Comm2A Challenges Firearms Prohibition for Lawfully Admitted Aliens





Be patient. We only released this on Friday and today was a holiday. It will start popping up later in this week in the local papers.

...
Stay tuned. [wink]

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110420/NEWS/104209875/1116

Here is some local press on the issue. Also Brent was on the radio this morning.


Picked up nationally by Fox News. The site is Fox News Latino. Link.



This topic seems to have lost some steam in the news. I did not notice anything coming through from the Statehouse News Service. They usually do a big news emailing on Fridays, so today would be best to get it in.

http://massterlist.com/

http://www.statehousenews.com/public/default.htm

http://massterlist.wordpress.com/contact/
 
Looks like you missed today's MASSTERLIST. Maybe you can squeak through in time for their WEEKLY ROUNDUP.
 
Marsha's on a roll! By the time she's done, aliens won't be able to get anything!!

But she's OK'd open carry!! [rofl]

Talk about spewing out of both sides of your mouth!!
 
Last edited:
Well, they at least take a clear position. According to our AG, non-citizens have no second amendment rights, period. And, none of us have a right to carry a gun for protection outside the home.
 
But she's OK'd open carry!! [rofl]

I'm guessing it's better a better idea to open carry in Philly (where you just get slammed on the ground while your permit is checked, you know, for everyone's safety) than try it here where you would almost certainly lose your license, at best.
 
Wow - Martha Coakley thinks the 'Bill of Rights' does not apply to LEGAL immigrants [shocked]

Apparently the other 49 states got that wrong - she should inform them.

So illegal immigrants can get public housing in Mass. (remember Obama's aunt), but LEGAL immigrants are denied some basic rights as freedom of speech...?


With that opinion our AG would not pass the citizenship/naturalization test [smile] ...

Here is the study guide for the naturalization test - published by the 'Department of Homeland Security' (USCIS):

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/PDFs/M-638_red.pdf

On page 12 (page 14 of the PDF) we can find this (this is a study guide which lists all possible answers):

a.JPG

B.JPG



Nice - we have an AG that would not pass the citizenship test - maybe we need a study guide for AG applicants to avoid unqualified candidates...
 
Last edited:
+1 for you! Nice Find!

Wow - Martha Coakley thinks the 'Bill of Rights' does not apply to LEGAL immigrants [shocked]

Apparently the other 49 states got that wrong - she should inform them.

So illigal immigrants can get public housing in Mass. (remember Obama's aunt), but LEGAL immigrants are denied some basic rights as freedom of speech...?


With that opinion our AG would not pass the citizenship/naturalization test [smile] ...

Here is the study guide for the naturalization test - published by the 'Department of Homeland Security' (USCIS):

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/PDFs/M-638_red.pdf

On page 12 (page 14 of the PDF) we can find this (this is a study guide which lists all possible answers):

a.JPG

B.JPG



Nice - we have an AG that would not pass the citizenship test - maybe we need a study guide for AG applicants to avoid unqualified candidates...
 
Leahy Files MTD...

Police Chief Mark Leahy last week filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in which he is named as a defendant.

>snip<

In his motion to dismiss, Leahy relies upon an argument filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley's office in support of Guida on May 19 that asserts the constitutionality of the law.

>snip<

In Leahy's motion, Town Counsel David Doneski wrote, "If the challenged statutes are deemed constitutional, then the claims against Chief Leahy have no validity and should be dismissed with prejudice."

Plaintiff attorney Joseph Hickson III of Springfield asked for and received an extension yesterday from a judge to file a response to Leahy's motion, as well as similar motions from the other defendants. He now has until June 10 to respond.

The two sides are set to meet for the first time in court on June 24 at the Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston for a pretrial conference.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/a...-asks-judge-to-dismiss-gun-suit#ixzz1OFHE0Zg7
 
I wonder how much Town Counsel charges, has made so far, and whether the town has the stomach to keep footing the bill for this. Someone from Comm2A should plant that seed with a few reporters.
 
I dunno I'm a nationalist. I fail to see what good arming non citizens is. Enlighten me.

Ok, I'll bite:

  1. SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd ammendment is a right that is binding on both federal enclaves and states
  2. All other rights provided for in the bill of rights are applied equally to citizens and non-citizens alike
  3. If you accept the premise that the 2nd ammendment guarantees rights only to a subset of the population that is distinct and separate from the population that is protected by the other 9 items in the Bill Of Right, you are agreeiong that the 2nd ammendment covers a "lesser" right that does not enjoy the same level of protection as the other items in the BOR
  4. Allowing the premise that the 2nd is "different" that other rights to go unchallenged can only serve to encourage further governmental mischief.

