SAF, NRA SUE WASHINGTON STATE FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ALIEN RESIDENTS!

[Tawnos]

imported post

Heresolong... correction: criminal - one who breaks part of the statutory law under the criminal code sections

The reason for this correction isn't petty, it's to point out that, even if it's against the Constitution, a law can make you a criminal and you remain such until the law changes. The reason to consider this is that, someday, you may be faced with a law that states "turn in your guns or else be a criminal." On that day, even if you "lost your guns at the bottom of a lake", chances are you are a criminal. You didn't do anything "wrong", you didn't harm anyone, but the law states that you are in violation.

 

[BORG]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

diesel556 wrote:

Some (I don't know how many) illegal's do pay their taxes, and follow the law on a day to day basis. The sad part is that any refund owed to them by the IRS is usually withheld due to SSN verification requirements. Of course, the IRS has no problem accepting payment for taxes from those same SSN's. Some of these people have tens or hundred's of thousands of dollar's withheld from them over the course of their working career. Yet they keep paying taxes. Does that sound like something a criminal would do?

This is one "helluva" first post to a new forum, but I feel strongly that people of any class, or race should not just be "lumped" together. I say shame on anyone who does so, without considering the importance of their statements. Some people are bad, some are good.

They don't actually "keep paying taxes". The taxes are withheld. You have no choice in the matter. So this has nothing to do with the fact that they are criminals.

Definition: criminal - someone who has committed a crime

Coming into this country without obtaining the correct paperwork and checking in with the INS is against the law. Therefore they are criminals.

Finally, what does "race" have to do with it? No one has brought up race except you. We are talking about people who break the law every day that they are in this country just by being here. Doesn't matter what race they are.

I second your comments. We've been here for almost 5 wonderful years, and while the U.S. is not perfect, it is where we have decided to raise our family. Coming over here from across the Pacific was no walk in the park. Extensive immigration, educational, healthand other law-enforcement background checks were carried out before we were even granted a visa and allowed to set foot on U.S. soil.

My first two years were sent volunteering with a local PD (yes, even more background checks & polygraph exam) and attaining my NRA instructor certification, which allowed me to further volunteer my time giving back towards my community.

Time passed quickly for us and before we knew it, our Permanent Residency application was in the works. Guess what? Yes, more background checks, fingerprinting, iris scans and possibly cross-referencingour information with everylaw-enforcement database in the known world. All went well and we now have our "Green Cards".

We will still have to wait for another two-and-a-half years before we're eligible for U.S. citizenship, but it is a wait we're willing to endure because this is where we want to be.

So it frustrates me when illegal immigrants by-pass all the hurdles we had to go through (as if the law doesn't apply to them), protest in U.S. cities about their "status", as if they had one other than being a criminal, and then have the audacity to proudly wave theflags of their respective "home" countries is beyond me. What were they thinking?!

Coming back on topic (sorry, but I had tovent), I am hoping that the State Legislature does the right thing by removing the requirement forus to first obtain an AFL before being able to ownfirearms. They mustknow that legal residents in this country have undergone a barrage of tests, background checks and other screening before their "Green Card" status was approved by the Federal Government. Any andall requirements beyond what isaskedof a citizen is purely aimed towardspleasing thegun control folks.


BORG

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

+1 Borg

I detest people who turn immigration control into racial issue. It has nothing to do with race. If you are not going to follow the proper procedures like Borg has, what other laws are you going to break? I'm not saying everyone who sneaks into this country looking for a better life are bad people, probably just like any society it is the minority who are "crooks" but immigration control is the only way we have to regulate it. And if they don't like the IRS keeping there money they aren't complaining because its still better than from where they came from. On a side note I'd love to put a border patrol shirt on and go hang outside the DHSH office and see how many people just drive by and not come in. Illegal immigrants are putting a strain on our social services. With all the background checks Borg has I don't see a problem with him or any other person residing here legally having the same rights as those born here. Strap a fire arm on and be proud of the reasons why you came here, whats left of our freedoms.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Heresolong... correction: criminal - one who breaks part of the statutory law under the criminal code sections

