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; This one is going to be interesting to follow; the ACLU is actually suing because someone can't concealed carry. Of course the someone isn't an ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

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

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,672

    ACLU sues South Dakota over the right to concealed carry

    This one is going to be interesting to follow; the ACLU is actually suing because someone can't concealed carry. Of course the someone isn't an American citizen, but still...

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06...ta-gun-rights/

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,656
    The plaintiff has been a permanent resident legally here for 30 years. The article says, "Smith -- who legally immigrated 30 years ago -- was able to get a concealed license for years, but in 2002 South Dakota amended the law, making U.S. citizenship a requirement to carry a concealed weapon. "

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06...#ixzz1AIlTAzZi

    I don't know how I feel about this case. I think the ACLU is right on 14th amendment grounds of equal protection of "persons" as specified. I also think permanent residents could well find themselves in need of having a CHL. OTOH, some things should be reserved for citizens. Voting, of course, and presently Federal employment (with few exceptions), but again OTOH, permanent residents serve in the military, were subject to conscription when we had conscription, and so it is hard to logically justify denying them a CHL.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Federal employment (with few exceptions), but again OTOH, permanent residents serve in the military, were subject to conscription when we had conscription, and so it is hard to logically justify denying them a CHL.
    Its not that hard. The government does it all the time.

    Michael

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,927
    If he has been here 30 years, why not become a citizen. I don't have a problem with the concept of the law. The Constitution and the BOR are protections provided to the citizens of these United States, they are not guaranteed to aliens. That does not mean that we deny all rights to aliens, for instance free speach or freedom of religion, but they are not guaranteed these freedoms. On the flip side, if the alien is here legally, is not mentally incompetent or a felon and meets the other requirements to buy a gun and the government abjures any responsibility to provide protection (Warren v DC & others) then while the right to bear arms is not guaranteed, I have no problems extending it until the person can apply for and obtain citizenship - 10 years I think. Once the alien is able to obtain citizenship, I would expect them to do so or forfeit the rights under 2A.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  6. #5
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    If he has been here 30 years, why not become a citizen. I don't have a problem with the concept of the law. The Constitution and the BOR are protections provided to the citizens of these United States, they are not guaranteed to aliens. That does not mean that we deny all rights to aliens, for instance free speach or freedom of religion, but they are not guaranteed these freedoms. On the flip side, if the alien is here legally, is not mentally incompetent or a felon and meets the other requirements to buy a gun and the government abjures any responsibility to provide protection (Warren v DC & others) then while the right to bear arms is not guaranteed, I have no problems extending it until the person can apply for and obtain citizenship - 10 years I think. Once the alien is able to obtain citizenship, I would expect them to do so or forfeit the rights under 2A.
    I agree.
    If someone is here legally, and wants full protection under the Constitution, let them become a citizen.

    Biker

  7. #6
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    FL allows permanent resident aliens to obtain a FL CWP. I don't have a problem with that.

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,773
    I don't have a problem with the permanent resident alien having a license, but I do question why they've never become a citizen. You've lived here this long, what keeps you from being a citizen? That doesn't make sense to me.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Saber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona
    Posts
    2,591
    I have to agree with BikerRN on this one. BTW: I'm posting my view under the 1st Amendment.
    “Monsters are real and so are ghosts. They live inside of us, and sometimes they win.”
    ~ Stephen King

  10. #9
    Member Array Jet Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    I agree.
    If someone is here legally, and wants full protection under the Constitution, let them become a citizen.

    Biker
    +1 for Biker.
    Better to have and to hold, than to leave in the nightstand.....

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Old School's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida Treasure Coast
    Posts
    3,211

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    I agree.
    If someone is here legally, and wants full protection under the Constitution, let them become a citizen.

    Biker
    +2 Why not become a citizen ?
    "Violence is seldom the answer, but when it is the answer it is the only answer".

    "A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves".

    http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,656
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Its not that hard. The government does it all the time.

    Michael
    Hard in the sense of justification; what is the justification? ALL of the BOR applies to persons or people, not citizens. The 14th speaks of persons and equal protection.

    There is nothing in the BOR 2A which limits the right to keep arms to holders of citizenship. This is why the ACLU is fully justified in filing as they have.

    As for the part about him not choosing US citizenship, I don't know his reasoning, but not taking it is an option which we have given him. We have never made "presence" conditioned on citizenship. There is no law requiring any Permanent Resident to acquire citizenship after a specified period of time. Perhaps there should be, I'd have to think about that, but it isn't our present law.

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Saber View Post
    I have to agree with BikerRN on this one. BTW: I'm posting my view under the 1st Amendment.
    Well Saber, if 1 A applies to Permanent Residents (non-citizens) and we know it does because plenty of them seem to have found a calling here as journalists, why would 2A not equally apply to Permanent Residents. 2A speaks of the right of the people not the right of citizens. Same for 4A and 5A protections, such as they still exist.

    I too wonder why someone would stay here for 30 years and not acquire citizenship, but we don't compel that. That is our choice and our present law.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array skysoldier29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami Florida / Michigan
    Posts
    1,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Well Saber, if 1 A applies to Permanent Residents (non-citizens) and we know it does because plenty of them seem to have found a calling here as journalists, why would 2A not equally apply to Permanent Residents. 2A speaks of the right of the people not the right of citizens. Same for 4A and 5A protections, such as they still exist.

    I too wonder why someone would stay here for 30 years and not acquire citizenship, but we don't compel that. That is our choice and our present law.
    It is probably hypocritical to extend just some right to a alien who is hear legally. So I would agree that ND should give him his CPL if he is otherwise qualified to have one under their state laws.

    I had the same question if you like it here and have stayed here for 30 years why not just apply to citizenship, I'm sure if you're an outstanding law abiding person it wouldn't be that hard to get it.

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,656
    Quote Originally Posted by skysoldier29 View Post
    It is probably hypocritical to extend just some right to a alien who is hear legally. So I would agree that ND should give him his CPL if he is otherwise qualified to have one under their state laws.

    I had the same question if you like it here and have stayed here for 30 years why not just apply to citizenship, I'm sure if you're an outstanding law abiding person it wouldn't be that hard to get it.
    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.

    As for whether or not citizenship would be easy or hard to obtain for a law abiding person who resided here, all I can say is there is nothing ever easy about dealing with our (whatever they are called these days) Immigration Services folk. The guy I just referenced did eventually become one of us. Once during the process he received a letter with instructions to go somewhere 100 miles + from his home to get finger printed. When he got to the address it was some sort of car repair shop in a seedy location. At the time he had a temporary job with Uncle Sam in one of the few positions not requiring US citizenship. Our secretary was a hound dog and it took her 3 days of persistent inquiries to find out that the folks who sent out the letter: 1) knew they had the wrong address on it; 2) had taken no step to tell people of the error or make a correction of any sort; 3) several thousand people were affected.

    So, I'll remain skeptical about the comment that getting citizenship should be easy for the guy. You never know. He may have long ago just thrown his hands up in disgust and resignation.

  16. #15
    Member
    Array Coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    446
    The right to defend yourself is a human right. As long as the person is law abiding, etc., load him/her up.
    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

Page 1 of 4 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.