PDA

View Full Version : ACLU fighting for carry rights


JGarrison
01-05-2011, 9:51 AM
Did I miss the thread on this? ACLU is fighting for carry rights after a legal resident was denied a CCW because he is not a US citizen.

http://plainsdaily.com/story/8827

Gray Peterson
01-05-2011, 10:05 AM
Did I miss the thread on this? ACLU is fighting for carry rights after a legal resident was denied a CCW because he is not a US citizen.

http://plainsdaily.com/story/8827

Heard about this yesterday. You notice that it doesn't make a second amendment claim. He doesn't need to, of course, because the equal protection case law on permanent resident aliens is quite strong, and given the fact that he can open carry without said license.

The law was altered in 2002 with the CCW recognition law, most likely post-9/11 hysteria.

jl123
01-05-2011, 10:18 AM
Some of the comments are a bit frightening.

Gray Peterson
01-05-2011, 11:33 AM
The comment thread shows how constitutionally illiterate some people are...

Stonewalker
01-05-2011, 11:49 AM
The comment thread shows how constitutionally illiterate some people are...

A little bit of information seems to work like an antibody towards more information on the same subject. Some are effectively immune from understanding the Constitution or how rights work because they believe they've already got it down.

Window_Seat
01-05-2011, 12:07 PM
Sounds like something similar to Dearth v. Holder (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Dearth_v._Holder) (was Hodgkins v. Holder), only Dearth is a US Citizen trying to buy a firearm and can't because he does not have a legal address in the USA.

Erik.

Wherryj
01-05-2011, 1:17 PM
The comment thread shows how constitutionally illiterate some people are...

It also demonstrates how much American citizens revere the Constitution-UNTIL it goes against their own personal wishes. It sort of reminds me of how our politicians view the Constitution.

nicki
01-05-2011, 2:08 PM
Some of the ACLU state chapters are supporting the 2nd amendment.

The problem with those chapters is many are in state's that where they can't file suits because the reality is they are in state's that have low grades from the Brady Campaign.

This is a nice "equality under the law" issue and perhaps South Dakota just might be willing to "appeal" it so that it works it's way up the Fed Court system.

Nicki

krucam
01-05-2011, 2:34 PM
Wasn't there a "finer" nuance to the 14th Amendment in the "Due Process" v "Privileges or Immunities" debate over McDonald, that implied one or the other (DP or PoI) applied only to US Citizens, the other "everyone", a Human Right?

Legal-ese. For those who suggest everyone should know "what" the Constitution says...well, you have no idea how it has been manipulated....

Hopefully someone can answer my question...or else I may have to dig it up myself. :D

diginit
01-05-2011, 8:09 PM
As I understand. The US constitution applies to legal U.S. citizens. Not just because you live here. Not to temporary residents or any Joe who decides he wants a scenic tour. Am I correct? Doesn't an accepted application for citizenship apply here? Not sure about the resident/non resident alien laws yet. Can anyone please elaborate? I'm curious.

Knuckle Dragger
01-05-2011, 8:19 PM
Many are mistakenly under the impression that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are actually privileges of citizenship granted by the Constitution. In fact these rights are pre-ordained and our founding fathers wisely chose to protect those rights in the most clear and permanent way possible.

While our rights follow us everywhere, that are not always recognized and protected once we leave US jurisdiction. Conversely, all those present under US jurisdiction generally enjoy the same protection of these rights as do US citizens. Non citizens in the US enjoy the same rights of assembly, speech and worship as citizens. The police are NOT free to poke around the homes of non-citizens just to see if they're up to no good.

diginit
01-05-2011, 8:42 PM
I understand fundimental rights as a person. Free speech and illegal search and seizure. Our rights only extend to the US boarders. Outside the US we are subject to the laws and regulations of the country we are visiting. They do not follow us everywhere. I know this also.

As I understand, Our rights under the constitution apply to US citizens. But you're saying that anyone that is visiting can buy any legal firearm simply because he is on our property, Weather he is a citizen or not? Then why does the DOJ ask if you are a US citizen or resident alien on the DROS form? What is the clause involved?

sawchain
01-05-2011, 9:05 PM
Non citizens in the US enjoy the same rights of assembly, speech and worship as citizens. The police are NOT free to poke around the homes of non-citizens just to see if they're up to no good.

