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

[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.

[Toureg89]

I have no problem with reality

then why no willingness to support legal aliens rights to CC?

if democrats and anti-gunners havent gone after legal aliens rights to own machine guns and grenade launchers, what makes you think trying to secure their right to Conceal Carry will spark some kind of catalyst of anti gun mentality, when anti government and anti democrat trends are at an all time high since the reign of Bush?

there's still a logical disconnect thats not being explained.

[BamaAla]

then why no willingness to support legal aliens rights to CC?

They should be allowed to; I don't object to that.

[james1906]

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.

1. Bearing Arms is a fundamental right to all in this nation. It's not something left to the states. GOA is supposed to be fighting that fight.

2. While I understand the rationale of Pratt's argument, it's dangerous. This means this 'inalienable right' will require anyone to show papers to prove this 'inalienable right' applies to you.

3. Those in the country illegally are already breaking the law. Why would you think they'd apply for a CCL? They won't. However, the resident who came to this country by legal means cannot apply for an 'inalienable right,' and therefore would not be likely to carry concealed.

[axiomata]

3. Those in the country illegally are already breaking the law. Why would you think they'd apply for a CCL? They won't. However, the resident who came to this country by legal means cannot apply for an 'inalienable right,' and therefore would not be likely to carry concealed.

A key point. The Mexican who waited in line to come in legally cannot legally defend himself from the illegal cartel dealer down the street who obviously isn't too worried about breaking the law.

[__27__]

The willingness by some to subdivide human beings into categories and assign values to their lives and natural rights based solely on their place of birth is nothing short of appalling.

[AxisMundi]

The willingness by some to subdivide human beings into categories and assign values to their lives and natural rights based solely on their place of birth is nothing short of appalling.

There is no such things as "natural rights".

Rights are determined by a consensus and enforced by government.

[Travlyr]

There is no such things as "natural rights".

Rights are determined by a consensus and enforced by government.

That's wrong and too bad for you. AxisMundi, you have natural rights, you are just not willing to stand up for them because you don't know where they come from or what they mean. You don't mind being submissive to authority.

I enjoy my natural rights because I understand, exercise, and defend them. It's a choice that we all get to make.

Natural rights are inherent. The "Bill of Rights" simply recognizes certain unalienable rights as so important to humanity that they guarantee in writing that anyone who infringes on those recognized rights are in violation of the written social contract.

[pcosmar]

There is no such things as "natural rights".

Rights are determined by a consensus and enforced by government.

Rights exist.
Like life or gravity. They are.
Government either protects or violates rights. It does not create them.

[Pericles]

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.

Have they changed the state motto of Alabama?

[JoshLowry]

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.

++

Are you two trying to make the case that this place is a net negative in education and spreading the message?

I'd appreciate if you would both clarify.

There are new people to the movement that are learning and posting.

[jmdrake]

The 2nd amendment was initially based in the militia. (Note the modern national guard is NOT the militia as defined by the constitution.) Were legal resident aliens meant to be mustered as part of the militia? If yes they fall under the 2nd amendment.

[erowe1]

The 2nd amendment was initially based in the militia. (Note the modern national guard is NOT the militia as defined by the constitution.) Were legal resident aliens meant to be mustered as part of the militia? If yes they fall under the 2nd amendment.

When the Constitution was ratified anyone who had been born in another country before coming here would have been a legal resident alien. Wouldn't they? I don't think the category of illegal alien existed.

[Pericles]

The 2nd amendment was initially based in the militia. (Note the modern national guard is NOT the militia as defined by the constitution.) Were legal resident aliens meant to be mustered as part of the militia? If yes they fall under the 2nd amendment.

I vote yes. Citizens have a duty to defend the community, legal residents have the right to do so.

[AxisMundi]

That's wrong and too bad for you. AxisMundi, you have natural rights, you are just not willing to stand up for them because you don't know where they come from or what they mean. You don't mind being submissive to authority.

I enjoy my natural rights because I understand, exercise, and defend them. It's a choice that we all get to make.

Natural rights are inherent. The "Bill of Rights" simply recognizes certain unalienable rights as so important to humanity that they guarantee in writing that anyone who infringes on those recognized rights are in violation of the written social contract.

I am quite aware of both versions of "Natural Law". One is a philosophy devoid of religion, the other theosophy based on "inalienable rights endowed by the Creator".

Neither have any basis in law, although I will invite you to debate what you consider to be natural, inherent, inalienable rights and their source.

[AxisMundi]

Rights exist.
Like life or gravity. They are.
Government either protects or violates rights. It does not create them.

Please show where I stated that g'ment "creates" rights.

[ChrisKuper]

1. Bearing Arms is a fundamental right to all in this nation. It's not something left to the states. GOA is supposed to be fighting that fight.

2. While I understand the rationale of Pratt's argument, it's dangerous. This means this 'inalienable right' will require anyone to show papers to prove this 'inalienable right' applies to you.

3. Those in the country illegally are already breaking the law. Why would you think they'd apply for a CCL? They won't. However, the resident who came to this country by legal means cannot apply for an 'inalienable right,' and therefore would not be likely to carry concealed.

A friend on the hill emailed me today after jumping on the forums and asked why we were staying out of this fight. I will tell you the same thing I told him:

GOA is right in the middle of dozens of fights currently. My own personal reason for not fighting to be involved in this fight is simple. Why would we fight for a small percentage of persons to have the "privilege" of APPLYING for a shall issue permit. Should we spend countless donor dollars fighting for something that in the end might actually add new regulations to permits rather than subtract? I would rather spend my time and resources fighting for Constitutional Carry, something that is much more in line with a true understanding of the 2A and an effort that would make this problem null and void altogether.

