ACLU defending "gun rights"

[nawainwright]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/

So, here's an interesting question, should our firearm freedoms extend to legal permanent residents? This is an issue that I could say is easy to go either way on. I'm sure its just a ploy of the ACLU to get gun rights for illegals....and then rescind the rights of citizens....but regardless of the intentions, is it good or bad?

 

[JackDaniels]

Illegals should be deported. So, thats your answer on that one.

If the 1A of the Bill Of Rights extends to legal immigrants, so should the 2A. There is your answer on that one.

Its that simple.

 

[je25ff]

Nothing to see here. ACLU is only in this because it's an illegal.

 

[el duderino]

As long as theyre legally here, then sure. The constitution is a package deal, you dont just get some rights, you get them all.

and as for illegals, ship em out

 

[Garys]

Dupe. SD Sued Over Alienage CCW Denial

 

[asquared]

Nothing to see here. ACLU is only in this because it's an illegal.

The plaintiff is in the country legally, but he's not a citizen.

 

[Spanz]

It seems a very crafty move. They are arguing that there should be no distinction between concealed carry between a US citizen and a foreigner with a green card. The idea is obvious, if green card holder have the same rights, and they are not US citizens, then the public in large will be afraid of terrorists here in the US with green cards getting guns....and then the only way to stop it would be to restrict everyone's rights to getting a gun!

 

[dcmdon]

By the time you get a green card you have done 95% of what is required to be a citizen. All that's left is to take the test and get sworn in.

I have friends from the UK who came over on a work visa 8 or 9 years ago. They just got their green cards.
With a green card you can fight and die for the USA, so I don't see the harm in letting them buy and carry firearms.

Don

 

[Underwhere]

I declined to renew my ACLU membership due to their lack of 2A support

 

[Broc]

By the time you get a green card you have done 95% of what is required to be a citizen. All that's left is to take the test and get sworn in.

I have friends from the UK who came over on a work visa 8 or 9 years ago. They just got their green cards.
With a green card you can fight and die for the USA, so I don't see the harm in letting them buy and carry firearms.

Don

But you can't vote.

 

[dcmdon]

and your point is?

 

[Tim L]

The check is in the mail,I'll tell you before I do and We're from the ACLU and we're here to help you.

 

[Brad.in.IL]

Q: How does the ACLU count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . . . .

 

[rudiewhitebwoy]

But you can't vote.

Or have a US passport. My wife had a greencard for over 20 years. On the way back from her swearing in as a US citizen she made me stop at the PO to apply for her passport & City Hall so she could register to vote. I dropped her off at home and went back to work. She got on the phone after I left to schedule her Mass Firearms class.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/

So, here's an interesting question, should our firearm freedoms extend to legal permanent residents? This is an issue that I could say is easy to go either way on. I'm sure its just a ploy of the ACLU to get gun rights for illegals....and then rescind the rights of citizens....but regardless of the intentions, is it good or bad?

While you're asking that question, you might also ask if freedom of speech and the right to a trial by jury should be extended to legal permanent residents.

 

[Spanz]

I have not fully thought it thru. But my thoughts kindof side with the government's on green cards. You have a green card--you can not get a security clearance. Why...they are a potential threat to national security.

Freedom of speach and right to a trial by jury do not in any way constitute a security threat. Allowing them to freely buy guns and ammo...crosses that line. I could see a green card muslim who is given that right and posses firearms being coerced by some radical "friends" for access.

It is the same argument the governement gives for not legalizing pot...if it were freely available to adults,then it would become MORE available to children, so it should not be legalized.

One drawback of the dream act/porous borders/ICE/amnesty movements/not deporting ANYONE...is that you will eventually have all sorts of dregs of society sporting green cards. If the obama admin took border security seriously...maybe the rest of us would consider giving green card holders more privileges as they prepare for citizenship. Under today's conditions...not a chance.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is no constitutional right to a security clearance. It can be denied on an arbitrary basis, and revoked on mere suspicion the holder is no longer a person suitable to be so cleared. There is a constitutional right to own a handgun (See Heller and McDonald).

You are applying the wrong filter. If something is a constitutional right, it's available to all persons not in violation of the law unless (a) specifically limited to citizens [for example, voting] by the constitution, or (b) removed via due process [conviction of a crime, adjudication of mental incompetence, etc.]

You approach of arguing "should it be allowed" as it if were an issue on the table, rather than in the context of what is constitutionally mandated, is the sort of thinking that has created a "US Constitution - void where prohibited by law" society.

Arguing "what is good" rather than "what is constitutional" could also be used to justify criminalization of publications and speech that are not "good for society".

 

[lupis42]

I have not fully thought it thru. But my thoughts kindof side with the government's on green cards. You have a green card--you can not get a security clearance. Why...they are a potential threat to national security.

Freedom of speach and right to a trial by jury do not in any way constitute a security threat. Allowing them to freely buy guns and ammo...crosses that line. I could see a green card muslim who is given that right and posses firearms being coerced by some radical "friends" for access.

It is the same argument the governement gives for not legalizing pot...if it were freely available to adults,then it would become MORE available to children, so it should not be legalized.

It's stupid rationale for pot too.

The "potential security threat" that a person with access to a home depot poses is hundreds of times greater than that posed by a person with firearms. Why would you deny anyone the means of self defense, but allow them everything needed to make large quantities of high explosives?