And what of a foreign military power that "takes up residence?"

Your understanding of the Constitution doesn't hold water.

cmaher55
01-05-2011, 9:24 PM
I can't believe it....! The ACLU actually doing something a agree with....? I'm gonna look out the window for those flying pigs right now...!

GettoPhilosopher
01-05-2011, 9:47 PM
It also demonstrates how much American citizens revere the Constitution-UNTIL it goes against their own personal wishes. It sort of reminds me of how our politicians view the Constitution.

Not to start a flame war (I swear!) but that's just humanity for you. Pick *any* authoritative document, principle, political system, religious system, and you'll find a lot of people who love and fight for what it gives them but *know* that it doesn't give any rights to those no good dirty rotten [insert gender/race/sexual orientation/socioeconomic bracket/heritage/religion/height/beverage preference/etc here].

We're a planet full of hypocrites, unfortunately. :(

*flees before the flames come*

hoffmang
01-05-2011, 9:55 PM
And what of a foreign military power that "takes up residence?"

Your understanding of the Constitution doesn't hold water.

His understanding is superior to yours. An invading force is under the rule of war and not the rule of law. There is a whole lot of the Constitution dedicated to the rules for that situation.

Everyone who is here (even illegals) have the right to speak, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (border is an historical exception), to keep and bear firearms (though this has been limited to those legally here - citizenship is not however a requirement), the right to remain silent, the right to a jury of their peers, the right to counsel, and a whole host of other rights.

If the constitution doesn't apply to non citizens then why can't cops just execute them in a non wartime context?

Deal with the problems of answering that question and you'll see why the Constitution doesn't mean what you think.

-Gene

diginit
01-05-2011, 10:10 PM
And what of a foreign military power that "takes up residence?"

Your understanding of the Constitution doesn't hold water.

Although his screen name seems adaquate and definitive. Actually, He is correct on that. But I share your feelings. Search and seizure of any home in the US is illegal without a proper warrant stating what LE is looking for. And only the items listed on the warrant can be seized. I hope the FBI, Home security, etc. has this covered...If not, I am well armed and will do what I have to. Not to mention that all my friends know where to go in case of emergency...
But as for buying weapons or CCW for a non citizen/resident alien, I'm against it. Still curious about the laws. But if this person has lived here for 30 years and has not attempted to become citizen of the US. He should go home and not simply assume he is an American because he lives here. Can I move to Mexico or Germany and proclaim myself Mexican or German? Hello...

Gray Peterson
01-05-2011, 10:34 PM
Although his screen name seems adaquate and definitive. Actually, He is correct on that. But I share your feelings. Search and seizure of any home in the US is illegal without a proper warrant stating what LE is looking for. And only the items listed on the warrant can be seized. I hope the FBI, Home security, etc. has this covered...If not, I am well armed and will do what I have to. Not to mention that all my friends know where to go in case of emergency...
But as for buying weapons or CCW for a non citizen/resident alien, I'm against it. Still curious about the laws. But if this person has lived here for 30 years and has not attempted to become citizen of the US. He should go home and not simply assume he is an American because he lives here. Can I move to Mexico or Germany and proclaim myself Mexican or German? Hello...

I don't think you quite understand the actual process there to become an LPR in this country. It's not as easy as you think.

Also, the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) doesn't require someone to go for citizenship within a certain period of time if they are LPR's. You want to change that? Get Congress to do so. Until then, states must respect the civil rights of lawful permanent resident aliens and treat them equally. Voting and holding public office are not rights in the sense that you think it to be.

Gerle
01-05-2011, 10:40 PM
Diginit, what if a service member who is also a resident alien wants to buy a gun, you don't think he should be able to? He can carry a rifle on patrol in Afghanistan, but shouldn't be allowed to buy one here, in a country he is risking his life for?

taperxz
01-05-2011, 11:01 PM
If you don't think the constitution applies to non US citizens in our borders you need to go back to school!!

