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

[axiomata]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06...uth_Dakota_Law

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a non-U.S. citizen that alleges South Dakota’s concealed weapons law is discriminatory – a legal move that one gun-rights group warns will open the door to arming illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit was filed this week on behalf of British national Wayne Smith, who legally immigrated 30 years ago, and for years was able to get a concealed license. In 2002, however, South Dakota amended the law, making U.S. citizenship a requirement to carry a concealed weapon. When Smith went to renew his long-held permit last July, he was denied because he is permanent legal resident, not a citizen.

...

"Legal resident aliens—that is, non-citizens who legally live in the United States—have constitutional rights. No one, for example, would say that a state could prohibit a legal resident alien from freely practicing his religion or engaging in free speech," Francisco told FoxNews.com. "Thus, if Mr. Smith does not have a criminal background or hasn't done anything else that disqualifies him from getting a permit, it's not clear to me how a state could prohibit him from getting a permit when it allows an otherwise similarly-situated citizen to get one."

...

"If you're a law abiding citizen and you're allowed to buy a gun you should be allowed to carry it to defend yourself," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulananda told FoxNews.com. "Just because you're not a us citizen doesn't mean that you're somehow to immune to crime outside your home."

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

[Anti Federalist]

A million injustices every year against gun owners.

The ACLU picks this one to fight in court.

*sigh*

[axiomata]

It is only a wedge if someone from our side in on the wrong side of the wedge. Otherwise it is just a triangular piece of steel.

[Anti Federalist]

It is only a wedge if someone from our side in on the wrong side of the wedge. Otherwise it is just a triangular piece of steel.

And just who determines that, hey?

[axiomata]

And just who determines that, hey?

Feel free to make Pratt's case if you wish.

[Anti Federalist]

Feel free to make Pratt's case if you wish.

You just proved my point.

How do you know I support Pratt's position?

[specsaregood]

If you're a law abiding citizen and you're allowed to buy a gun you should be allowed to carry it to defend yourself," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulananda told FoxNews.com. "Just because you're not a us citizen doesn't mean that you're somehow to immune to crime outside your home."

Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".

[axiomata]

Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".

Read it again. He's talking about two different people there. (It is not perfectly clear, I agree ... blame FoxNews' reporter)

First he's defending the existing right to conceal carry (for SD US Citizens). It, afterall, is a natural right, endowed by our Creator and protected by our government. It is not a privilege that the government grants us. But this right must necessarily also be naturally endowed to "All Men", including law-abiding resident aliens. Would you seek to prevent such a person from freely practicing his own religion, how about a trial by jury?

Here's Madison:

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.

[specsaregood]

But this right must necessarily also be naturally endowed to "All Men", including law-abiding resident aliens. Would you seek to prevent such a person from freely practicing his own religion, how about a trial by jury?

Sure, why not? they don't have a right to be in the US. We put other restrictions on resident aliens. I'd much rather the states be deciding this stuff than the feds.

[osan]

Sure, why not? they don't have a right to be in the US. We put other restrictions on resident aliens. I'd much rather the states be deciding this stuff than the feds.

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

[specsaregood]

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

No, they have permission, not a "right".

[AxisMundi]

Read it again. He's talking about two different people there. (It is not perfectly clear, I agree ... blame FoxNews' reporter)

First he's defending the existing right to conceal carry (for SD US Citizens). It, afterall, is a natural right, endowed by our Creator and protected by our government. It is not a privilege that the government grants us. But this right must necessarily also be naturally endowed to "All Men", including law-abiding resident aliens. Would you seek to prevent such a person from freely practicing his own religion, how about a trial by jury?

Here's Madison:

Firstly, one cannot mix religion and government. Our government is secular to provide for religious equality and freedoms. Indeed, there are no mentions of any deity within the body of the Constitution, and the only mentions of religion, even prior to the BoR, seek to keep religion and government separate to preserve religious freedoms. That you believe in a demiurge is indeed your Constitutional Right. Not everyone believes in any creator deity, or deity at all. You certainly have a right to believe said demiurge has granted you certain rights. However, this belief does not weigh on legal matters in this Country. Our rights are decided upon by We the People in congress, and enforced by our government.