The reason for this correction isn't petty, it's to point out that, even if it's against the Constitution, a law can make you a criminal and you remain such until the law changes. The reason to consider this is that, someday, you may be faced with a law that states "turn in your guns or else be a criminal." On that day, even if you "lost your guns at the bottom of a lake", chances are you are a criminal. You didn't do anything "wrong", you didn't harm anyone, but the law states that you are in violation.

So you are claiming that immigration laws are unConstitutional? What about Section 8 of the Constitution, Powers of Congress that states "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" and Section 9, Limits on Congress that states "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight"

So according to the Constitution Congress gets to decide what the rules are for Naturalization, and after 1808 Congress gets to decide what the rules are for migration into the country. Clearly these laws are perfectly Constitutional.

Your comparison to gun laws is falacious.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

So you are claiming that immigration laws are unConstitutional? What about Section 8 of the Constitution, Powers of Congress that states "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" and Section 9, Limits on Congress that states "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight"

So according to the Constitution Congress gets to decide what the rules are for Naturalization, and after 1808 Congress gets to decide what the rules are for migration into the country. Clearly these laws are perfectly Constitutional.

Your comparison to gun laws is falacious.

The point: .

You:

See how that went right over you? I was trying to make an example you might understand, how what is "right" and what is "law" don't always occupy the same space.

The idea that "someone was already breaking a law, therefore they'll break other laws, too" is illogical (poisoning the well). Specifically, just because the circumstances are framed in a manner that makes the mere presence of a party "illegal" does nothing to show they are more or less likely than someone not framed within the same laws. I present for your consideration the Jim Crow laws and their effect upon blacks or other races acting in various capacities. Miscegenation (interracial marriage) was largely prohibited by these laws, yet would you claim that a couple who married in secret was automatically going to commit other crimes as well? Just because unfavorable information (true, in this case) was or is presented about a person does not make other claims by that person (e.g. "apart from not being invited here, I follow the law") false.


On your Constitutional quip, I implore you to read exactly what you posted. Article 1, section 8 provides that Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ..." Uniform, in my mind, does not mean unequally applied or granted due to artificially set limitations on the amount of allowed immigrants by country. Moreover, check out the Heritage Foundation's analysis of what the founding fathers granted. They contend that "From the beginning, American naturalization law and practice assumed that a free citizen of one country had the right to transfer his allegiance to another."

I agree that coming across and waving the flags of their home country is dumb. However, what choice do we give those who would want to emigrate legally but are denied that ability? Instead of welcoming the tired, the poor, the huddling masses yearning to breathe free, we have set up an "us" versus "them" set of rules and restrictions. No wonder those who find the only hope their family has of a good life is to sneak here don't integrate well: we stopped giving them the chance. We provide unequal protection of the law in spite of the 14th amendment (which grants protection to "any person" not "citizen"), and then provide no means for those who would want to come here legally to be able to do so. Given the opportunity (and that means an opportunity that isn't economically unfeasible due to fees, taxes, paperwork, etc for someone who wants to come here from a low-education, low-income background), do you really think we'd have the "problem" of illegal immigrants?

Sorry for ranting a bit, it's just frustrating since I used to be very "close the borders" until I read a lot more of the history of our country (good and bad) and saw that things could be better.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

They don't actually "keep paying taxes". The taxes are withheld. You have no choice in the matter. So this has nothing to do with the fact that they are criminals.

WRONG!

