Comm2A Challenges Firearms Prohibition for Lawfully Admitted Aliens

My 2 cents worth, non citizens shouldn't have access to firearms. One cannot have 2 loyalties. Otherwise good job at least clarifying these muddled firearms laws.
There are many non citizens that are in the process of becoming citizens...it takes time. You don't become citizens overnight. Why should those people be denied their right to protect themselves?

Brent: Good job guys! Donation inbound.
 
There are many non citizens that are in the process of becoming citizens...it takes time. You don't become citizens overnight. Why should those people be denied their right to protect themselves?

Brent: Good job guys! Donation inbound.
Who protects us from them? Where do you draw the line? Any foreigner on our shores?
 
Last edited:
Who protects us from them? Where do you draw the line? Any foreigner on our shores?
Seriously? You are going to worry about someone who's gone through mountains of paperwork and background checks that make MA LTC apps look like a rubber stamp?

This is another fine example of wasting your time depriving the wrong people of their rights to give yourself a false sense of security.
 
My 2 cents worth, non citizens shouldn't have access to firearms. One cannot have 2 loyalties. Otherwise good job at least clarifying these muddled firearms laws.

Go sign up with Brady and VPC, then, they'll just love you. [rolleyes]

Be aware that your opinion is effectively worse than current federal gun law, which most of us here despise. (At least the feds allow lawful aliens to be armed).

-Mike
 
Go sign up with Brady and VPC, then, they'll just love you. [rolleyes]

Be aware that your opinion is effectively worse than current federal gun law, which most of us here despise. (At least the feds allow lawful aliens to be armed).

-Mike

I have a huge problem with onerous laws on citizens. I have no problems with the same on non citizens. On this point I'm afraid we'll disagree.
 
Who protects us from them? Where do you draw the line? Any foreigner on our shores?
Exactly who do you need to be protected from? You clearly have not read the complaint or understand immigration procedures. If we needed to be protected from 'these people' the US government should not have admitted them in the first place. The fact is that anyone admitted to reside in the US undergoes a background check that is more complete and thorough than anything a US citizens goes through short of obtaining a security clearance.

Perhaps you're of the opinion that the home occupied by our plaintiff and his American born wife and child should be subject to periodic random searches by the police.

Moreover, US citizenship is not available upon demand. Both of our plaintiffs are unable to apply for citizenship and yet neither the federal government nor 48 other states feel that their citizenry needs to be protected from them.

Those are the news?

I was hoping to see this in Saturday's, or better still, Sunday's Telegram.

http://www.telegram.com/

also:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/northborough

Stay tuned. [wink]
 
I love this case. I really do. The liberals are twisted in knots trying to argue that lawfully admitted aliens shouldn't have the same civil rights as citizens, while at the same time wanting to give handouts to illegals. The conservatives get twitchy whenever any immigrant issue comes up, and their god-and-country instincts can't stand the idea that someone might have rights if they are not a citizen. Both groups love government power so long as it's used to push their agenda. This case slams right into all of them. It's just perfect.
 
Picked up nationally by Fox News. The site is Fox News Latino. Link.

A guy who I admire with some encouraging words.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News host and former New Jersey Supreme Court judge, says the Massachusetts law will be found unconstitutional.

“We are talking about two groups of people, citizens versus legal non-citizens. The government has to treat them the same in the home with respect to self defense.”

Napolitano refers to two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the Heller Case and McDonald Case, which both interpreted the right to defend yourself with a gun as a fundamental right.

“In both cases the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, a natural human right that doesn’t come from our government it comes from our humanity, when the supreme court says something is a fundamental right it is not distinguishing between citizens and non citizens.”

The judge also points out that Massachusetts cannot limit legal non- citizens to “low capacity rifles or shotguns.”

“They can make a distinction outside the home but they cannot make a distinction inside the home,” Napolitano said. “ A rifle is far more difficult to use then a handgun. The government cannot say to one class of persons you can use anything you want to protect yourself and another class of persons you can’t.”

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/po...ed-gun-rights-legal-immigrants/#ixzz1K63o91Uw
 
I love this case. I really do. The liberals are twisted in knots trying to argue that lawfully admitted aliens shouldn't have the same civil rights as citizens, while at the same time wanting to give handouts to illegals. The conservatives get twitchy whenever any immigrant issue comes up, and their god-and-country instincts can't stand the idea that someone might have rights if they are not a citizen. Both groups love government power so long as it's used to push their agenda. This case slams right into all of them. It's just perfect.

I dunno I'm a nationalist. I fail to see what good arming non citizens is. Enlighten me.
 
I dunno I'm a nationalist. I fail to see what good arming non citizens is. Enlighten me.
If you cannot understand and apply the concept of natural rights endowed by a "creator" (whatever you deem that to be) rather than privileges granted by the benevolence of the all powerful state from which all rights flow, then you are a statist and do not believe in freedom, but rather a well regulated autocracy... (If that's what you want, move to Europe and learn to bow.)

Put more simply, this issue is not subject to citizen or non.

It is not about what government "does" or "arming non citizens" it is about what we must not permit government to do and what the Constitution prohibits them from doing - making laws that infringe on the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Lip
I dunno I'm a statist. I fail to see what good arming non citizens is. Enlighten me.

There are two separate discussions that are being mixed together, and that mixture causes confusion:

1) What you one personally prefer be the law of the land?

2) What does the constitution provide for?

Arguments like "I don't see...." are completely irrelevant in any analysis of what the constitution means, however, they are quite relevant when expressing a personal preference. There are plenty of people who don't see the benefit in allowing ordinary people to own handguns, however, that is not even remotely an argument pertaining to the constitutionality of said ownership.
 
Back
Top Bottom