Defensive Carry banner

2nd Amendment and Aliens (earthbound type)

9K views 143 replies 29 participants last post by  taseal 
#1 ·
continued from here


No, you misunderstood me. I was agreeing that those who are against equal treatment need to ask themselves your question. I wasn't attempting to answer it myself.
Oh, Ok. Sorry. :blush:


When have any of us needed to submit to a criminal background check as a condition for civil rights?
Only when buying a gun, or when I joined the army, or applied for a police job, or applied for a security job.

On another note. It just seems to me, that anyone should be able to OC in any state, regardless of Citizenshp status, as long as,

A.) The state does not infringe on our rights, such as some of those states that do not allow OC. (As well as those that do not allow CC) and

B.) They are in this country legally.
 
#66 ·
Dogofwar---I've no clue what you are trying to say in your posts. You appear to be mixing several separate issues.

1) non-citizen rights to keep arms; denial of cc permits to such
2) conscription
3) some vague ideas about the constitution speaking to either of the two issues
 
#67 ·
Correct, if you are not a US citizen you should not have the right to defend your life, your children etc.

Dogofwar01 quick question, how did they get the Internet up in the mountains?




A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
#70 ·
pgrass--thanks for the text. The oath makes it perfectly clear what one is doing, and what one must believe one is doing when taking it.

Sadly, a few other countries do not acknowledge such renunciations.

Also even more sadly, there are small numbers of people who take that oath but don't take it to heart. Fortunately, I think these "frauds" are the tiny minority.

If you want to see happy faces, people as happy as you will ever see them, attend a swearing in ceremony for new US citizens. The look on the faces is a mix of the joy you see at weddings and graduation ceremonies.
 
#72 ·
If you want to see happy faces, people as happy as you will ever see them, attend a swearing in ceremony for new US citizens. The look on the faces is a mix of the joy you see at weddings and graduation ceremonies.
I can vouch for that. I encourage every natural born American to attend a natz ceremony. Well worth it.

Sometimes, we take for granted that we were born in a democratic country.

What some of these folks have had to go through to get here and to become a USC, it just overwhelms me.
 
#71 ·
The naturalized citizens I have known take a fierce pride in their US citizenship. Most have even less use for someone here illegally than we do.
I worked with one in a construction trade, he kept ICE in his cellphone speed dial. I actually saw him call one day and turn in an illegal who he overheard bragging about being in this country illegally and how he was getting away with it.
 
#74 ·
Personally I don't think 2A should grant the right to bear arms to any non-citizen. Esp. CC. It should be a privlage (not a right) for non-citizens , should be a may issue and not a shall issue basis regardless of the non-citizens status, IMO.
 
#75 ·
The 2nd Amendment does not Grant the right to bear arms. It GUARANTEES the right to bear arms.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, or should be a UNIVERSAL right for ALL PEOPLE. We just happen to be lucky enough to live in a country where it is recognized, however little it is, by the Main Stream Media and the far left. Still, it exists for one and all.

Concerning concealed carry. In the 48 states that recognize it, it is a privilege in 46 of those states. Only Alaska and Vermont do not require us to apply for a PERMIT/LICENSE to carry concealed.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion. :wink:
 
#82 ·
I'm very pro-immigration, but that has nothing to do with 2A (in my little world).

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door

It is not the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, but is a motto I think is critical to my nation. However, this does not equal allowing a foreigner to arm themselves in a nation that should protect citizens and sovereignty.

It is not being treated like a 2nd class citizen to state the right to bear arms should be a privlage and not a right for a non-citizen. You either are a citizen or you are not, so there is no 2nd class citizen option. There is an important legal difference and is the difference between being a citizen and a guest, between right and privlage.

Well Thanis -- I guess I'm just meant to be defenseless in your little world...
Not what I stated at all. Please read what I have stated.

No can vote then No Second Amendment "Rights" = No Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I definitely believe non-citizens should not be allowed to vote. As far as the rest of your logic, yes, you are a guess of another nation. By all means, let it be known how you feel. If you don't like how that nation might define the differences between rights and privlages for non-citizens, become a citizen and vote, or leave, or stay as long as you follow the law and remain legal.
 