That said...

I do not believe that Constitutional Rights extend towards non-citizens, that any rights enjoyed by legal aliens are extended through mutual treaties with their home country. Treaties are, after all, are a matter of US Law. As the Constitution says, "We the People of the Untied States of America..." A legal alien cannot vote in National Elections (or local/state votes that require US citizenship) and is therefor not part of We the People.

[osan]

Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".

WTF? Are you serious? If you subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights and that RKBA is inalienable, there is then NO justification for denying ANYONE their RKBA.

Free nations deal with what has happened, not what might. When Paco Taco robs grandma for her SSI check and kills her, you grab his natty hide, try him, convict him, jail him, and toss the key down a rathole. You do not punish those who have committed no offense.

HELLO.

[specsaregood]

WTF? Are you serious? If you subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights and that RKBA is inalienable, there is then NO justification for denying ANYONE their RKBA.

Free nations deal with what has happened, not what might. When Paco Taco robs grandma for her SSI check and kills her, you grab his natty hide, try him, convict him, jail him, and toss the key down a rathole. You do not punish those who have committed no offense.

HELLO.

If he doesn't like it he can go back to his country of origin. I bet their gun laws are even stricter.

[osan]

If he doesn't like it he can go back to his country of origin. I bet their gun laws are even stricter.

Yeah, this is rational thinking.

Jesus.

[specsaregood]

Yeah, this is rational thinking.
Jesus.

Are you suggesting he can't go home?

[BamaAla]

WTF? Are you serious? If you subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights and that RKBA is inalienable, there is then NO justification for denying ANYONE their RKBA.

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.

[osan]

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.

Please enlighten us with the standard by which some people are denied RKBA. Regale us with the list of people who are to apply that standard and by what authority they objectively deny the basic rights of their fellows.

[BamaAla]

Please enlighten us with the standard by which some people are denied RKBA. Regale us with the list of people who are to apply that standard and by what authority they objectively deny the basic rights of their fellows.

Violent criminals, mentally handicapped, and others should not have weapons. 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. Much like the in your face open carry advocates, all you do is set our cause back.

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.

[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.

[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.

[virgil47]

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.

With your line of thinking perhaps we should allow them to vote and run for office including the Presidency.

[erowe1]

I would infer from Pratt's position on this that he opposes the idea of allowing concealed carry without any permit at all, which doesn't seem like him. Looks like he hasn't thought this through enough.

[agitator]

I would infer from Pratt's position on this that he opposes the idea of allowing concealed carry without any permit at all, which doesn't seem like him. Looks like he hasn't thought this through enough.

This.

If you're asking government for permission to do something, then it is a privilege, not a right.

[osan]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06...uth_Dakota_Law

Wow that the ACLU is taking up a gun issue and is apparently on the right side.

Wow that South Dakota is such a $#@! hole.

Wow that GOA are turning out to be such cretinous imbeciles.

Plenty of wow to go around here.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[osan]

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

Our attempts at making them feel all warm and fuzzy got us here. No more. Not an inch by me. You may do as you will, of course, but I stand firm and I demand that my rights be respected in toto, anyone else's trepidation be damned.

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.

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm speaking in terms of principle - not practical methods for realizing what is right. But even in practical terms, my speech will not bend to soothe the shaky nerves of cowards and imbeciles. I flatly refuse this, having lived a lifetime of patience and forbearance only to be shat upon by such poltroons time and again. They never have enough - "more more more" is their credo of insatiable avarice for the kowtow of every many to their gutless ideals. They may all march themselves straight to hell for all I care. Worthless sissies who would trample and trespass upon me and every man for the sake of quelling their pitiful and cowardly fear of the shadows - the black mists of "what-if?". No sir. No more. I'm DONE. I carry my gun and do so openly in most places. If someone doesn't like, they are free to walk away. I visit no harm upon anyone. I damned surely expect none to be visited upon me.