They are self employed.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

1) The idea that "someone was already breaking a law, therefore they'll break other laws, too" is illogical (poisoning the well). Specifically, just because the circumstances are framed in a manner that makes the mere presence of a party "illegal" does nothing to show they are more or less likely than someone not framed within the same laws.
2) On your Constitutional quip, I implore you to read exactly what you posted. Article 1, section 8 provides that Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ..." Uniform, in my mind, does not mean unequally applied or granted due to artificially set limitations on the amount of allowed immigrants by country. Moreover, check out the Heritage Foundation's analysis of what the founding fathers granted. They contend that "From the beginning, American naturalization law and practice assumed that a free citizen of one country had the right to transfer his allegiance to another."

3) However, what choice do we give those who would want to emigrate legally but are denied that ability? Instead of welcoming the tired, the poor, the huddling masses yearning to breathe free, we have set up an "us" versus "them" set of rules and restrictions. No wonder those who find the only hope their family has of a good life is to sneak here don't integrate well: we stopped giving them the chance. We provide unequal protection of the law in spite of the 14th amendment (which grants protection to "any person" not "citizen"), and then provide no means for those who would want to come here legally to be able to do so. Given the opportunity (and that means an opportunity that isn't economically unfeasible due to fees, taxes, paperwork, etc for someone who wants to come here from a low-education, low-income background), do you really think we'd have the "problem" of illegal immigrants?

4) Sorry for ranting a bit, it's just frustrating since I used to be very "close the borders" until I read a lot more of the history of our country (good and bad) and saw that things could be better.

Wow. Where to start. So I numbered each of your points that I will address.

1) No one is suggesting or has suggested anywhere in this thread that because you break one law you will automatically break another. But it doesn't matter. They are breaking the law by coming here illegally.

2) Uniform - applied equally to everyone. However the second part of the Constitution dealing with immigration allows Congress to decide who immigrates. So the uniform only deals with those to whom they have granted the privilege of immigration. Once they are here you can't have different rules for different people.

3) Lots of people are denied the ability to immigrate to our country and rightfully so. We need to be able to assimilate those who come here in order to preserve America. You can claim what you want about the founding fathers (by the way you are also misinterpreting their views, they didn't say everyone should necessarily be able to come here. Otherwise they wouldn't have included a Constitutional provision for Congress to limit the number of people.) but the right of a person to transfer their allegiance does not imply that the destination country has to accept every single person that wishes to do so.

4) I don't think anyone here has suggested closing the borders, either, at least not in this discussion. There is a vast difference between restricting immigration and closing the borders. There is also a vast difference between dealing harshly with illegal immigrants and allowing legal immigrants to come to the country. I support guest worker programs for farm workers but I also support efforts to crack down on employers who employ illegals and people who attempt to come here without applying.

In conclusion, I believe that a country, for its own survival, has a right to control their own borders and determine the number of people who are allowed to immigrate. I believe that a country has the right to determine what skill levels are allowed into the country based on the needs of the populace. And I believe that people who can't emigrate from their own countries due to these limitations should, in the meantime, work towards a better form of government in their own countries and that we, as Americans, should help them as much as possible. No one has a right to come here.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

BORG wrote:

(1)So it frustrates me when illegal immigrants by-pass all the hurdles we had to go through

(2)Coming back on topic (sorry, but I had tovent), I am hoping that the State Legislature does the right thing by removing the requirement forus to first obtain an AFL before being able to ownfirearms.

BORG

(1) I'll never understand the need for people to subject others to the torments that befell them in the past. One would hope that those who go before would see the inhumanity of their treatment, and fight to reduce or remove it, so that no one might ever need face it again. Instead, I find that people wear it as a badge, or a right of passage, and damn anyone who escapes it.

I'm for legal immigration, but as was stated: decrease the cost, and processing time, and increase the numbers allowed.

(2) +1

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

heresolong wro

Wow. Where to start. So I numbered each of your points that I will address.

1) No one is suggesting or has suggested anywhere in this thread that because you break one law you will automatically break another. But it doesn't matter. They are breaking the law by coming here illegally.