#84 ·
Dog, fortunately for me the Liberal Weenies in my state are in charge, and.....they're going to allow me to get a Concealed Handgun License! :smile:

What CC gun should I use? Ruger? Springfield? Surely a knowledgeable defender of the faith like yourself has a suggestion.

Maybe a Portugese-made Browning Hi-Power? That would reflect my true status in your eyes. :twak:

When I ride to Sturgis this summer, I will avoid your state if I am packing. Fair is fair.

Oh, and since both you and Thanis have made it clear that I have no right to defend my American-citizen son, perhaps you could arrange for a company of stout-hearted soldiers to camp permanently around my house. You're a "Dog of War", right? I mean -- if I can't do it, and the police won't do it, somebody has to have mercy on me and my immigrant-scum familiy.
 
#87 ·
It is unfortunate that very many people are unable to make the intellectual distinctions among the various types and status of folks within our border.

Briefly, besides citizens, we have:

Lawful Permanent Residents. These people are mostly on a path to citizenship, have every right to be here under our law, are allowed to seek any job they can get with minor exceptions in Federal government and in security sensitive jobs.

Working Visas of one type or another: Lawfully admitted for a fixed time period. Have every right to be hear under our law, may not apply for other jobs without authorization or leaving the country.

Student visas: These folks are here so long as they are students. They are here lawfully. They may go anywhere, and do almost anything except hold a job outside of the school in which they are enrolled.

Humanitarian probation: Lawfully admitted for all manner of special situations.

Tourist Visa or Visa Waiver: These are visitors and guests. THey are here to see the sights, visit family, have a good time. They are here lawfully.

Illegal Immigrant: Snuck across the border; entered without obtaining legal authorization or overstayed a temporary visa used to gain entry.

Permanent residents, sometimes called green card holders, are treated about the same as US citizens except for voting, jury service, and in a couple of states firearms ownership. There is IMO no valid reason to prevent a lawful Green Card holder from buying, possessing, a gun or obtaining a license.

I do think a line needs to be drawn. I wouldn't allow firearms ownership to tourists or others here for short stays.

And certainly not to those present illegally.
 
#98 ·
Well, whether you like it or not, for the most part non-citizens absolutely do enjoy the same rights. Even those here illegally enjoy many of our rights: e.g., trial by jury.

For the most part the various portions of our Constitution speak of people and persons, and not of citizens.

These issues have been sorted out extensively through innumerable real cases and legislation, and what is, is, and mostly is probably quite consistent with all of our laws and our Constitution.

So, if someone who not a U.S. citizen is given a CHL in their state, it is perfectly O.K. And when a state denies that CHL to a non-citizen, it probably is O.K., or the issue should be settled through some sort of litigation or legislation or both.

We do have numerous and various anti-discrimination laws at the Federal and local level, and these apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. E.g., you may not discriminate in housing or employment on the basis of national origin.
 
#111 ·
Gun control, ORIGINALLY, was based on prejudice. And to a degree, it still is. Take Chicago for instance. The only people who can carry guns legally are law enforcement, and Chicago City Aldermen.

In New York City, it's law enforcement, and those people well connected enough to have an NYC carry permit.

As far as felons having guns, isn't there a law against that? But if you're a law breaker, what would you care? You'd carry anyway. That is why pistol free zones make no sense. The only people who obey those laws are the law-abiding. Gun Control laws only affect the law-abiding people. That's the supreme prejudice in my opinion.
 
#113 ·
As far as felons having guns, isn't there a law against that? But if you're a law breaker, what would you care? You'd carry anyway.
Just curious, but if there wasn't a law how would you identify a law breaker?

Anarchy is irresponsibility.
 
#116 ·
No, not a signature. Just a statement.

I think it is misguided to believe all gun laws, or any laws for that matter, are an infringement of 'rights.'

Perhaps Madoff's rights were infringed when he was arrested for simply taking advantage of 'suckers.' Why is there a law against Ponzi schemes? Madoff doesn't obey the law so why have a law at all?
 
#117 ·
I tend to think of ANY law as an infringement of rights.
In fact, LAWS pretty much suck.

