• 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.

Concealed carry permits for permanent resident aliens

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
So I failed at self control and about derailed someone else's thread. For that I apologize.

And I will start this thread about this subject.

Basically, another poster was upset at me for pointing out that restricting a concealed carry license in an otherwise shall issue state from a legal permanent alien residining in that state is unconstitutional. I pointed out two cases in which the Second Amenmdennt Foundation won at the district court level against two states that didnt allow permanent resident aliens to get licenses, in both states federal courts ordered the states to begin issuing the licenses. In a third state, missouri, the state won on a trial level, but changed the law once SAF appealed to the circuit court.

This posters contention was 1) concealed carry is not a right so states can ell legal aliens they can't get a license but since his state allowed open carry it was all ok, and 2) that there was no controlling precedent in his circuit.

First off, a state not only has to obey the 2nd amendment, but the 14th which reads in part
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
note the second clause, nor deny ANY PERSON is used twice. Therefore states may not deny any person of equal protection of laws.

Two Supreme Court cases (cited by both district courts to overturn non citizen ccw bans) are Graham V Richardson and Sugarman v Dougal. Both decided in the early 70s involved state discrimination against permanent legal immigrants, in both cases the offending state laws were struck down as violations of the 14th amendment, as the courts noted, alienage constitutes a "discrete and insular minority" and any laws discriminating against legal aliens are subject to the highest level of scrutiny. Meaning any law must be tailored narrowly to serve a state interest. As the 10th circuit ruled in Jackson v King, against New Mexico,the state cannot reasonably presume a citizen restriction serves a state interest if non citizens can legally own guns and legally carry them openly, therefore a shall issue state must issue licenses to otherwise qualified non citizen residents. With those two Supreme Court cases, I re assert, North Carolina's ban on non citizens legally residing in NC from obtaining a CCW license is unconstitutional in light of the 14th amendment. And the argument that no rights are suppressed is absurd on its face, a sTate can't be shall issue to white people and no issue to blacks and then say "well blacks can open carry and CC is a privelage"
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
NOBODY was upset at you! You were delusional, derailed a thread that had nothing to do with your BS. You acted like a fool, and were the one that got urinated off. I told you the same thing then as now, "Go Pound Sand!".
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
You got me there! My whole sense of self worth as a person is based only on what walking wolf says about me on the Internet, how will I ever get through this :rolleyes:

Funny, you admitted in your op that you lacked self control, somehow you then want to put that off on somebody else. How statist of you!
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Funny, you admitted in your op that you lacked self control, somehow you then want to put that off on somebody else. How statist of you!

That's not what I said, but go ahead and think whatever makes you feel better.

Now that I've cited Supreme Court precedent you're simply attacking me personally as if I can change reality, instead of disputing the point I made in a new thread specifically about this topic.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
That's not what I said, but go ahead and think whatever makes you feel better.

Now that I've cited Supreme Court precedent you're simply attacking me personally as if I can change reality, instead of disputing the point I made in a new thread specifically about this topic.

And obviously the ruling has nothing to do with concealed handgun permits in NC. OUCH! that must hurt.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
This should have nothing to do with rights v. privileges. Whether a right or a privilege, you'd have a hard time getting around "equal protection" for "People" legally in the US.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
This should have nothing to do with rights v. privileges. Whether a right or a privilege, you'd have a hard time getting around "equal protection" for "People" legally in the US.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I don't care, but in NC resident aliens, and out of state aliens are not denied equal protection. If this was the case a state could be forced to provide privilege cards for everybody for the same price as state residents, no matter what their status is.

The real issue is RKBA, and that is what should be argued, if it were to become the law of the land federally. States would be handing out privilege cards like toilet paper.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I don't care, but in NC resident aliens, and out of state aliens are not denied equal protection.

Uh yeah they are, if they're denied a state license by the state they reside in without compelling reason they are denied equal protection. This NC law would not survive a court challenge at strict scrutiny, which is what it will be reviewed at because the Supreme Court says that laws denying rights to lawful aliens must be reviewed with strict scrutiny.

Watch, within 2 years the SAF will sue these unconstitutional statists and they will win. This law will be permanently enjoined from enforcement no later then three years hence by a federal court.

Especially since North Carolina recognizes every other states license. So a non citizen with a CCW from another state can carry cocealed in NC but a non citizen who's a resident of NC cannot get a license,

Just imagine this passing the strict scrutiny test. With walking wolf playing the part of NCs attorney general.

Appeals court judge: so AG Wolf, the plaintiff says your law is not narrowly tailored as per the strict scrutiny test

WW: well concealed carry is a privelage, they can all open carry

ACJ: sir, open carry is not germane to this lawsuit, we are applying strict scrutiny as per SCOTUS precedent to this challenge, now explain what state interest NC is applying and ho the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve it

WW: well concealed carry is a privelage, it's a privelage card, we've determined these people are not worthy of the privelage card, they can opencarry

ACJ: so your argument is that there is no equal protection issue because CC is a privelage?

WW: correct, it's not my fault I've humiliated you at the law! GO POUND SAND we don't have to follow precedent not in the 4th circuit!
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It is a reasonable restriction on the RKBA, this "no permit for you." There are other permits, that NC will honor, available. The minor inconvenience that is involved is but a pimple on the big picture.

Anyway, if they are law abiding then issue the permit. If they become "un-permanent" then revoke the permit.

I find it odd that SAF will fight for a privilege for aliens, but will not fight for the right of citizens. SAF should be fighting for unlicensed carry. This would affect citizens and aliens alike.....but I digress.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is a reasonable restriction on the RKBA, this "no permit for you." There are other permits, that NC will honor, available. The minor inconvenience that is involved is but a pimple on the big picture.

Anyway, if they are law abiding then issue the permit. If they become "un-permanent" then revoke the permit.

I find it odd that SAF will fight for a privilege for aliens, but will not fight for the right of citizens. SAF should be fighting for unlicensed carry. This would affect citizens and aliens alike.....but I digress.

Wow. I got someone else talking UC! Screw CC. Screw OC. The 2A is about UC! Right now, the closest to UC in most States is OC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
Top