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 ...
January 8th, 2011 08:43 PM
Originally Posted by hk45c
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.
January 8th, 2011 09:19 PM
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
January 9th, 2011 09:18 AM
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.
Originally Posted by ItsMyRight2
January 22nd, 2011 06:05 PM
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.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
January 24th, 2011 01:46 PM
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.
By SCfromNY in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: February 10th, 2011, 05:53 PM
By Loadedtech in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: June 14th, 2009, 02:04 PM
By Uechi in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
Last Post: February 24th, 2009, 07:23 PM
By mi2az in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 18th, 2008, 02:13 PM
By climber in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
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.