Theres about a 120 people in Guantanamo Bay Cuba that tried to kill all of us and our very own Attorney General Holder even fought to get them into New York for a trial under our laws and constitution. BTW Guantanamo is US soil.

resident-shooter
01-05-2011, 11:13 PM
The truth of the matter is that a legal, permanent resident is not an illegal alien or a turist. A permanent resident is someone who came here 100% legally via green card or got a refugee status and intends to stay and live in US. That person does not officially become a permanent resident until he/she lives here for one full year.

Generally speaking, the status of a legal resident gives him/her ALL the rights and protections of a citizen except the right to hold a public office or vote. Yes, they can keep and bear arms.

Sadly there are a LOT of gun owners with double standards who think that only citizens should own guns. Like it was stated before, at that point constitution collides with their wishes and they don't like it.

i hope it helped :)

dustoff31
01-06-2011, 9:06 AM
Heard about this yesterday. You notice that it doesn't make a second amendment claim. He doesn't need to, of course, because the equal protection case law on permanent resident aliens is quite strong, and given the fact that he can open carry without said license.

The law was altered in 2002 with the CCW recognition law, most likely post-9/11 hysteria.

I agree with the equal protection issue. But given that he can OC, what are the chances the courts will decide it's not, rather it is a "reasonable restriction" on his 2A?

Gray Peterson
01-06-2011, 9:24 AM
I agree with the equal protection issue. But given that he can OC, what are the chances the courts will decide it's not, rather it is a "reasonable restriction" on his 2A?

Has nothing to do with 2A, it has to do with alienage. It's considered a suspect classification:

Say v. Adams (http://www.ailf.org/lac/chdocs/Kentucky-Say-ctmemo.pdf)

Wherryj
01-06-2011, 11:04 AM
Not to start a flame war (I swear!) but that's just humanity for you. Pick *any* authoritative document, principle, political system, religious system, and you'll find a lot of people who love and fight for what it gives them but *know* that it doesn't give any rights to those no good dirty rotten [insert gender/race/sexual orientation/socioeconomic bracket/heritage/religion/height/beverage preference/etc here].

We're a planet full of hypocrites, unfortunately. :(

*flees before the flames come*

No flames, I agree with you completely. It is human nature to be selective in one's support. It is similar to the jeering that the SCOTUS received for "allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns".

My understanding was that SCOTUS couldn't side with prohibiting such action because it wasn't prohibited by the Constitution.

While I don't like the idea of corporations influencing campaigns, I am more in disfavor of selectively applying the Constitution. Most, however, don't see it this way-as you have pointed out.

When our freedoms are involved, one must take the good WITH THE BAD.

scarville
01-06-2011, 11:38 AM
Citizenship is a privilege and the conditions under which it is given are defined by the law. Laws can be changed so the rules governing the privilege of citizenship can change too. If the Bill of Rights only protects citizens then the rights listed therein are dependant on a privilege. That means that those so-called "rights" are really just privileges too. Does anyone here really want to give the state the power to strip a person of his rights by simply declaring him a non-citizen? Seems to me the Commies in the Old Soviet Union did something like that to political enemies and, as I recall, it didn't advance freedom much.

Be careful what you wish for.

rabagley
01-06-2011, 11:58 AM
My understanding was that SCOTUS couldn't side with prohibiting such action because it wasn't prohibited by the Constitution.

It's a larger issue than simply "not prohibited". The real issue as I see it is a series of previous decisions that established that corporations qualify as "persons" and are entitled to most/all of the Constitutional protections of "persons". Those decisions avoided the real solution (define a new class of entity with defensible privileges instead of the protected rights of persons). The result of those decisions (a piece of paper has many of the same pre-existing rights as a human being) requires some rather fantastic mental gymnastics, and create some spectacularly ridiculous legal outcomes.

And I'll be clear: my position is not that some people do have rights and other people don't, the issue is that corporations aren't people, don't have the same motivations or interests as people, and IMNSHO, are not entitled to first amendment protections for corporate speech.

At this point, based on the ridiculous precedents continued by Citizens United v., I think we're just a few court decisions away from allowing properly submitted pieces of paper defining a name, officers, and a set of bylaws the ability to vote in elections.

resident-shooter
01-06-2011, 12:30 PM
Citizenship is a privilege and the conditions under which it is given are defined by the law. Laws can be changed so the rules governing the privilege of citizenship can change too. If the Bill of Rights only protects citizens then the rights listed therein are dependant on a privilege. That means that those so-called "rights" are really just privileges too. Does anyone here really want to give the state the power to strip a person of his rights by simply declaring him a non-citizen? Seems to me the Commies in the Old Soviet Union did something like that to political enemies and, as I recall, it didn't advance freedom much.Be careful what you wish for.


