SAF Sues Omaha Over Alinage Prohibition

Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,422
Likes
6,298
Location
My forest stronghold
Feedback: 26 / 0 / 0
We got a preview of this case over the weekend at the Gun Rights Policy Conference. We were also able to meet David Sigale one of the attorneys in this case. David is a top-notch attorney and is also handling Moore v. Madigan the challenge to Illinois's total carry ban. You'll see a lot more from this guy. As always, lots of goodness from our friends at SAF.

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in federal district court in Nebraska against the City of Omaha, challenging the city’s prohibition against anyone who is not a United States citizen from registering a handgun

SAF’s lawsuit, on behalf of Armando Pliego Gonzalez, a resident alien living in the city, is joined by the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association. They are represented by attorneys Bernie Glaser of Lincoln, and David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, IL. Defendants are the City of Omaha, Mayor Jim Suttle and Police Chief Alex Hayes.


Read More
 
I am not sure how I feel about this.

The constitution and Bill of Rights was intended for the citizens of this country, not its guests. If folks want to enjoy what being an American is, then become one.
 
I am not sure how I feel about this.

The constitution and Bill of Rights was intended for the citizens of this country, not its guests. If folks want to enjoy what being an American is, then become one.
You clearly do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. The BOR was intended to guarantee preexisting rights - rights that existed long before there was a United States or US citizens.
 
I am not sure how I feel about this.

The constitution and Bill of Rights was intended for the citizens of this country, not its guests. If folks want to enjoy what being an American is, then become one.
A "resident alien" is doing the right things along that road. It's not a quick process, but by being here legally, they are involved in that process. If we had a citizenship process that took an afternoon, then you might have a point - but ours takes years...

... and see above - fundamental right - not a privilege of citizenship.
 
I am not sure how I feel about this.

The constitution and Bill of Rights was intended for the citizens of this country, not its guests. If folks want to enjoy what being an American is, then become one.

The Bill of Rights is for citizens and LEGAL immigrants...or would you deny free speech to the british wife of a US citizen??
By the way it takes 3 years (5 years if not married to a US citizen) as a LEGAL immigrant to be eligible for US citizenship - no protection of their rights during that period??
 
I am not sure how I feel about this.

The constitution and Bill of Rights was intended for the citizens of this country, not its guests. If folks want to enjoy what being an American is, then become one.

Well that didn't take long. [sad2]
 
Not this shit again... [banghead][horse]
It's never going away so long as you have government schools teaching that rights come from the government. Couple that with the ease of scapegoating (and conflating with) illegals who are hear largely because of other broken socialist economic policies and police prevented from arresting and deporting people and you have a lethal cocktail for rational thinking and principled stance on the origin of rights.
 
I would feel better about this if the borders were more secure than the sieves we have now.
 
I would feel better about this if the borders were more secure than the sieves we have now.
Borders will never be secure, the way to keep people out of your country is:
a. Give them nothing free to come for in the way of entitlements...
b. Arrest and remove them when you find them - rather than letting them stay for 20 years
c. Harsher punishments for repeat offenders.
d. Harsh punishments for intentional violations of laws for employers.

All of that will be far more effective than the absurd notion of putting up a fence to protect such a large border.
 
I would feel better about this if the borders were more secure than the sieves we have now.

What does border security have to do with gun rights of legal residents? I don't see the connection.
 
Last edited:
You clearly do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. The BOR was intended to guarantee preexisting rights - rights that existed long before there was a United States or US citizens.

I always thought I was pretty clear on what the differences are between a Right and a Privilege.

Maybe you could put together a little list of pre-exciting rights for me that might help. What did the folks have here before we became a country? Are we talking about what the kings of England, France and Spain allowed it’s subject to have or are we talking about before then, when the American Indians were the only ones here??

Just thought I’d ask
 
I always thought I was pretty clear on what the differences are between a Right and a Privilege.

Maybe you could put together a little list of pre-exciting rights for me that might help. What did the folks have here before we became a country? Are we talking about what the kings of England, France and Spain allowed it’s subject to have or are we talking about before then, when the American Indians were the only ones here??

Just thought I’d ask

Our rights are also called "Natural Rights", meaning that we are born with them and they can not be taken away unless we give them away as many are wont to do.

As for what your rights are, there are a few schools of thought, you can narrowly define them to what is listed in the "Bill of Rights", the first 10 Amendments to The Constitution, or more broadly define your rights as having the right to do as you choose as long as your actions do not interfere with the rights of another.

The majority of us on here prefer and subscribe to the more broad definition, you are free to do anything you like as long as your actions don't infringe on the rights of anyone else.
 
I always thought I was pretty clear on what the differences are between a Right and a Privilege.

Maybe you could put together a little list of pre-exciting rights for me that might help. What did the folks have here before we became a country? Are we talking about what the kings of England, France and Spain allowed it’s subject to have or are we talking about before then, when the American Indians were the only ones here??

Just thought I’d ask

Do you agree or disagree that there are pre-existing rights (self defense, free expression, etc.) that exist independently of the recognition or suppression by authorities? I'd argue it doesn't matter who's in power, or when.
 
I always thought I was pretty clear on what the differences are between a Right and a Privilege.

Maybe you could put together a little list of pre-exciting rights for me that might help. What did the folks have here before we became a country? Are we talking about what the kings of England, France and Spain allowed it’s subject to have or are we talking about before then, when the American Indians were the only ones here??

Just thought I’d ask

I don't think that you could ever come up with a complete list of natural rights. It would be an exhaustive and impossible task. It's also not one I would want any government to undertake, because that would imply that something not on the list would not be a natural right. The Bill Of Rights addressed this issue in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

It's surprising how many people seem to believe that all rights come from the government. It's that mindset that creates politicians who say things like "I don't know of any law that allows people to do that." (Brunosr, I'm not putting you in that category, I'm just addressing the question in general.)

I would argue that people have a natural, inalienable, right of self-defense. The most effective way to exercise that right might well be with a tool, in this case, a firearm. Laws that limit possession of those tools are naturally going to affect the underlying right. In the subject of this thread, the person is a legal resident, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his right of self-defense, nor should he be prohibited the tools to do so.

I think we're always going to have disagreement over what natural rights are and how they should be exercised. I can already think of one natural rights/alien question that could come up from what I've posted, but it would probably require a separate discussion, and I don't want to crap up this thread. [grin]
 
Back
Top Bottom