ACLU sues South Dakota over the right to concealed carry

This is a discussion on ACLU sues South Dakota over the right to concealed carry within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Hopyard I knew a Brit who deliberately chose to not apply for US citizenship when he was eligible to do so. I ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50

Thread: ACLU sues South Dakota over the right to concealed carry

  1. #16
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I knew a Brit who deliberately chose to not apply for US citizenship when he was eligible to do so. I think he harbored a desire to return home, did not want to renounce his citizenship though in reality the Brits don't allow that so it would make no difference. It was an emotional issue for him.
    One need not renounce British (or other) citizenship to become a US citizen. That used to be an American requirement, but the law was changed within the past 10 years or so to permit dual citizenship. I know at least two people who hold dual citizenship in the US and Great Britain. One is a native Brit, and the other is American-born.

    Hence for the subject of the original post, the permanent resident of 30 years needs to pursue American citizenship to enjoy the full benefit of firearms ownership. For heaven's sake, consider what's happened to private firearms ownership in his native England during the 30 years he's been over here... I would think that alone would be motivation enough to pursue US citizenship.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,392
    You are all missing the big point here. It's not if this guy should or shouldn't have the right. It's that the ACLU has filed what I believe to be it's first lawsuit ever in favor of the 2A and didn't even file it on behalf of one of the 300+ million US citizens. They filed for an alien. An alien? There has got to be at least 10,000,000 Americans out there who could use their legal help regarding 2A infringement and they filed for an alien. They truly are FREAKIN NUTS!
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array goldshellback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    OKC; by way of St. Mayberry, GA
    Posts
    4,750
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    You are all missing the big point here. It's not if this guy should or shouldn't have the right. It's that the ACLU has filed what I believe to be it's first lawsuit ever in favor of the 2A and didn't even file it on behalf of one of the 300+ million US citizens. They filed for an alien. An alien? There has got to be at least 10,000,000 Americans out there who could use their legal help regarding 2A infringement and they filed for an alien. They truly are FREAKIN NUTS!
    This is kinda what I was thinking..............AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union.
    The ACLU hasn't been very 'warm' to anything 2A related in the past.......why do this for someone whose been here for 30 years and not taken the effort to become a citizen?

    Having said that, I wonder if this sets a standard for future ACLU involvment in anything 2A related?
    "Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008

    (Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay

  5. #19
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by goldshellback View Post
    This is kinda what I was thinking..............AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union.
    The ACLU hasn't been very 'warm' to anything 2A related in the past.......why do this for someone whose been here for 30 years and not taken the effort to become a citizen?

    Having said that, I wonder if this sets a standard for future ACLU involvment in anything 2A related?
    I seriously doubt that the American Criminal Liberties Union is doing this because they have seen the light and now embrace the Constitution, and all it's rights.

    Make no mistake about it, the ACLU is not friendly to the Second Amendment, nor are they ever likely to be. They are an organization, in my belief, made up of "progressives" and socialist that will do anything and everything they can to ruin the American way of life. In short, they just want to cause problems and use our ways against us to bring this nation to it's knees. They didn't file this lawsuit because of it's potential impact on the Second Amendment, but rather because the grieved party is not a United States citizen. It matters not to them that this is a Second Amendment issue. They would've filed this lawsuit if the non-citizen couldn't obtain a driver's license. To me that gives me little cause to support this case, or to support the ACLU in any way, shape, or form.

    Biker

  6. #20
    Member Array hk45c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In my own world
    Posts
    385
    Just like the vast majority of you have great pride in being American we ex-pats take great pride in our home countries. If I was not able to hold dual citizenship I would have never become a citizen. I am VERY proud of my country and heritage. I did not come over here to escape anything I just came for school and I met a girl and fell in love.

    I agree that non-citizens should not vote, but the right to carry a firearm should not be kept from non-citizens. The sheriff of my old county would not let me get a permit because I only had a green card. Eventhough I am a member of the ARNG.