Wrong. Citizenship is a right for those who come here legally and live here for 5 years. Once they become citizens, they share the same protections and rights as those who were born here. Therefore if u want to change those"privileges", u need to change US constitution.

rabagley
01-06-2011, 2:18 PM
Wrong. Citizenship is a right for those who come here legally and live here for 5 years.

Your statement that he is wrong... is wrong. US Citizenship is not a right, it does not take five years.

And most constitutional protections apply to all people, whether citizens or not. When the Constitution means citizen, it uses citizen. When it means person, it uses person, people, etc.

Pretty much the only thing that citizens have different from legal residents is the ability to vote and hold office.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights to people, it acknowledges and protects them.

press1280
01-06-2011, 5:56 PM
I'm thinking this is more of an attempt by the ACLU to help resident aliens(and probably indirectly illegal aliens) more than the 2A. When the ACLU starts fighting for carry rights in NJ and MD I'll believe it.

rojocorsa
01-06-2011, 6:45 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5569029&postcount=19

My original response was posted on the dupe thread.

taperxz
01-06-2011, 6:59 PM
Wrong. Citizenship is a right for those who come here legally and live here for 5 years. Once they become citizens, they share the same protections and rights as those who were born here. Therefore if u want to change those"privileges", u need to change US constitution.

WRONG! But they do have the right to apply!;)

rojocorsa
01-06-2011, 7:05 PM
Man, I just saw those comments on that website. They're alarming and ignorant, to say the least. Kinda like when dumb liberals say dumb stuff...

rojocorsa
01-06-2011, 7:06 PM
WRONG! But they do have the right to apply!;)

Exactly, because if it were a right, then you would just become a citizen on the spot after 5 years, right? Citizenship is a privilege.

cbn620
01-06-2011, 7:35 PM
I'm glad to see so many people here standing up for the real meaning of the constitution. I remember quite awhile ago there was a poll on the OT board asking people if they thought the constitution applied to non-citizens. I remember seeing a clear majority of people who said it should only apply to American citizens. I think that's dangerous thinking for civil rights.

resident-shooter
01-06-2011, 7:58 PM
Ok, let me rephrase myself: acquiring the citizenship after 5 years of legally residing in US is a right under the current federal laws.

taperxz
01-06-2011, 8:12 PM
1. Are at least 18 years old and a lawful permanent resident ("green card" holder);
2. Have resided continuously in the United States, having been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, for five years immediately preceding the date you filed your application for naturalization, or
3. Have, after having been removed from conditional permanent resident status, based upon your marriage to a U.S. citizen, having resided in the United States for one year after the date the condition was removed;
4. Have resided continuously in the United States at all times after your application to the time and date of your admission for citizenship;
5. Have, during all periods of time referred to above, been and still are a person of good moral character;
6. Have no outstanding deportation or removal order and no pending deportation or removal proceeding;
7. Have the ability to read, write, speak, and understand simple words and phrases in English;
8. Have knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and government;
9. Are attached to, and can support, the principles of the U.S. Constitution and can swear allegiance to the United States.

dfletcher
01-06-2011, 8:19 PM
The comment thread shows how constitutionally illiterate some people are...

Take a peek at post #6 .....

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?p=3006855&posted=1#post3006855

taperxz
01-06-2011, 8:36 PM
Take a peek at post #6 .....

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?p=3006855&posted=1#post3006855

This is living proof that our education system is in flux! AT BEST!

scarville
01-06-2011, 9:05 PM
This is living proof that our education system is in flux! AT BEST!
In the flux and floating to the top. At which time it will be completly fluxed up.

Patrick-2
01-07-2011, 9:13 AM
Amendment XIV
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; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As others have noted, when the question of what person/citizen meant within the context of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled (using history from the passing in 1868) to note that the words were not interchangeable. Citizen meant citizen, and "person" included a larger group (including lawful and unlawful aliens). There are a number of cases covering this. It wasn't bad case law, it was the intent of the authors of the 14th.