Now, that I've said that, a law is a limitation of freedom. Most of the laws that have been enacted that actually deal with freedom in one way or another came about because a minority of people somewhere at sometime screwed up and now the 99.9 percent that didn't screw up are limited as to what they can do.

Before anyone goes jumping off and getting spastic on me, let me say that I fully understand and accept the fact that we need some law because that is the only way that we can thrive or even survive living so closely together.

But what about gun law? Really, what good are they? They really serve no purpose other than to transfer power to someone else. For most of the history of this country, there were very few gun laws and the system worked very well. It wasn't ANARCHY at all, fact of the matter is, there were less problems then than there are today. Society really was a kinder,gentler place because for the most part everyone respected each other.

Nothing at all like today, where looking at the wrong person at the wrong time or simply making eye contact can get you killed.

As already mentioned, laws only affect those that are willing to abide by them. Those that don't, prey on those that do. And those that do, choose to let lesser men dictate the conditions of their survival, and there is nothing at all right about that. A sample might be New York City, or Chicago, where only the cops or gangsters have guns, or maybe a few millionaire's that bought the privilege.

The honest law abiding people are caught in the crossfire. The politicians whine and moan like crying babies at the mere thought of giving up a tiny bit of control
therefore something as simple as the right to defend one self from aggression will find someone in each city more vigorously prosecuted than the perpetrator of the crime. It ain't right. Never has been, never will be and there is simply no way to justify it.
 
#118 ·
Most of the time, a just and reasonable law, even related to gun control, is a good law. As it pretains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates of makes 2A obsolete.

The history of law is closely connected to the development of civilization. According to Merriam Webster law is “a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual." Without laws, you would not know what side of the road to drive on.

...As already mentioned, laws only affect those that are willing to abide by them. Those that don't, prey on those that do...
It is the absolute nature of the statement that always draws me in. " ...laws only affect those that are willing to abide by them." You need to get better LE. In my part of the world, the overwhelming majority of the time, laws directly affects and punishs those unwilling to abide by them. The vast majority of our society alters their behavior because what is and is not legal.

As to what any of this has to do with non-citizens and if 2A applies at all, as a privlage, or a right, I'm lost.

Gun control, ORIGINALLY, was based on prejudice. And to a degree, it still is...
Al, I'll take you word for it for now, but just want to state, just because I think a non-citizen should not be granted 2A as a right, I'm not being prejudice. I'm not making a prejudgment before becoming aware of the relevant facts. As a matter of legality (the same legality that justifies the difference between citizen and non-citizen), I believe the right to bear arms should be a privlage for non-citizens.
 
#119 ·
You need to get better LE
What good would better LE do Thanis?

They aren't there to protect you and they wont be there when you need them.

The vast majority of our society alters their behavior because what is and is not legal.
Disagree. Law has nothing to do with it. Most people have enough moral scruples about them to still know what its right and what is wrong and that is what they act upon.

Laws do not prevent anyone from doing what they want to do. The law is there only to provide a means of punishment if they screw up. Not one time have I heard a murderer say that the law prevented him from killing someone. What the law did do was put him jail for the rest of his life or provide for his execution, but it was only after the fact...which was a moot point for the victim or their family.

Most of the time, a just and reasonable law, even related to gun control, is a good law
Baloney.
Show me proof of one good gun law.

As it pretains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates of makes 2A obsolete.
It is apparent that you do not understand what an "infringement" is. You know, the 2ndA which states that "shall not be an infringed". Go look it up.

A law any law, that restricts your ability to carry or bear arms is an infringement.
 
#120 ·
...Laws do not prevent anyone from doing what they want to do...
There is that absolute statement again.

In my part of the world it is illegal to burn leaves. The majority of my neighborhood complaines about this every fall. Not one of us burns leaves, just because it is illegal.

Many times have I wanted drink a beer. However, I was CC. Because of CC law I did not drink.

Your wrong. Laws do have a preventative nature.

...Show me proof of one good gun law...
I can't do this, for you. However I do believe in reasonable gun control, like permits, or providing ID to prove you are over 18, that I don't feel infringe on 2A.

