Posted on 07/05/2014 12:31:49 PM PDT by marktwain
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is supporting the case of a legal Australian immigrant in North Carolina. This test case will likely result in the removal of the restriction on the issuance of a concealed carry permit to people who are not U. S. citizens in North Carolina law. SAF won a similar case in New Mexico at the end of March of this year. In the New Mexico case, Alan M. Gottlieb stated one of the purposes of this action. From the Washington Times:
Alan M. Gottlieb, executive vice president of the foundation, said the discrimination ruling makes it increasingly difficult for gun control advocates to chip away at gun rights.In the North Carolina case, the plaintiff, Felicity M. Todd Veasey, asked for a declaratory judgment , injunctions, and attorney's fees. It seems likely that she will prevail, giving the precedent from other cases. Veasey is a member of SAF, and has a permanent visa. From courthousenews.com:
“It helps build case law,” he said. “If legal aliens have rights, citizens obviously do, too.”
"Plaintiffs seek to establish that the recognition and incorporation of the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, renders the state's ban on non-citizens obtaining a concealed carry license unconstitutional," the complaint states. "As the plaintiffs only seek to be treated the same as law-abiding citizens, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments render a ban such as that challenged in this action impermissible."©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
while the government is horribly in violation of our Constituion in several vital ways ... including our Second Amendment rights ... “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
(there is supposed to be no gun registration, no permits, no background checks, no licensing, no fees, no restrictions, no concealed carry permits, no permits of any kind, etc... no infringments)
I do not believe that these rights necessarily extend to aliens in our midst. Aussies are one thing, but all the IslamoNazi terroristas the administration has been permitting, or bringing into America, are another. Just my 2 cents.
Legal immigrants are citizens and that’s good enough for me.
Legal immigrants don’t have to be citizens. Many are in the middle of the citizenship process.
“Aussies are one thing, but all the IslamoNazi terroristas the administration has been permitting, or bringing into America, are another.”
Exactly, and we need to be very careful as to which people and legal immigrants can carry a concealed firearm. Australians, Canadians and immigrants for other select nations should be fine, but we may not want to extend such rights to some others.
Fortunately, a law that only allows legal alien residents from certain countries, but not others, would be thrown out by the first court it comes to. What’s next? Make the Hobby Lobby decision only apply to Christian owned companies, but not Jews, Buddhists or Sikhs?
More specifically, when the slaves were freed and the 14th Amendment was made, lawmakers seemingly agreed that the Constitution's privileges and immunites protected only citizens, the freedmen therefore made citizens. In fact, have a look at the wording of both Sec. 1 of 14A and also an excerpt from the opinion of a Supreme Court case which clarified Sec. 1.
From 14A, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; ..."
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship [emphasis added] before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Based on the wording of the excerpts above, immigrants don't necessarily automatically have 2A protected rights imo.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has officially clarified that the right to protect oneself with firearms is a natural right, 2A or no 2A.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence [emphasis added]. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." —United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
So there is the paradox that immigrants have the natural right to protect themselves with firearms even though such rights are not protected by 2A which evidently protects only citizens.
Insights welcome.
“Fortunately, a law that only allows legal alien residents from certain countries, but not others, would be thrown out by the first court it comes to. What’s next? Make the Hobby Lobby decision only apply to Christian owned companies, but not Jews, Buddhists or Sikhs?”
It appears that you, like five members of the SCOTUS, have a is understanding of the Equal Protection Clause. It was not the intent of those who ratified the 14th Amendment to open the doors to gay marriage or some sort of egalitarian equality to suspicious foreigners to carry guns.
Yes, the Hobby Lobby Decision must only apply to Christian owned businesses as it would open the door for a business owner who has a religion that does not believe in surgery to deny an employee access to life saving medical care or it would permit the Muslim business owner to deny any Christisn or Jewish employee any type of medical care.
“Yes, the Hobby Lobby Decision must only apply to Christian owned businesses as it would open the door for a business owner who has a religion that does not believe in surgery to deny an employee access to life saving medical care or it would permit the Muslim business owner to deny any Christisn or Jewish employee any type of medical care.’
You misunderstand the decision. It does not allow any business to deny any type of medical care. It only supports their right not to have to pay for options that conflict with their faith. There is a huge difference.
The court decisions that I recall say that legal immigrants have the same rights as citizens to due process of law.
Unfortunately, the court has gutted the “privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment, and incorporated most of the bill of rights under the due process clause.
Yes, I understand it was a very narrow decision, and must remain a very narrow decision that only applies to Christian beliefs. The ruling must not be allowed to be exploited by people who are not Christian who undoubtably would refuse to pay for types of coverages that Christians find acceptable and very much needed.
How freakin' sad that this might be a valid argument - if we give non-citizens certain rights, we can use that as an argument as to why citizens should have the same rights. If only it worked that way - how many illegals get services that citizens aren't privy to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.