The authors of the 14th knew the difference, and the Due Process provisions were specifically intended for non-citizens, because until then most black people (former slaves) in the US were not citizens. So the 14th included them as citizens, then created a Due Process framework envisioned to equalize access to courts and processes to argue the cases where some former slaves (not converted to citizen for some reason) and true aliens would be able to argue their case with the same "due process" as a citizen.

But the real intent of the inclusiveness of the Due Process clause comes from a sore point in historical terms between the states post-civil war: different rules for different people based on state citizenship - specifically, citizens of a state received different treatment than non-citizens. It was common for a state to treat people without citizenship in that state, differently than others. Note the DP clause specifically instructs the states: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So the DP clause does intentionally include aliens of all types, even though the primary influence appears to be protecting due process between the citizens of states rather than nations. Either way...they are covered.


That said, I think the historical argument against "guns for aliens" has merit, but for slightly different reasons. It has nothing to do with the meanings of "person" or "people". Many believe the 14th was designed to incorporate the Bill of Rights for citizens (as we all understand that meaning), but only Due Process for aliens - and frankly, this is pretty much what it says. The Due Process clause opened the door to fair trials and proceeding for all "persons" (i.e.: everyone including aliens) in the USA, and ostensibly included 8th Amendment protections against unfair practices under imprisonment; and 5th Amendment protections against unlawful seizure and forced confessions to the extent these amendments were impacted by Due Process.

BTW, this is how our current Supreme Court got their reasoning for granting Habeus Corpus to detainees at Gitmo - "Due Process for all".

And frankly, there are only two amendments whose core guarantees are probably not covered by Due Process - those being 1A and 2A - because they guarantee you can do something. The other amendments state the inverse: what government cannot do to you. Distinction is subtle but important. One is an affirmative act by you; the other a heavy process by government. I over-simplify the concept of "process", but I hope I communicate the general point all the same.


So under the original intent of the 14th, it can be argued that 2A would not apply to non-citizens of any status, because the rights guaranteed under the Constitution were largely reserved for citizens only. Remember...the 14th was responding to an 1835 ruling where it was agreed that the Bill Of Rights didn't even apply to citizens outside of limited Federal cases. So it was a big step to make them apply even to citizens (especially the newest citizens - recently emancipated slaves).

BUT...we all know what happened in 1873 (five years after ratification of the 14th) -- the clause incorporating the Bill of Rights ("Privileges or Immunities") against the states was eviscerated by a wrong Supreme Court. Most everyone agrees the Slaughterhouse Cases were wrongly ruled, but that is another thread.

So the only thing left for Civil Rights in the 20th Century was Due Process...which is the basis of nearly all civil rights incorporation in the USA ever since. And Due Process is not restricted to citizens.

So we are looking at an interesting quandary: the ACLU cannot argue PoI of the 14th ala Gura because it probably does not apply to their client per that clause of the 14th. So they have to use Due Process...which probably does include their clients but may have never been intended to apply 2A to aliens of any flavor by the original authors of the amendment (I haven't spent time researching that, so I am only guessing here).

So I can see why some are frustrated: an originalist reading of the 14th PoI clause suggests 2A (among other rights) was intended for citizens only...but due to "bad case law" (Slaughterhouse) it will now apply to everyone via Due Process. But this is what we have.


Personally, I don't mind legal aliens owning guns and carrying. Welcome to America. Get used to our way of life and feel free to export it to your home nation if/when you go home.

History is fun, yes?

dustoff31
01-07-2011, 10:06 AM
So I can see why some are frustrated: an originalist reading of the 14th PoI clause suggests 2A (among other rights) was intended for citizens only...but due to "bad case law" (Slaughterhouse) it will now apply to everyone via Due Process. But this is what we have.


Personally, I don't mind legal aliens owning guns and carrying. Welcome to America. Get used to our way of life and feel free to export it to your home nation if/when you go home.

History is fun, yes?

I think a lot of the frustration comes about not so much from the fact that everyone is entitled to due process, that's difficult to argue with, but that there are so many who believe that non-citizens are entitled to everything that was/is intended for citizens. For when that becomes the standard, there is simply no point to being a citizen.