    Yes, I've said before, and I stand by the posts I've made, that I love the freedoms afforded here. I will also confess that the day I took the oath of citizenship was bittersweet.

    There are many reasons why people do not want to give up their citizenship. I am not sure why it's even an issue here. The fact is a law abiding individual, here legally is being denied the right to protect himself and his family.

    I may lose some friends here with this post but I don't care, this is one of my pet peeves. Just because an individual chooses to live in another county it does not mean they have to become a citizen of that nation. Yes, America is a GREAT country. I would not have chosen to live, defend, and most importantly raise a family here. However, there are other countries in this world that are also great and the citizens of those countries are just as proud to have been born there.

    I could extend this rant...but I'm going to get off the soapbox now before I really offend someone. One last thing before I step down. I know that there is at least ONE person that will be offended and have some retort to this post. Maybe "go back where you came from" or something else just as asinine. Just be sure, if your that person, to remember I've taken an oath to protect this nation. If you haven't well....you don't have anything to say to me.

    There are many things that have been posted here that I choose to ignore. I figure it's a gun forum, it's just par he course. This, I could not let go.
    Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
    ----
    If not me, then who?

  7. #21
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Coder View Post
    The right to defend yourself is a human right. As long as the person is law abiding, etc., load him/her up.
    That may be, but the right to use a firearm to do so should be reserved for citizens.

    Biker

  8. #22
    Member
    Array Coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    That may be, but the right to use a firearm to do so should be reserved for citizens.

    Biker
    Why?
    We're all in favor of reducing violent crime. It's just that pro-gunners have a method that is proven effective. Anti-gunners don't.
    ---
    John Moses Browning day is January 24th, 2011

  9. #23
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Coder View Post
    Why?
    Because the Constitution, and the rights afforded under it, should be for citizens.

    It should not be for every Tom, Dick, and Harry. It should mean something to have the protections granted under the Consitution, and the best way to ensure that is to only grant those protections to citizens.

    Biker

  10. #24
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    In the most recent rulings on 2A, one reason they have gone in our favor is becuase the courts have recognized that the right to bear arms is an inalienabe human right preexisting the constitution. It only exsists in the constitution to codify the right. Therefore, it is afforded by the virtue of being human. We choose to curtail that for certain individuals based on their criminal, and in some cases mental health, history. This guy has no criminal history, is here legally (meaning he's not commiting a crime being here), and is human. He has the preexisting right to bear arms. Period.
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array sigmanluke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,209
    I'm not sure how I feel on this issue. I detest ILLEGAL immigrants, I am grateful there are people who are willing to go through the hassles of immigrating legally. I know it is a difficult and usually expensive process that should be made easier IMO.

    In Utah, illegal aliens can obtain a state issued "driver privilege" card, it is NOT a driver license (cannot be used as state issued picture ID), but allows them to drive legally in this state. I wish these didn't exist, why should someone breaking the law by being here be allowed the privilege of driving?

    As far as carrying concealed weapons, Utah allows those born outside the United States a CFP under these guidelines:

    -from the CFP application-
    APPLICANTS BORN OUTSIDE OF U.S.:
    If you are a resident alien or naturalized citizen you must
    include your Alien Registration Number or INS
    Registration Number on your application and fingerprint
    card. A copy of a valid U.S passport will also be accepted for
    proof of citizenship if born outside the US.
    IMO, some things should be saved for citizens or members of our armed forces only, Voting, and obtaining a Concealed Carry permit would be among them.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
    Thomas Jefferson

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,142
    If anyone's been a law-abiding resident for 30+ years, my hat's off to that person, legal alien or not. That in itself shows something of the guy's character, which is questionable in too many cases. Still, if I were to move to a foreign country and intended to stay there permanently, I think it would probably behoove me to become a citizen.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  13. #27
    Member Array loboleather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    203
    Like it or not, the rights affirmed in our Constitution are affirmed for all people.

