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 hk45c I was about to type another rambling response. Much like my one above, however, Biker, from reading your other posts here ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 50 of 50

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

  1. #46
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by hk45c View Post
    I was about to type another rambling response. Much like my one above, however, Biker, from reading your other posts here I think you are a reasonable man. I also respect your opinions, and I know that this is a bit of an emotional subject.

    So, let's take emotion out. Think about everything in the constitution. All the amendments, everything it protects. Now, if it ONLY applied to citizens of this country what would some of the unintended consequences be? It is not feasible for only citizens to be protected under the constitution. Furthermore, it has been repeated ad nauseam on this board that the right to bear arms is not a constitutional one but a God given one.

    I'm only addressing Biker directly because he was the first to express the sentiment I am replying to, I'm not calling you out or anything brother, this thought is also to those who share the same feelings.

    Again, just a discussion. I eschew confrontations on the Internet.
    Hi HK.

    I don't think you are calling me out, and I respect the fact that you are willing to discuss the matter in a rational manner.

    First off, I'm married to a dual citizen. The thing is, she came here legally and went through the process of becoming a citizen. As an athiest I don't believe that anything is god given. Man made the rules, and man can change them when he desires. Trying to say that things are granted by god is the same as saying that things are granted by the door knob. I realize that there would be repercussions to not allowing those that aren't citizens the protections of the Constitution. I hold a very jaded view, and I admit that.

    That view comes from dealing with illegals. I see the destruction and economic cost they place on our country, especially the border region where I reside. I don't detest all foriegn born people, and even welcome them if they come here properly. My spouse takes great pride in her homeland, just as I take pride in my heritage. The thing is perhaps the protections and rights should be on a "graduated scale". I don't know what the answer is, I only know that the current system isn't working. If I had the answers I'd run for god.

    I realize that there would be repercussions from not granting the rights afforded under the Constitution to non-citizens. The thing is, I have to ask myself if that is good for the country. Right now I very well think it may be. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. All I care about is the nation I love, and swore to defend and defend it's Constitution. As I've said, I don't think that Constitution should apply to non-citizens. I've been wrong before, but more than public opinion would have to get me to change my views. I'm a simple man that believes certain simple things. I can't help but think those simple things are what this country needs at this time, and for all time.

    I'm not a racist, but I am a nationalist.

    Biker

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Member Array ItsMyRight2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    SouthFlorida
    Posts
    315
    If he is not a citizen then he has NO RIGHT to carry here. And why is this even an issue? If he is illegal than why is he even still here?? It amazes me how ILLEGALS can just sit here and sue people and take advantage of our resources. The guy has been breaking the law for 30 and should be jailed and deported. Not issued a carry permit.
    When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
    - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #48
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by ItsMyRight2 View Post
    If he is not a citizen then he has NO RIGHT to carry here. And why is this even an issue? If he is illegal than why is he even still here?? It amazes me how ILLEGALS can just sit here and sue people and take advantage of our resources. The guy has been breaking the law for 30 and should be jailed and deported. Not issued a carry permit.
    Huh? I don't know if you are talking about the guy in my original post or not. If so, you must have misread the article; he's a legal resident from another country, not an illegal alien.

  5. #49
    New Member Array capdek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6
    I see some opinions here that indicate the Constitution should only apply to U.S. citizens. Let's clarify the ramifications of this, shall we?

    This guy from the UK, a law-abiding gun owner like ourselves, having gone through the long and arduous process to become a legal permanent resident of the United States (maybe even for the very freedoms enshrined in our Constitution), is not a citizen, and therefore, he does not have the right to self defense. Oh, he was granted the privilege of self defense until just recently, but the State of South Dakota - fearing the threat of terrorism - has now decided to deny him this privilege. Since he was not lucky enough to be born in this country, and has not yet applied to our government to grant him the privilege of citizenship, the Constitution - and more specifically - the Bill of Rights, does not apply to him. He can have any of these basic rights denied him at any time. For example, if he said something negative about our President, our Attorney General would be legally authorized to have him arrested, tortured, incarcerated and eventually deported without trial. Since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only apply to citizens, he has no rights unless he applies for citizenship and our government decides to grant him that privilege.

    However, the freedom-hating marxist Van Jones, having had the privilege of being born in this country, has the right to self-defense, as well as all the other protections guaranteed to him by the Constitution - including the right to vote and lobby for a socialist government that would destroy the very Constitution that recognizes and protects these rights.

    Sounds like the American way to me!

    Don't get me wrong. I find it troubling this guy has been living here for 30 years and hasn't yet bothered to apply for citizenship. But to say the Constitution and the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply to him? That's completely crazy - and profoundly un-American - in my opinion.
    DEK

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #50
    New Member Array JoeinOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    12
    I don't usually post here, just read. But this one got me thinking. Should the Constitutional rights guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution be extended to all people in the U.S. legally?

    I'm no legal scholar. I don't know case numbers or precedent names. But I'm fairly certain that at least one court in the history of the U.S. has recognized that the rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights predate the Constitution of the United States; that is to say that all humans have these rights, the U.S. just put them in writing. Just because someone comes to this country from another place that may not recognize their rights does not somehow make them less human or less deserving of the rights that all Americans do enjoy and all people should enjoy.

    If someone is here illegally, it is a different story. They have chosen to violate our laws and as such, they have elected to sacrifice their rights.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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.