Patrick-2
01-07-2011, 11:10 AM
I think a lot of the frustration comes about not so much from the fact that everyone is entitled to due process, that's difficult to argue with, but that there are so many who believe that non-citizens are entitled to everything that was/is intended for citizens. For when that becomes the standard, there is simply no point to being a citizen.

Is the "American Dream" limited to Americans?

Membership in our club has benefits, but people do not have nearly as many rights as they think they do. This isn't political dribble, it's a realistic view of what our Republic offers from incorporation through today.

But yes...it appears to me the authors of the 14th would agree with you. That said, they were usurped pretty handily in 1873. So while there may be a philosophical argument in preventing 2A for legal aliens, the legal argument seems, to me, lost.

Note I said "legal" alien, though the question remains on whether the act of illegal entry/stay invalidates the core protections of 2A. It'll be a tight argument, but I think you can carve these people into a non-core category under 2A and whittle their scrutiny down to about zero. Otherwise the US would have no ability to stop foreign troops from entering the US and bearing arms in cities and states for some future purpose. In other words, the Constitution provides a framework for defense from foreign invaders, and to the extent it intersects 2A, national security can/will trump 2A. God help us, a carelessly crafted argument here can turn and bite us in the *** someday.

Personally, I got no problem with the alien having a gun. As long as he is lawfully here and remains lawful while a guest in our great nation.

dustoff31
01-07-2011, 11:56 AM
Is the "American Dream" limited to Americans?

Membership in our club has benefits, but people do not have nearly as many rights as they think they do. This isn't political dribble, it's a realistic view of what our Republic offers from incorporation through today.

But yes...it appears to me the authors of the 14th would agree with you. That said, they were usurped pretty handily in 1873. So while there may be a philosophical argument in preventing 2A for legal aliens, the legal argument seems, to me, lost.

Note I said "legal" alien, though the question remains on whether the act of illegal entry/stay invalidates the core protections of 2A. It'll be a tight argument, but I think you can carve these people into a non-core category under 2A and whittle their scrutiny down to about zero. Otherwise the US would have no ability to stop foreign troops from entering the US and bearing arms in cities and states for some future purpose. In other words, the Constitution provides a framework for defense from foreign invaders, and to the extent it intersects 2A, national security can/will trump 2A. God help us, a carelessly crafted argument here can turn and bite us in the *** someday.

Personally, I got no problem with the alien having a gun. As long as he is lawfully here and remains lawful while a guest in our great nation.

I agree with you as to legal aliens being able to have a gun.

My chief concern is the increasing erosion of the differences between citizens or lawfully admitted aliens and illegal aliens. But that's another thread.

Mesa Tactical
01-07-2011, 12:27 PM
As I understand, Our rights under the constitution apply to US citizens.

If you can find the word "citizen" anywhere in the Bill of Rights, I'd love to see it.

As the poster before you said, the Bill of Rights protects universal human rights. Therefore, citizenship is of no issue regarding government constraints on infringement of those rights.

Patrick-2
01-07-2011, 1:02 PM
If you can find the word "citizen" anywhere in the Bill of Rights, I'd love to see it.

As the poster before you said, the Bill of Rights protects universal human rights. Therefore, citizenship is of no issue regarding government constraints on infringement of those rights.

Agreed.

The two most common Constitutional errors (in my opinion): thinking you have rights that really do not exist; thinking those rights only include you and those you agree with.

sawchain
01-07-2011, 1:20 PM
I think a lot of the frustration comes about not so much from the fact that everyone is entitled to due process.

Is a Congressional declaration of war (or authorization of use of force) part of due process? If so, how can it be argued that enemy combatants at Gitmo have a right to a trial? If not, why did we deny Nazi's their due process rights in WW2?

History is indeed fun.

dustoff31
01-07-2011, 2:06 PM
Is a Congressional declaration of war (or authorization of use of force) part of due process? If so, how can it be argued that enemy combatants at Gitmo have a right to a trial?


Personally I don't think they do have a right to a trial. They should have been classed as POWs, and as a retired soldier it pains me greatly to say that. Nevertheless, it would have been a much cleaner, open, and easier process. All the while keeping them locked up until the cessation of hostilities, however long that may be.