2) Uniform - applied equally to everyone. However the second part of the Constitution dealing with immigration allows Congress to decide who immigrates. So the uniform only deals with those to whom they have granted the privilege of immigration. Once they are here you can't have different rules for different people.

3) Lots of people are denied the ability to immigrate to our country and rightfully so. We need to be able to assimilate those who come here in order to preserve America. You can claim what you want about the founding fathers (by the way you are also misinterpreting their views, they didn't say everyone should necessarily be able to come here. Otherwise they wouldn't have included a Constitutional provision for Congress to limit the number of people.) but the right of a person to transfer their allegiance does not imply that the destination country has to accept every single person that wishes to do so.

4) I don't think anyone here has suggested closing the borders, either, at least not in this discussion. There is a vast difference between restricting immigration and closing the borders. There is also a vast difference between dealing harshly with illegal immigrants and allowing legal immigrants to come to the country. I support guest worker programs for farm workers but I also support efforts to crack down on employers who employ illegals and people who attempt to come here without applying.

In conclusion, I believe that a country, for its own survival, has a right to control their own borders and determine the number of people who are allowed to immigrate. I believe that a country has the right to determine what skill levels are allowed into the country based on the needs of the populace. And I believe that people who can't emigrate from their own countries due to these limitations should, in the meantime, work towards a better form of government in their own countries and that we, as Americans, should help them as much as possible. No one has a right to come here.

On 1), see the post by sudden valley gunner just below BORG's. To quote "If you are not going to follow the proper procedures like Borg has, what other laws are you going to break?" That is a direct suggestion that because you broke one law, you will break another. Moreover, you still miss the point that breaking the law may be the RIGHT thing to do,e ven if it's the illegal thing to do.

On 2), how can you call a law "applied equally to everyone" when it is designed to be exclusionary? Just because a law states "all [race 1] but no [race 2] are allowed to [undertake action x]" is applied to all people (such that all [race 1] are allowed and all [race 2] are denied) does not make it uniform nor "applied equally to everyone." It is prima facie unequal.

On 3), the best thing I can say is to read the link from the heritage foundation.

I'm spending too much time answering this and need to get back to doc work so I can close a couple bugs against me before leaving this evening. I'll try to come back and more thoroughly address later, if I remember.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

On 1), see the post by sudden valley gunner just below BORG's. To quote "If you are not going to follow the proper procedures like Borg has, what other laws are you going to break?" That is a direct suggestion that because you broke one law, you will break another. Moreover, you still miss the point that breaking the law may be the RIGHT thing to do,e ven if it's the illegal thing to do.

In no way was this a direct suggestion that you are going to break more laws, I have had speeding tickets it doesn't mean I will commit felonies. All I was stating is that we need a screening process, of who we will allow in. If you aren't willing to go through these channels then what are you hiding? Most likely have nothing to hide but how are we to know this. And there is no such thing as an undocumented citizen you are here legally or you are not, if not you are breaking the law it doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not. If I don't agree with traffic laws and I break them I still pay the penalties for breaking them. We need immigration control people don't realize that if you allow everyone to come here, that its supply and demand, our wages lower our resources cost more. I bet native americans wish they had better immigration control.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

On 2), how can you call a law "applied equally to everyone" when it is designed to be exclusionary? Just because a law states "all [race 1] but no [race 2] are allowed to [undertake action x]" is applied to all people (such that all [race 1] are allowed and all [race 2] are denied) does not make it uniform nor "applied equally to everyone." It is prima facie unequal.

Then by definition every law in our country is exclusionary because they only apply to people in our country. We can not actually prosecute anyone under our law other than people here. So to argue that there is some sort of prima facie case to be made out of the fact that our laws only apply equally to people "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a distinction without a difference.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the founders granted Congress the power to restrict immigration but that the rules to be equally applied are for naturalization. Once you have complied with the rules for immigrating, then you have the exact same process to become a citizen as everyone else who has complied with the rules for immigration.

It is difficult to get work done with interesting discussions like this lurking just a click away, isn't it?

