Gun Owners of America Not Supporting Gun Rights for Legal Resident Aliens

[osan]

Your position is that foreign nationals have a "right" to be in the US? I disagree with that statement.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I explicitly write such a thing, nor could it be inferred from any passage of mine. We are speaking of people who are in the USA legally. What possible justification is there for denying them their rights?

RKBA is a HUMAN right - not an American one. Either you believe in human rights or you do not. There is nothing - absolutely nothing in between the two. The only alternative is privilege, which is based on the caprice of one group over another and nothing better.

[osan]

Violent criminals

This is what I was afraid you would say. Let us recall the parameter was LAW ABIDING.

And when even a violent criminal pays his debt, are you suggesting his rights remain in a state of abridgment? If so, on what basis do you make such as assertion? Is it your belief that criminal debt has no satisfaction?

mentally handicapped

And who determines this and what is the standard?

and others should not have weapons.

What others?

The only people that deny that are an extremely small group of people like yourself that ultimately paint all of us fighting for gun rights as looney tunes.

Says you? You will have to do a lot better than this.

Much like the in your face open carry advocates, all you do is set our cause back.

Our cause? Speak for yourself. I do no compromise on that which bears it not. Those who do are fools and/or cowards, no offense.

You can type about "basic rights" and other high strung philosophies all you want, but those of us that live in the real world are forced to seek real world solutions.

It is precisely this brand of thinking that helped sell our rights down the river for a pittance. You can have it.

[osan]

Yeah, move to another country, then complain cuz you can't get your way. That makes sense.

You're being disingenuous. Have a nice day.

[BamaAla]

I think it's admirable that you hold uncompromising beliefs, but uncompromising beliefs don't accomplish anything but "at-a-boys" from other like minded people. I would love it if we didn't have to compromise in order to exercise our rights, but the fact is that, in this atmosphere, we have to. Just as our rights were chipped away at, we have to chip away to get them back.

Illinois and Wisconsin aren't going to wake up tomorrow and have unlicensed CCW; that's just the stone cold truth. I realize that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; however, a straight line is rarely available.

[specsaregood]

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I explicitly write such a thing, nor could it be inferred from any passage of mine. We are speaking of people who are in the USA legally. What possible justification is there for denying them their rights?

Perhaps you should work on yours:

Sure, why not? they don't have a right to be in the US.

A legal resident alien has no right to be in the US? What in hell are you smoking?

They don't have a "right" to be here. They have permission to be here. Quite a difference.

[HazyHusky420]

Perhaps you should work on yours:



They don't have a "right" to be here. They have permission to be here. Quite a difference.

Freedom of movement. Land is land (unless it's private property). Just get rid of the welfare state. I don't see what the big deal would be if you just got rid of the welfare system.

Nationalism is not libertarian, it's collectivist and causes wars.

[specsaregood]

Freedom of movement. Land is land (unless it's private property). Just get rid of the welfare state. I don't see what the big deal would be if you just got rid of the welfare system.

Nationalism is not libertarian, it's collectivist and causes wars.

Well I consider the territorial boundaries of the US no different than private property and its citizens' its owners. So there you go.

[ChrisKuper]

I am a full time employee of GOA. First I will say that I haven't read over all the comments. I'm just stepping in as an insider. First off, I have never heard Larry say anything to that effect. Larry and I, and everyone at GOA believes in Constitutional Carry, that is, concealed carry without a permit. Obviously we don't need permits to speak or to worship so we shouldn't need a permit to bear arms. I haven't spoken to Larry about this particular subject, this was just brought to my attention by a senior member. I had been following this story out of the corner of my eye but didn't realize that we had made a statement about it. My personal view (and many others at GOA) is that the RKBA is just that, a right. The Second Amendment didn't create that right it just acknowledge it's existence and dedicated that it would be protected, not regulated.

I wasn't aware that Larry had said this, and it seems to me that it was taken out of context. Our goal at GOA is simple, the eradication of every gun law. Our only exception is private property rules, for example, banks and restaurants have the right to ban the carry of weapons. So again, it would seem odd to me that Larry would say that. Does anyone have the source material where he was quoted?

Either way I will ask him about it on Monday. Hope that may clear a few things up.

[HazyHusky420]

Well I consider the territorial boundaries of the US no different than private property and its citizens' its owners. So there you go.

Ever heard of individualism? It's a component of libertarianism.

[puppetmaster]

I am a full time employee of GOA. First I will say that I haven't read over all the comments. I'm just stepping in as an insider. First off, I have never heard Larry say anything to that effect. Larry and I, and everyone at GOA believes in Constitutional Carry, that is, concealed carry without a permit. Obviously we don't need permits to speak or to worship so we shouldn't need a permit to bear arms. I haven't spoken to Larry about this particular subject, this was just brought to my attention by a senior member. I had been following this story out of the corner of my eye but didn't realize that we had made a statement about it. My personal view (and many others at GOA) is that the RKBA is just that, a right. The Second Amendment didn't create that right it just acknowledge it's existence and dedicated that it would be protected, not regulated.