The real question is not "should foreigners legally residing in the US be allowed arms", but "Is the right guaranteed by the 2nd the same as the other 9 in the BOR or is it a lesser right that the other nine?". I submit that a conclusion that it is a "lesser right" places everyone's rights at risk; not just those of the legal alien.

Nobody has yet provided thoughtful legal explanation as to why the govt can limit the 2nd to citizens, but cannot restrict what churches non-citizens would be allowed to attend in the US or impose lese majeste laws upon non-citizens.
 
Last edited:
...I submit that a conclusion that it is a "lesser right" places everyone's rights at risk...

And there it is.

I look at it like this...If I infringe someone's rights, my rights can be infringed. Their rights ARE my rights.

Why some people cannot grasp that simple concept is beyond me.
 
Ok, I'll bite:

  1. SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd ammendment is a right that is binding on both federal enclaves and states
  2. All other rights provided for in the bill of rights are applied equally to citizens and non-citizens alike
  3. If you accept the premise that the 2nd ammendment guarantees rights only to a subset of the population that is distinct and separate from the population that is protected by the other 9 items in the Bill Of Right, you are agreeiong that the 2nd ammendment covers a "lesser" right that does not enjoy the same level of protection as the other items in the BOR
  4. Allowing the premise that the 2nd is "different" that other rights to go unchallenged can only serve to encourage further governmental mischief.

The real question is not "should foreigners legally residing in the US be allowed arms", but "Is the right guaranteed by the 2nd the same as the other 9 in the BOR or is it a lesser right that the other nine?". I submit that a conclusion that it is a "lesser right" places everyone's rights at risk; not just those of the legal alien.

Nobody has yet provided thoughtful legal explanation as to why the govt can limit the 2nd to citizens, but cannot restrict what churches non-citizens would be allowed to attend in the US or impose lese majeste laws upon non-citizens.

I guess the only argument one might make is from the Preamble where it begins; "We the people of the United States....." Doesn't really suggest application to people of other countries.
 
I guess the only argument one might make is from the Preamble where it begins; "We the people of the United States....." Doesn't really suggest application to people of other countries.
The declaration of independence outlines who "we" are and from whence our natural rights originate:

DOI said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

These unalienable natural rights to which they are referring stem from our existence - the mere fact that we are here (God or no God, something created you and you are here) gives us these rights and that the Constitution prohibits government from infringing upon them.

There are other privileges of citizenship, but your natural rights do not come from the state and thus cannot be granted or not based on citizenship.
 
I guess the only argument one might make is from the Preamble where it begins; "We the people of the United States....." Doesn't really suggest application to people of other countries.
Wouldn't this argument also make it perfectly acceptable to restrict the churches at which non-citizens would be permitted to worship? If not, please explain the legal theory under which the constitution established that the 1st applies to everyone, and the 2nd only to citizens.
 
Wouldn't this argument also make it perfectly acceptable to restrict the churches at which non-citizens would be permitted to worship? If not, please explain the legal theory under which the constitution established that the 1st applies to everyone, and the 2nd only to citizens.

They can't do it. Nationalism is an infantile disease.
 
Wouldn't this argument also make it perfectly acceptable to restrict the churches at which non-citizens would be permitted to worship? If not, please explain the legal theory under which the constitution established that the 1st applies to everyone, and the 2nd only to citizens.
I'll go one step further and say that 1A and 2A do not apply to anyone citizen or not, but rather they restrict the actions of government and prohibit government from "infringing" in the case of 2A and making any law ("shall make no law") in the case of 1A...

It's on the bassackwards view of the Constitution "granting rights" that has people even debating this. As I said, there are privileges of citizenship, but the prohibition of government from infringing on anyone's natural rights don't factor into our citizenship.
 
I'll go one step further and say that 1A and 2A do not apply to anyone citizen or not, but rather they restrict the actions of government and prohibit government from "infringing" in the case of 2A and making any law ("shall make no law") in the case of 1A...

It's on the bassackwards view of the Constitution "granting rights" that has people even debating this. As I said, there are privileges of citizenship, but the prohibition of government from infringing on anyone's natural rights don't factor into our citizenship.

+1
 
So, when is the next hearing scheduled? Who determines this schedule, and using what criteria? Does justice take the Summer off?
 
So, when is the next hearing scheduled? Who determines this schedule, and using what criteria? Does justice take the Summer off?

Whoa there cowboy, this is still a relatively new case. Sometimes it takes years to get through the courts, just look at Nordyke in Cali - going on 14 years I think.

That said, there will be a scheduling conference later this week. After that we'll have a better idea of the timeline.
 
Back
Top Bottom