...It is apparent that you do not understand what an "infringement" is. You know, the 2ndA which states that "shall not be an infringed". Go look it up....
Infringement: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, to make obsolete.

So I'll restate,

As it pretains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates of makes 2A obsolete.

...A law any law, that restricts your ability to carry or bear arms is an infringement.
Well, the laws of the Republic, and the highest court disagree with you, but you have the right to your opinion (and it is good to hear them). God knows, I can think of one decision off of the top of my head that the courts have upheld that I don't agree with. I'm happy about District of Columbia v. Heller.
 
#124 ·
Thanis--- While I understand where you are coming from (I think), I do not believe the BOR applies only to citizens. If you go through the document, and the entire Constitution, it seldom uses the words citizen or citizens; usually person or persons. Everyone present here has the same BOR rights. That is why an alien here can write a letter to a newspaper without fear of retribution; that is why an alien here has a right to remain silent; that is why an alien here has protection from unreasonable searches to the same extent as a citizen.

IT is clear that the founders knew the distinction between a citizen and a non-citizen because they refer to naturalization in our Constitution. So, therefore, it wasn't likely mere chance that in other portions of the document they chose to use a more general form of referral to the humans who inhabited the USA at the time. They even deliberately defined the slaves as less than a full human--- so they were well aware of the fine meanings of these various terms.

Therefore, I do not agree with your view that 2A should apply only to citizens. That said, I see no problem with denying that to tourists and other temporary visitors and workers, though I am not convinced it is lawful to do that.

The framers were well aware that there were people present who were not citizens, yet they chose to say "the right of the people" instead of "the right of citizens" and I don't think that was an accident.
 
#125 ·
...The framers were well aware that there were people present who were not citizens, yet they chose to say "the right of the people" instead of "the right of citizens" and I don't think that was an accident.
Semantics. The definition used for the public, the people, citizens, are clearly the same in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. "We the People of the United States..." It is not defined in exact legal ease. The intent is clear. Per the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, "...and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government..." The framers were making a social contract between a government of the people to the people (citizens) of a sovereign nation.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights only speak to rights of citizen. It does not address directly the rights of non-citizens as it applies to several rights. The rights of non-citizens might be indirectly related to rights defined in those documents (or required by international-law).

For example, Omnibus Appropriations Act (1999) amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to prohibit, with certain exceptions, the transfer to and possession of firearms by aliens admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. Their is a valid difference between non-citizen and citizen and the rights granted. The legal right for a non-citizen to bear arms is not granted under 2A.
 
#126 ·
It is because neither of you understands that 2A is not an absolute right.
Using the english language and logic, as it pertains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates or makes 2A obsolete. This is not a statement of opinion, but of fact.
A regulation IS an encroachment.

A back ground check saying that I can defend my self with a gun is an encroachment. How can it not be? If I dont get it I dont get to tote a gun.

A fee that makes me pay for my "right" is an encroachment. If I dont pay the144.25 fee, I don't get to defend myself with a concealed weapon.

Me having to provide fingerprints to prove I am innocent is an encroachment. If I dont not, I am presumed guilty until I am proved innocent.

Thanis, your northern version of the English language is alot different than mine.

And really, why is a man from another country less able to defend himself than we that live here? Does he love his family any less? Why should any man be hindered by some useless regulation that makes his life worth less than mine?
 
#127 ·
A regulation IS an encroachment.?
Because resonable regulations don't advance beyond proper limits. I don't intend to change your mind, you are defining an individual right to an undefendable extreem (often with the same breath a statement of some domino or eroding effect).

A democracy / republic must come to terms with what is reasonable, as the framers clearly intended. I'm not implying any greater reasonable limitation on 2A as I might freedom of speech.

..I am presumed guilty until I am proved innocent...
I agree. However, innocent until proved guilty, is not based on 2A. The best counter argument is a public safety argument and the balance between. You can be taken into custody even though you have not been shown to have commited a crime.

However, you are right. This is a point not made enough.