I wasn't aware that Larry had said this, and it seems to me that it was taken out of context. Our goal at GOA is simple, the eradication of every gun law. Our only exception is private property rules, for example, banks and restaurants have the right to ban the carry of weapons. So again, it would seem odd to me that Larry would say that. Does anyone have the source material where he was quoted?

Either way I will ask him about it on Monday. Hope that may clear a few things up.

there ya go! less spin more truth...the way I like it

[__27__]

Oh noes, the BROWN people want guns! We can't haz that $#@!.

Racists...nationalists...statists...

[Vessol]

Anyone has the natural right of self defense for their property and selves.

It doesn't matter what color of skin they have or where their parents $#@!ed.

[osan]

I wasn't aware that Larry had said this, and it seems to me that it was taken out of context.

The article states:

"But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens."

Fox does not quote him as saying this, which is abundantly suspicious. Did he or did he not say this? If he did not, I would have my lawyers look at it and if possible sue the pants off Fox.

Fox quotes Pratt as having stated:

"If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?," Pratt told FoxNews.com.

You have a legitimate point. I did not read with sufficient care and this possibility squeaked past me. If by chance Fox is playing games, then I retract my "cretin" remark and direct it to Fox, who are cretinous anyway.

[osan]

I think it's admirable that you hold uncompromising beliefs

More people should, IMO.

but uncompromising beliefs don't accomplish anything but "at-a-boys" from other like minded people.

Says who? Seriously, what can you cite to back such a strong and broadly stated claim?

I would love it if we didn't have to compromise in order to exercise our rights,

It is ignorance, complacency and compromise that got us here. Do you honestly believe that more of the same will yield anything different? Please recall the definition of "insanity".

in this atmosphere, we have to.

To my mind this is the brand of thinking that is used as the excuse for giving in to tyranny. Better to have pretty slavery than ugly. Come on man, where is your mind? How far are you willing willing to cede your inborn, natural, and inalienable birthright? I am not willing to cede so much as an angstrom. Screw that noise. Nobody stand above me. Nobody runs me. Nobody masters me. They hold no authority over me whatsoever. All they have is force - unvarnished violence - and I stand and speak against it at every turn.

Just as our rights were chipped away at, we have to chip away to get them back.

This is a different sense altogether. Perhaps we have been talking past each other.

[CCTelander]

Anyone has the natural right of self defense for their property and selves.

It doesn't matter what color of skin they have or where their parents $#@!ed.

Absolutely.

Threads like this serve to strengthen my belief that when freedom actually does come here to the US, and it will, it will come IN SPITE OF the so-called liberty movement, not BECAUSE OF anything they've done.

[__27__]

Absolutely.

Threads like this serve to strengthen my belief that when freedom actually does come here to the US, and it will, it will come IN SPITE OF the so-called liberty movement, not BECAUSE OF anything they've done.

++

[ChrisKuper]

Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.

[__27__]

Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.

So just to clarify, you believe that a human born on one side of an imaginary line has some set of special rights over another born on the other side of said imaginary line?

EDIT: Sorry, I guest I can't read, or maybe just can't comprehend. Didn't notice this was an email to you at first, maybe italics it or change color or something. >.<

[Matt Collins]

Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.

Looks to me like Larry does not understand the concept of natural rights That is unfortunate because I completely disagree with him in this instance.

I do believe the government has the power to police their borders and decide who may and may not enter, but within the borders the Constitution protects everyone. Government doesn't grant rights, it merely protects them. Government can only grant privileges. I don't have a problem with government granting some privileges to citizens, but that doesn't mean it can disparage the rights of non-citizens.

Oh well, I still like Larry and the GOA. He's a great guy and it's a great organization and this one particular issue, although pretty substantial, is not going to deter me from my support.

[muzzled dogg]

should i retract my life membership payments?

[Matt Collins]

should i retract my life membership payments?

No, GOA gets it right about 99% of the time. Keep supporting them.

[__27__]

should i retract my life membership payments?

You should do whatever YOU want to. Obviously Matt would tell you to keep paying. I would tell you to stop, but I would have said so even before this. Either way, you shouldn't listen to him or I, just yourself.

[ChrisKuper]

If you want to cancel your membership based on Larry's personal views then by all means you are certainly free to do so. The fact of the matter is such: Larry and I may differ on opinion from time to time on issues other than RKBA but our work speaks for itself.

If you feel strongly enough about it then do what you need to, I respect your decision.

[puppetmaster]

Looks to me like Larry does not understand the concept of natural rights That is unfortunate because I completely disagree with him in this instance.

I do believe the government has the power to police their borders and decide who may and may not enter, but within the borders the Constitution protects everyone. Government doesn't grant rights, it merely protects them. Government can only grant privileges. I don't have a problem with government granting some privileges to citizens, but that doesn't mean it can disparage the rights of non-citizens.

Oh well, I still like Larry and the GOA. He's a great guy and it's a great organization and this one particular issue, although pretty substantial, is not going to deter me from my support.