I sympathize with the man, I really do. And I think it's shameful that this state, and many others like it have the audacity to decide arbitrarily who has the privilege of exercising natural and God given rights. But trying to convince them to lessen their grip is contrary to my beliefs. That belief being that they have no authority to the grip in the first place. Even those who agree with that 'radical' ideology still think that in the grand scope of things that this fight is a pragmatic avenue, I tend to disagree respectfully.

[AxisMundi]

From Bouvier's...

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.

2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that " the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.

3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.

4. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183 Metc. & Perk. Dig. h. t.; vide 3 Story's Const. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, 212; Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant.

(Please note this was written prior to the 13th and subsequent Amendments)

As a legal alien may not vote in National Elections nor hold office, they are not citizens and therefor not protected by the Constitution.

[pcosmar]

Please show where I stated that g'ment "creates" rights.

Our rights are decided upon by We the People in congress, and enforced by our government.

No they are not. The purpose of government is to protect our Inalienable Rights.

It is not up for a vote.

[jmdrake]

When the Constitution was ratified anyone who had been born in another country before coming here would have been a legal resident alien. Wouldn't they? I don't think the category of illegal alien existed.

Yeah, that sounds right.

I vote yes. Citizens have a duty to defend the community, legal residents have the right to do so.

You may be right. In fact that make sense. Note that I didn't answer the question myself. More important than the answer is how to frame the argument. If we are a constitutional movement we need to be able to argue everything from a constitutional point of view as much as possible instead of "This just sounds like a good idea".

[Travlyr]

I am quite aware of both versions of "Natural Law". One is a philosophy devoid of religion, the other theosophy based on "inalienable rights endowed by the Creator".

Neither have any basis in law, although I will invite you to debate what you consider to be natural, inherent, inalienable rights and their source.

The law is irrelevant. I have a right to my life, movements, thoughts, speech, food, water, defense, creations, choices, and much more. I have responsibility for my rights as well. I don't need anyone's acceptance, understanding, or approval of them. They are mine because I claim them and I am willing to defend them.

[osan]

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

I disagree. The distinction is one of being or not being under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. If you are within the boundaries of the USA, you are under its jurisdiction. If you come from a nation where killing and eating your neighbor's children is deemed OK, you cannot behave in that manner whilst here, whether as a new citizen, legal resident alien, or just to see Disney World.

The Constitution recognizes and guarantees our natural rights. It also grants contractual rights. It would therefore follow that people here legally are entitled to exercise their natural rights while here - something they may not be able to do back home. Illegal aliens are rightly infringed because they have already violated our territorial sovereignty by coming here extra-legally. We infringe murderers and rapists while they remain under criminal penalty - so should be the case for illegals. If we fail to do so, then our national sovereignty becomes a pathetic joke.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens.

Yes and no. Natural rights are for everyone, citizen or not. Contractual rights, which are really privileges, are for citizens only. The right to vote is a perfect example. Citizens are entitled to vote, whereas non-citizens are not.

Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms.

This is tantamount to saying one has no right to life if they enter the USA and are not citizens. By this logic I am at my ease to go hunting British tourists at Marine Land.

The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case.

I've not read their position as submitted to the court. Do you have a cite?

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.

No, they are not as per the above reasoning. Natural rights apply to ALL people and are protected for ALL people within the borders of the USA. Ifa British tourist is attacked on the streets of NYC and kills his attacker, he has acted well within his rights in so doing, all else equal. Or would you contend that he is obliged by law to stand by as the US citizen guts him like a fish?

The reasoning here is mighty backward.

[oyarde]

Shall not be infringed .

[virgil47]

Why should be have to? Perhaps the USA is now his home - ever consider that?

It seems you harbor some serious us/them sentiments. You might want to talk to someone about that. Do as you wish, of course.

If it is now his home why isn't he/she a citizen?

[virgil47]

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.

You are mistaken. If it truly was a human right then it would be a recognized "right" in every country on earth. To my knowledge only the U.S. has a second amendment.

[osan]

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.

It deters me. For pity's sake, this is so fundamental - so central to the very fabric of proper human liberty, that such a gross misunderstanding of such concepts begs too many questions to list here.

Larry may be a great guy, but I don't think I would want him speaking for me on such issues. Not a word until he got clued in as to what is right. You will forgive me if I point out just how irrational and xenophobic his letter reads. To read it, I would think it was some right-wing religious nut in way-northern Montana writing and not a presumably rational and well informed clarion of human rights.

Seriously folks, someone should take him out for a couple of beers, some good eats, and have a long and friendly talk with him about this because his letter reads to the scarier end of the spectrum. I'd even be willing to do it if he'd give me the time. A healthy dose of Socratic method might be all he needs to bring him around. One would hope, anyway.

[virgil47]

You're being disingenuous. Have a nice day.

What? Can't answer his statement?

[osan]

If it is now his home why isn't he/she a citizen?

Who cares why? It is not relevant. He is here, he is legal. He is presumably not a criminal. What's the fuss?

[osan]

What? Can't answer his statement?

I can and have. I don't go in for wasting time on people who are either trolling or are otherwise unwilling or incapable of following a line of reasoning and responding to it rationally.

[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.