 

[Gene Beasley]

imported post

Short notice

Public Hearing:

1. HB 1052 - Concerning firearm licenses for persons from other countries.

Jan 15Scheduled for public hearing in the House Committee on Judiciary at 10:00 AM. (Subject to change)
​

House Full Committee
House Hearing Rm A
John L. O'Brien Building
Olympia, WA

If you plan to visit the Capitol Campus in Olympia, please keep in mind parking is very limited. For directions, maps and information regarding parking and free shuttle service please see: http://www.leg.wa.gov/WorkingWithLeg/parking.htm

[posting this on each thread discussing AFL rather than starting a single-post new thread]

 

[Mike]

imported post

Gene Beasley wrote:

Short notice

Public Hearing:

1. HB 1052 - Concerning firearm licenses for persons from other countries.

Jan 15Scheduled for public hearing in the House Committee on Judiciary at 10:00 AM. (Subject to change)
​

House Full Committee
House Hearing Rm A
John L. O'Brien Building
Olympia, WA

If you plan to visit the Capitol Campus in Olympia, please keep in mind parking is very limited. For directions, maps and information regarding parking and free shuttle service please see: http://www.leg.wa.gov/WorkingWithLeg/parking.htm

[posting this on each thread discussing AFL rather than starting a single-post new thread]

This bill looks good at first read - would repeal need for alien licenses for immigrant aliens but still allow non-immigrant (e.g., Candian hunters etc) to get a Candaian license.

If I were going to testify, I would make it even simpler and like most states - just make illegal to possess a gun if you are not legally present - forget all teh licensing stuff for any aliens.

 

[BORG]

imported post

I think this is it....looks like resident aliens/permanent residents are no longer required to possess a valid AFL to own and/or possess firearms - effective immediately!

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1052%20HBA%20JUDI%2009.pdf

BORG

 

[BORG]

imported post

BORG wrote:

I think this is it....looks like resident aliens/permanent residents are no longer required to possess a valid AFL to own and/or possess firearms - effective immediately!

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1052%20HBA%20JUDI%2009.pdf

BORG

Just spoke to DOL Firearms and they told me that it is "looking good", but this bill still needs to go through the senate and then on to the Governor before it becomes law...which should be sometime between March to April this year - if all goes well.

BORG

 

[joeroket]

imported post

BORG wrote:

BORG wrote:

I think this is it....looks like resident aliens/permanent residents are no longer required to possess a valid AFL to own and/or possess firearms - effective immediately!

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1052%20HBA%20JUDI%2009.pdf

BORG

Just spoke to DOL Firearms and they told me that it is "looking good", but this bill still needs to go through the senate and then on to the Governor before it becomes law...which should be sometime between March to April this year - if all goes well.

BORG

I am not sure I like this. This bill turns CPL's for non-citizens that meet the requirement for an AFL into a may issue not a shall issue.

The statute governing requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license provides that a
concealed pistol license may be issued to a person who is not a citizen of the United States only
if the applicant meets the requirements of the alien firearm license statute.

 

[Mike]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

I am not sure I like this. This bill turns CPL's for non-citizens that meet the requirement for an AFL into a may issue not a shall issue.

The statute governing requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license provides that a
concealed pistol license may be issued to a person who is not a citizen of the United States only
if the applicant meets the requirements of the alien firearm license statute.

No, read the actual bill - you are reading too much into the summary which is not part of the bill.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Mike wrote:

joeroket wrote:

I am not sure I like this. This bill turns CPL's for non-citizens that meet the requirement for an AFL into a may issue not a shall issue.

The statute governing requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license provides that a
concealed pistol license may be issued to a person who is not a citizen of the United States only
if the applicant meets the requirements of the alien firearm license statute.

No, read the actual bill - you are reading too much into the summary which is not part of the bill.

Gotcha. Re-reading the bill makes a big difference. :banghead: