognize certain universal human rights and guarantees that the federal government (and the states, through the 14th) will not violate them.

If this wasn't the case, then when stop at denying non-citizens the RKBA? Why not quarter troops in their houses? Why not deny them 4A and 5A protections? Deny them freedom of speech, religion, and assembly? Non-citizens shouldn't have a guarantee of a speedy trial if accused, or the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment?

Seriously, think about it: if you claim that non-citizens should not enjoy any protection under the U.S. Constitution, you're saying it's perfectly okay with you if police randomly stop anyone they believe isn't a citizen, search them without probable cause or warrant, enter their homes, beat them until they confess, and keep them in jail indefinitely without trial.

That's not my America.

SouthernBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

They follow our laws, are allowed to buy firearms, have driver's licenses. They can get a Utah Concealed Permit. Why not a permit from the State in which they are a resident? I hate to agree with anything the ACLU is behind......., but, this seems to be reasonable.

Legal aliens i have no problem with carrying like everyone else. As far as illegal aliens some are saying that they only broke the one law. Well they are still breaking it and possession of a firearm during a crime is a really big no no. You want to enjoy the rights and freedoms of being in the USA then do it legally.

Now the part about becoming a citizen since some people have been here so long I can agree with. If I am going to spend the majority of my life in another country I should be a resident of that country unless my duties there are acting as a liason etc for my home country. Now with that our citizenship policy really needs to be overhauled. I have had two friends on visas who had applied and it had taken years. Their work got sold to another company and they wanted to keep both but screwed up on the deadlines so they had to leave for at least a year. The one went back home to Germany and stayed. The other went to Canada and came back. They both worked, paid taxes, incorporated being an American into their lives. They did not say we need to do something differently because that is the way they did it back in their country. Oh and they learned English! I read these articles and I am 99% sure her is not referring to our visitors from the north or across the sea. Just saying.

Uber_Olafsun said:

Legal aliens i have no problem with carrying like everyone else. As far as illegal aliens some are saying that they only broke the one law. Well they are still breaking it and possession of a firearm during a crime is a really big no no. You want to enjoy the rights and freedoms of being in the USA then do it legally.

Now the part about becoming a citizen since some people have been here so long I can agree with. If I am going to spend the majority of my life in another country I should be a resident of that country unless my duties there are acting as a liason etc for my home country. Now with that our citizenship policy really needs to be overhauled. I have had two friends on visas who had applied and it had taken years. Their work got sold to another company and they wanted to keep both but screwed up on the deadlines so they had to leave for at least a year. The one went back home to Germany and stayed. The other went to Canada and came back. They both worked, paid taxes, incorporated being an American into their lives. They did not say we need to do something differently because that is the way they did it back in their country. Oh and they learned English! I read these articles and I am 99% sure her is not referring to our visitors from the north or across the sea. Just saying.

Click to expand...

I'm going to preface this with my ugly American clause. I have no tolerance for forigners being here either legal or illegal.

That said, it gets more complicated. They are here and they are here for a variety of reasons. Many are here because they live in such poverty they can't feed their families back home and the government is so bad, there is no chance to legally earn a descent living.

While I don't want them here, I can understand that reason and I don't believe in treating someone as a criminal just because they're trying to live and work. We'd all do the same thing in their situation.

I am no more willing to deny them the tools to defend themselves than I am to deny them food from a grocery store or services from a hospital.

Life is never simple!