...Thanis, your northern version of the English language is alot different than mine...
Has nothing to do with it. You are not acknowledging the meaning of the words. As I stated, you are just fulfilling your desire to change the cognitive narrative of the subject. It is valid to argue that a regulatuion is not reasonable, but to disagree with a factual statement is fruitless.

...And really, why is a man from another country less able to defend himself than we that live here?...
Because I think providing foreign nationals the "legal" right to bear arms imposes on national sovernity.

...Does he love his family any less?...
I don't know.

...Why should any man be hindered by some useless regulation that makes his life worth less than mine?
Because,

It does not makes his life worth less than yours.

There are many hypotheticals where I would not want a non-citizen (regardless of legal status) to be allowed to enter or resided in the U.S. with a firearm. Thus the willingness to consider it a privlage and not a right, given the legal implications.

Further, per the OP, I think it is clear, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, does not provide the rights of citizenry to non-citizens. This does not mean I think non-citizens have no rights, but it is reasonable to assert there is a difference.
 
#128 ·
And really, why is a man from another country less able to defend himself than we that live here?...
That ain't a "no" question.
It's one that requires a much broader answer of why their life is of less value than mine. It must be because they are not allowed to defend it here right?

Why would we deny a man something that the Creator gave him unless we considered them to be inferior to us? Whats right about that?

Also, you have to remember that at the time of the writing of the Constitution that everyone were technically British citizens until the Declaration of Independence. They were considered British citizens rebelling against the Crown of England and it was a rebellion that had to be crushed, but it didn't work that way. At that time many people were immigrants from all over.

Every man at that time was allowed to bear arms, citizenship or origin of birth mattered not. There were very few if any gun laws. It worked then, why not now?

Gun laws were almost non-existent in the first century of this country.
I really don't see them of being much benefit in this century...except to politicians that fear an armed population. I've said it before and I will say it again, Gun Control isn't really about guns...its about controlling people.

Thats all its ever been about and that all it will ever be about.
Therefore they only serve one purpose...
 
#130 ·
That ain't a "no" question.
It's one that requires a much broader answer of why their life is of less value than mine. It must be because they are not allowed to defend it here right?...
Your right. I addressed this after you quote.

...Why would we deny a man something that the Creator gave him unless we considered them to be inferior to us? Whats right about that?...
Because I believe just nation has the right to defend its sovernity.

...Also, you have to remember that at the time of the writing of the Constitution that everyone were technically British citizens until the Declaration of Independence. They were considered British citizens rebelling against the Crown of England and it was a rebellion that had to be crushed, but it didn't work that way...
One of the reasons the Declaration of Independence is written before the Constitution. They were not British citizens, at least according to themselves.

...At that time many people were immigrants from all over...Every man at that time was allowed to bear arms, citizenship or origin of birth mattered not. There were very few if any gun laws. It worked then, why not now?...
People who refused to acknowledge their citizenship were not not granted the same rights. I'm not going to get into yet another opinion based hypothetical on history. There are vast differences if firearms and society since 1700s.

Want to restate I'll grant you:

..I am presumed guilty until I am proved innocent...
However, innocent until proved guilty, is not based on 2A and does not need to apply to non-citizens when it comes to the right to bear arms.
 
#129 ·
Thanis

You don't want them (legal aliens) to be able to defend themselves...cause you just hate them.

Assume your parents came here a few years ago still green card holders legal aliens but not citizens...but you are lucky and born here... would you be preaching the same lines? You telling me you don't want your father to be able to defend you and your mother from violent criminal attacks?
Don't even start with that there are other ways one can defend himself.

You twisting the lines of the 2A as you would like to read it...but is is written as it is written.

Next time you gonna jump on minority people? How about fat people should not be allowed to own guns...as they already proved that they lacking self-control.

I can feel the hate when you are talking my friend.

Regards,


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QKShooter Note:
This post is a borderline forum rule violation. Since it has already been responded to I'll let it stay but, watch it!
We have our rule of law here also. Be respectful and polite or move on.

2. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts or PMs. Trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are strictly prohibited.
You are welcome to disagree with opinions other than your own, but flaming other members will not be allowed.
If you can't figure out how to compose a post without it being confrontational or a personal attack on someone, simply bite your lip
and don't post it.
If you do not like our rules or feel you cannot follow them, seek out a new venue to frequent, or start your own.
 