+1

[BamaAla]

Says who? Seriously, what can you cite to back such a strong and broadly stated claim?

Look around. Arguing for unfettered gun rights will do nothing but scare and motivate the anti-2a folks.

It is ignorance, complacency and compromise that got us here. Do you honestly believe that more of the same will yield anything different? Please recall the definition of "insanity".

I think we both agree that gun laws are too strict even if we disagree on the extent. Realizing that those laws are too strict, I'm willing to take inches if that's all that's available. An all or nothing attitude does nothing but polarize and entrench people.

To my mind this is the brand of thinking that is used as the excuse for giving in to tyranny. Better to have pretty slavery than ugly. Come on man, where is your mind? How far are you willing willing to cede your inborn, natural, and inalienable birthright? I am not willing to cede so much as an angstrom. Screw that noise. Nobody stand above me. Nobody runs me. Nobody masters me. They hold no authority over me whatsoever. All they have is force - unvarnished violence - and I stand and speak against it at every turn.

Good for you; I respect that. I simply think that there is another way to get things done. I recently worked with my state legislator to bring short barrel laws in line with national sbr laws. We got push back from the LEO organizations, but the bill passed and was signed into law. If we had taken a stance of no regulation on those weapons, we would have gotten nothing. Again, I respect your position, but I'm willing to take a pragmatic approach.

[__27__]

Look around. Arguing for unfettered gun rights will do nothing but scare and motivate the anti-2a folks.



I think we both agree that gun laws are too strict even if we disagree on the extent. Realizing that those laws are too strict, I'm willing to take inches if that's all that's available. An all or nothing attitude does nothing but polarize and entrench people.



Good for you; I respect that. I simply think that there is another way to get things done. I recently worked with my state legislator to bring short barrel laws in line with national sbr laws. We got push back from the LEO organizations, but the bill passed and was signed into law. If we had taken a stance of no regulation on those weapons, we would have gotten nothing. Again, I respect your position, but I'm willing to take a pragmatic approach.

Murray N. Rothbard:

I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.

Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.

The same impression shines through the writing, say, of political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of "radical" is "conservative," where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.

To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the "model" of competing courts.

Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism" debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.

[Toureg89]

Call me what you want, but I can't agree with that; in my humble opinion, there are a few people that should not have access to weapons. I'm sure that the vast majority of society agrees with me, and I fear that this kind of rhetoric can be counterproductive to those of us who fight for gun rights.

Wait so you think it's crazy that we should recognize the concealed carry rights of legal aliens, but you think it's perfectly fine that we recognize the rights of legal aliens to own submachine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers, and cannons/artillery?

Those who are against this have some serious realistic and philosophical hypocracies to work out.

[Promontorium]

Osan, you know damn well no state in this nation fully recognizes the right to bear arms. Every one of them treats it as a privilige. This is not the opinion of anyone, and so if I tell you that bearing arms is a privilige in the US, it is not by my doing or even consent. Stop accusing every person who points out reality of causing it. Stop witch hunting forum members, and tear down your ugly ignorant straw men.

And no person has a "natural right" to citizenship. If you understood natural rights half as much as you type the words you'd understand you are implicitly declaring a definitively exclusive endevor must be allocated to all. No right can be that which takes from others, and as property can be private, so can clubs. Citizenship is a construct of social agreement, you can't force people to accept others, and no person has a right to social acceptance. You are as a petulant child on a playground telling a teacher to force the other kids to let you play. That is not a right. It cannot be a right, or such a word has no meaning.

God dammit of course every human naturally has rights, but you won't be making any friends intentionally distorting the specific distinction between what is natural, and what is artificial. Artificially, no one has the right to bear arms, just varying levels of leniency. Naturally, no man has a right to citizenship, but accepting a person, and then taking from them what they had is not just either, and so this man certainly shouldn't be prevented his rights, I have been a citizen of this nation since birth, and I will never be allowed a CCW, not because of the content of my character, but because of the state I reside in. Is the ACLU fighting for me too? No, it is a political ploy, but that's nothing new.

[Toureg89]

And like I said, it us current legal reality that legal aliens are permitted to buy smgs, mgs, and grenade launchers. so how is it outside the realm of reality that we could successfully fight for legal aliens rights to conceal carry?

I would think getting Ron Paul elected would be even less of a possibility, so why the reluctance to fight for non Americans rights whose activities benefit America?

[BamaAla]

Wait so you think it's crazy that we should recognize the concealed carry rights of legal aliens, but you think it's perfectly fine that we recognize the rights of legal aliens to own submachine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers, and cannons/artillery?

Those who are against this have some serious realistic and philosophical hypocracies to work out.

I have no problem with reality; actually, I think many of the people spewing "philosophy" have the break with reality. I work with my legislator on gun issues all the time; I live in the real world. Philosophy is fine and dandy and I fault no one for holding philosophical positions, but the fact is "natural rights" mean about as much as the boogeyman does in the real world.

You and whoever else can fault me for working with what we've got, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face just so I can hold up my philosophical integrity.