    There are many foreign nationals residing in the United States for many reasons. As long as a person is here lawfully that person is entitled to all Constitutional protections of individual liberty. Voting requires citizenship, as is only proper. Holding certain public offices requires citizenship, which can be readily understood. Residing here peacefully under the laws that have been duly adopted by the elected representatives of our citizens brings with it the fullest extent of Constitutional protections.

    I know of several families of Cuban descent that came to the US after Castro's dictatorship was imposed. All of those people are good and solid members of their communities. But, in the event that the current administration in Cuba should fall and a democratic government be established, many of those people would readily return to their homeland with pride and dedication.

    As we hear frequently, what part of "shall not be infringed" are we having difficulty understanding?

    Self-defense is a basic human right. Citizenship, or lack thereof, does not enter into the discussion. Only when a person has demonstrated by his actions that he cannot be entrusted with weapons should any restrictions apply.

    Best regards.
    Lobo Gun Leather
    serious equipment for serious business, since 1972
    www.lobogunleather.com

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array Chief1297's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    751
    Sorry. In my opinion non-citizens should not be able to carry/own firearms...PERIOD. They have no allegiance to this country and I just imagine the 9/11 pukes with weapons and what they could do if they were so inclined.
    Equality does not exist in the real world - it is a fiction to help the self esteem of those people who consistently fail to succeed.
    Retired SF(SP) CMSgt 1979-2005

  15. #29
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    F the ACLU, they step right up to protect an immigrant citizens rights but sit idly by while states like CA, NY, NJ, parts of IL ( cook county) and others blatantly violate natural born citizens firearm rights daily. I say again $&@$&*&$&(@$(@$&( the ACLU

    Oh and if you are LEGALLY here in the US, you should have all rights afforded to you under the Constitution..... if you are here ILLEGALLY you should get NOTHING

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,628
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    Because the Constitution, and the rights afforded under it, should be for citizens.

    It should not be for every Tom, Dick, and Harry. It should mean something to have the protections granted under the Consitution, and the best way to ensure that is to only grant those protections to citizens.

    Biker
    Although it is clearly your opinion (which you are certainly entitled to) that the BOR should apply only to citizens, we have 200 years of practice, custom, law, and court rulings which say the opposite.

    One time when I went through Edmonton, Canada, the guy who inspected my passport made a point of saying something to the effect that while in Canada I have the same rights as anyone else; and welcome. It was a nice little canned speech designed to make visitors welcome.

    We could of course have our officials tell everyone who enters, welcome, but btw you get no protections which we afford our citizens. If we take that position I would not want to be in the hotel, restaurant, tourism, travel, or hospitality industry.

    Folks keep harping on, "read the constitution." What good is that if after reading it you want to insist that it says something it doesn't say.

    So, to those who think a Permanent Resident doesn't have 2A rights, or shouldn't have 2A rights, how about you get into bed with the Brady's and push for a Constitutional change. I'm sure you'll find plenty of support among the anti-immigrant crowd, and you might even succeed at cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. South Carolina's Concealed Carry bill.
    By SCfromNY in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 10th, 2011, 05:53 PM
  2. South Dakota Enters into Right-to-Carry
    By Loadedtech in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 14th, 2009, 02:04 PM
  3. South Carolina concealed carry of knives
    By Uechi in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 24th, 2009, 07:23 PM
  4. Concealed Carry in South Carolina Questions ????
    By mi2az in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: November 18th, 2008, 02:13 PM
  5. South Dakota - Carry in State Parks?
    By climber in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 24th, 2008, 05:04 PM

Search tags for this page

aclu brazos county 2011
,
aclu concealed carry
,
aclu of south dakota represents the plaintiff smith v. state of south dakota
,
aclu south dakota smith v nelson
,
aclu starbucks right to carry
,
aclu suing south dakota over concealed carry
,
ccw driver privilege card
,
concealed carry south dakota
,

never become a citizen

,
smith v. state of south dakota concealed
,
south dakota aclu concealed carry
,
south dakota aclu right to bear arms
,
south dakota aclu sues over right to carry
,
south dakota concealed carry
,
south dakota let illegal imigrants to have concealed carry
Click on a term to search for related topics.