#131 ·
...You don't want them (legal aliens) to be able to defend themselves...cause you just hate them...I can feel the hate when you are talking my friend...
You need to train those Jedi skills better, or better practice whatever mystic abilities you have. You are very off on my "hate." I'm very pro-immigration.

Just because I reserve the right to bear arms as a right of a citizen and a privlage to non-citizens does not demonstrate a flaw in my character.

...would you be preaching the same lines?...
I hope so. It is logical that a nation would not provid foreign nationals the "legal" right to bear arms as it imposes on national sovernity.

...You telling me you don't want your father to be able to defend you and your mother from violent criminal attacks?...
Want is different then understanding a nation's god given desire to maintain national sovernity (thus defining differences between citizens and non-citizens).

...Don't even start with that there are other ways one can defend himself...
OK

...You twisting the lines of the 2A as you would like to read it...but is is written as it is written...
You are taking the words out of context, so you are twisting.

...Next time you gonna jump on minority people? How about fat people should not be allowed to own guns...as they already proved that they lacking self-control...
Hope this statement made you feel better. I can think of no other value it provides to the conversation.

You need to learn the value of words and their meaning. Because a nation does not grant the same rights to citizens as it does non-citizens does not make it an unjust nation, nor does it make that opinion evil.

Has nothing to do with "minority people." As much as there are god given individual rights there are also god given rights of a nation to maintain its sovernity.

Now if you were to agrue immigrant workers, were desperately need for the economy, and the impact of not providing a path to citizenship is unjust, I can understand. How taxes are taken out of certain aliens with no representation. I'll listen. However this has no bearing on what legal rights a citizen has in contrast to a non-citizen. The problem is the immigration process, not 2A being applied to non-citizens as a right.
 
#134 ·
Thanis wrote: "For example, Omnibus Appropriations Act (1999) amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to prohibit, with certain exceptions, the transfer to and possession of firearms by aliens admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. Their is a valid difference between non-citizen and citizen and the rights granted."

Actually, this partially supports my viewpoint. By prohibiting transfer to an alien admitted under a non-immigrant visa, the inverse becomes true--an alien with an immigrant visa can lawfully obtain a firearm.

I don't know if this provision you mentioned has ever been challenged; I frankly can't see a realistic opportunity for such as lawfully admitted non-immigrant aliens are not typically around long enough to pursue a challenge. I do think somehow our courts would find a way to get past the extension of rights to persons issue and find this exclusion O.K. But, that doesn't entirely make either your case or mine. It might turn on defining "the people" as those who permanently reside within the US. Obviously, non-immigrant aliens do not. It can't turn on "citizenship" because of the specific language in the BOR.
 
#135 ·
Watch It Folks ~ No More Forum Rule Violations!

2. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts or PMs.

Trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are strictly prohibited. You are welcome to disagree with opinions other than your own, but flaming other members will not be allowed.

If you can't figure out how to compose a post without it being confrontational or a personal attack on someone, simply bite your lip
and don't post it.



If you do not like our rules or feel you cannot follow them, seek out a new venue to frequent, or start your own.
 
#136 ·
My apologies.

...If you can't figure out how to compose a post without it being confrontational or a personal attack on someone, simply bite your lip and don't post it....
I have failed to respond to a personal attack without being confrontational, and don't know how to continue with this thread without in some way being confrontational.

I've made my point as best I can on an internet forum. I believe the overwhelming public (per every poll I have seen) would agree with me. As a matter of fact, 2A does not apply to non-citizens as a right. It has come up a few times, but never definitely determined. I have been unable to find a court case on the subject (as every time it has come up it has been resolved prior to trial). If someone has an example, please let me know.

Good luck to those seeking citizenship. Best wishes.
 
#138 ·
Guess you have me on that Al.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/chan_v_city_of_troy.txt

I did not search properly, as this is a denied a permit to purchase a pistol, I'm considering non-citizen CC. From the sounds of it, would still fall under equal protection.