 

[strangenh]

Every now and then, some SUB-group of the ACLU gets it right. In this case, it's "The ACLU of South Dakota" that is running this, not the national mothership. Just like the Texas ACLU that defended 1st Amendment rights to display opinions about 2nd Amendment rights, it's an issue that the mothership wouldn't touch, but which they won't dare block, either.

Freedom of speach and right to a trial by jury do not in any way constitute a security threat. Allowing them to freely buy guns and ammo...crosses that line. I could see a green card muslim who is given that right and posses firearms being coerced by some radical "friends" for access.

Don't some of us (here, NES) already argue that if someone is so dangerous they should be denied access to arms, then perhaps they should be locked up?

Don't we already know that if a felon wants to get a gun, they will find a way? The country doesn't need more useless restrictions on arms - which won't work, and lead to more and more restrictions in the hope that just a few more infringements will do the job - it needs fewer restrictions on the law-abiding, and more serious enforcement (and penalties) for violent criminal behavior.

 

[Sprocket]

It seems a very crafty move. They are arguing that there should be no distinction between concealed carry between a US citizen and a foreigner with a green card. The idea is obvious, if green card holder have the same rights, and they are not US citizens, then the public in large will be afraid of terrorists here in the US with green cards getting guns....and then the only way to stop it would be to restrict everyone's rights to getting a gun!

I think we need to make illegals wear a sash or something that says "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" so ICE can have an easier time of it. I also think we could open a travel agency specifically to deliver illegals back to the country of origin. We can get a Gov't grant to start a small business, get a Gov't contract as a client base, we can suck at it so we can get a Gov't subsidy like Amtrak, and so on...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Yes, a dupe, but.....

The logic goes like this: If you're going to restrict a right based upon something other than a compelling state interest, it's not a right, it's a privilege. Does anyone want to go down that route with the Second (or any other) amendment in the BOR?

The state does not have a compelling interest in defining legal aliens as a suspect class and the courts have repeatedly ruled as such. Therefore, the state cannot meet the burden of strict scrutiny that's required in order to restrict that right. Arguing that rights apply only to citizens is a losing proposition and opens the door to more restrictions of rights in general.

 

[nawainwright]

This guy is legal, he is a legal resident with a green card, this is not currently an "illegal immigrant" issue. My beef with this is that the ACLU is cherry picking the cases that violate the 2nd amendment (surprise, surprise). Why will they go to bat for the right of a non-citizen to carry a weapon, but will not do the same for a citizen in IL or WI? Why are they not supporting a national right to carry? Seems awfully hypocritical.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I went back and read the Fox story. Fox is 'effed up and so is Larry Pratt. Right out of the gate Fox has to make an entirely irrelevant link to illegal aliens. They're a lot less interested in reporting the story than they are in stirring the pot.

 

[lupis42]

I went back and read the Fox story. Fox is 'effed up and so is Larry Pratt. Right out of the gate Fox has to make an entirely irrelevant link to illegal aliens. They're a lot less interested in reporting the story than they are in stirring the pot.

So... business as usual for a major news network.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Freedom of speach and right to a trial by jury do not in any way constitute a security threat.

Actually, the US government has taken the position that right ot a trial by jury poses a security threat when they know someone is guilty of terrorism but either can't prove it, or don't wish to disclose how they know - hence indefinite detention without a trial.

 

[dcmdon]

I find myself getting all excited about the ACLU when they do something to protect particularly our 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights. They do that well.

Then I see them going after business practices and it pisses me off. Stick to calling out the government and I'm with you.

They've done an EXCEPTIONAL job standing up particularly for 4th and 5th A stuff since 9/11 and all the Bush era USA Patriot Act nonsense, as well as calling the TSA out on nonsensical security theater practices.

 

[lupis42]

Actually, the US government has taken the position that right ot a trial by jury poses a security threat when they know someone is guilty of terrorism but either can't prove it, or don't wish to disclose how they know - hence indefinite detention without a trial.

When the government tells you "we know he did it, but we can't prove it/don't want to prove it" and you accept that, you have chosen to live in a police state.

 

[Coyote33]

Mike is saying the ACLU is "beginning to come around".

Actually, the head of the MA chapter of the ACLU is on our side, I've spoken to her personally about the issue a couple of times. She frequently gives out GOAL's contact info to people calling there for help. Problem is, the ACLU national leadership hasn't completely come around yet, it's beginning to though which is good.

 

[frenchman]

It reads "We, the people" in the constitution, not "We, the citizens".

 

[Love Machine]

Let me explicitly clear, to all of you citizen comrades.

I came to the US in October, 2010 on a TN non-resident work visa. Until the spring I was kickin' it in NYC, partying with the liberal wimminz. Then in April, I received a letter in my mailbox from the Selective Service. What funny, I thought, the US bureaucracy has gone completely awry, sending draft shit to an alien who isn't even a resident! I opened the letter, and it said:

"Congratulations! We have detected that you have lived in the US longer than 6 months. Since you are on a visa other than the 2-week tourist visa and have lived longer than 6 months in the country, here is your Selective Service card and you have full responsibilities under the Selective Service Act". As it turns out, that's the law and in the past some Swedish exchange students had to serve in Vietnam.

If I'm expected to die for this country in case of a draft, I sure as **** want my guns, tax breaks, fancy cars and lots of poonani to boot. You can keep the politicians and Nancy Pelosi.