I wonder if the fact that a non-citizen can't vote would prevent their ability to CC in MI? Also, CC is considered a shall-issue privlage in MI, not a right, right?

(ii) The person is lawfully registered to vote in this state.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(m3...leg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-422
 
#139 ·
Guess you have me on that Al.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/chan_v_city_of_troy.txt

I did not search properly, as this is a denied a permit to purchase a pistol, I'm considering non-citizen CC. From the sounds of it, would still fall under equal protection.

I wonder if the fact that a non-citizen can't vote would prevent their ability to CC in MI? Also, CC is considered a shall-issue privlage in MI, not a right, right?

(ii) The person is lawfully registered to vote in this state.

Michigan Legislature
As far as I know, the right to vote in State elections is generally granted to legal, resident aliens in some/most states. It is only federal elections (i.e., voting for the President) where you have to be a citizen.

In Michigan, legal resident aliens can apply for a Concealed Pistol License. And, like 46, of the 48 states that have CCW laws, (Alaska and Vermont being the only current exceptions) in Michigan, CC is a privilege, since you need a permit to do so. Michigan is a "Shall Issue" state. But, let's face it, if you have to ask, it is still a privilege. Although, I'm sure some may disagree. :wink:

Also, I'll refer you back to my previous message, the 2nd quote in there is regarding conditions to apply for a CPL.
 
#140 ·
Hi Guys,

I stumbled across this thread quite by accident as I was researching this very topic!

I am a very recent (2 weeks) Green Card holder. We moved to the States 2 years ago, and rapidly fell in love with the place and the people - It has taken us from December '07 till now to finally get our LPR status, and many many $1000.

We fully intend to apply for our Citizenship after the mandatory 5 year wait. The wait I do not mind, gives the authorities time to establish if we are worthy......all we really have to do is keep filing those taxes, and remain out of trouble with the law - we managed to do that for 38 years in England without too much trouble.

We will have dual Nationality as the UK does not recognise the US pledge as legal in the UK...We'd have to renounce our citizenship to a UK official (yes we are citizens, not subjects - I'll take a pic of the page in my passport if ya interested) That would restrict our access into the UK obviously (all our family are there), and very likely impact our access to the state pension we contributed too for soooo long. So rather than it being a snub to our new home, it's just being pragmatic.

One of the very exciting thing about coming to the USA for me was the refreshingly liberal Gun laws....within a week of me arriving I joined the NRA....I was a member of the National Pistol Association back in the UK in the 90's, just before Dumblane sealed the fate of Handguns in the UK....That was a sad time!

Now prior to my GC, I was able to purchase Long Guns here, there is an exception in the regulations that allows non-immigrant visa holders to obtain long guns if they are in possession of a valid state hunting permit. I'm the proud owner of a Henry .44 mag, 20 gauge 870, and a 10/22 (that I am about to give to my son as a squirrel gun).

Now I have my GC, I want to purchase a hangun, which in Indiana I can do, I also want to conceal carry, for the very same reasons you guys wanna conceal carry. I can't quite seem to establish if as a dreaded non-citizen I'd be allowed to do so, tried emailing the State Police, nothing yet - Any of you guys know if I'm in luck, or failing that if I could obtain a hunting and target permit??
 
#141 ·
Hi Guys,.....
Now I have my GC, I want to purchase a hangun, which in Indiana I can do, I also want to conceal carry, for the very same reasons you guys wanna conceal carry. I can't quite seem to establish if as a dreaded non-citizen I'd be allowed to do so, tried emailing the State Police, nothing yet - Any of you guys know if I'm in luck, or failing that if I could obtain a hunting and target permit??
I went to Indiana's state government site and did a little probing around. They have an online application that is only good in a few counties, (Surrounding Indianapolis, I think). But there's also a FAQ that I checked out, and there's nothing in Indiana's laws that says an immigrant alien can't apply for a carry permit. If you want to look, check out ISP: Home and look for "Firearms FAQ." It's a PDF document. And the online form does have a place for an INS number, if you're not a US Citizen. So I'd assume that yes, you can get an Indiana handgun carry permit.

Go for it!! :biggrin:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top