Any claim that they have to a trial comes about from bringing them out of Iraq/Astan and allowing lawyers or bleeding hearts to get involved and mucking up the whole thing in the first place.


If not, why did we deny Nazi's their due process rights in WW2?

Not sure exactly what you mean. The Nuremburg trials were conducted in an International court/commission. The US was just a member of the team. None of them on trial there to my knowledge ever set foot on US soil.

The six or seven sabotoeurs that landed on the east coast of the US were tried by a military commission and executed/imprisoned.

dfletcher
01-07-2011, 3:31 PM
Is a Congressional declaration of war (or authorization of use of force) part of due process? If so, how can it be argued that enemy combatants at Gitmo have a right to a trial? If not, why did we deny Nazi's their due process rights in WW2?

History is indeed fun.

I don't understand the first question - that's much like asking if icing is a penalty inside the 20 yard line with a runner is on first. If the Nazis being refers to is Nuremberg, they were not tried in a US court. I don't know what type of "due process" was supposed to be applied.

gatdammit
01-07-2011, 6:56 PM
If you can find the word "citizen" anywhere in the Bill of Rights, I'd love to see it.

As the poster before you said, the Bill of Rights protects universal human rights. Therefore, citizenship is of no issue regarding government constraints on infringement of those rights.

Agreed. Our human 'rights' are not bestowed upon us by the Constitution. Natural rights of all humans will still stand with or without the Constitution.
And those natural rights will always include freedom of thought and the freedom to protect one's life.

And becoming a US citizen will open you up to 'privileges' that we have AS citizens.

Go Navy
01-07-2011, 7:07 PM
Interesting discussion and I have no issue with the legal points of view here.

However, I want to comment on the ACLU. This is nothing but unfounded opinion and speculation, but I believe the ACLU is liberal to the core and marches to liberal ideological beliefs, not necessarily a rigorous defense of the Constitution. Therefor I believe they have a hidden agenda in this case.

By arguing that non-citizens should have concealed carry rights, same as citizens in the State in question, the ACLU hopes to alarm unthinking citizens all over the U.S., in order to increase anti-gun sentiments in general. Those citizens who are not gun owners and/or have anti-gun sympathies will thus become opposed to concealed carry in general. The ACLU is strategic in its thinking and has a pretty successful track record. Nothing they do is anything less than strategic and ideology-based.

So, I'm not ready to jump into the warm embrace of the ACLU. We will be fighting them in the courts until the cows come home on all manner of ideological issues.

Gray Peterson
01-07-2011, 7:20 PM
Who cares? It's a piece of metal. Why all this handwringing over guns in the possession of LPR's? As if a law ever stopped a criminal from getting a gun. Why would anyone care about a person who is lawfully present in the US, even to the point that not getting citizenship is the risk factor for potential deportation if convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, and your afraid of these people?

All of these fearmongers and constitutional illiterates need to grow up, Larry Pratt included.

-Gray

Interesting discussion and I have no issue with the legal points of view here.

However, I want to comment on the ACLU. This is nothing but unfounded opinion and speculation, but I believe the ACLU is liberal to the core and marches to liberal ideological beliefs, not necessarily a rigorous defense of the Constitution. Therefor I believe they have a hidden agenda in this case.

By arguing that non-citizens should have concealed carry rights, same as citizens in the State in question, the ACLU hopes to alarm unthinking citizens all over the U.S., in order to increase anti-gun sentiments in general. Those citizens who are not gun owners and/or have anti-gun sympathies will thus become opposed to concealed carry in general. The ACLU is strategic in its thinking and has a pretty successful track record. Nothing they do is anything less than strategic and ideology-based.

So, I'm not ready to jump into the warm embrace of the ACLU. We will be fighting them in the courts until the cows come home on all manner of ideological issues.

dfletcher
01-07-2011, 7:40 PM
^^
I haven't seen this posted here specifically, his comments regarding the mattter:

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

"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. Pratt says the only reason the ACLU brought the suit is to pave the way for illegal aliens to have conceal carry permits.

"They want to make it so illegal aliens have the same rights as everybody else...every little bit chipping away," he said.

Doody says he would never have brought the suit if Smith were in the country illegally as the constitution applies very differently to illegal immigrants vs. legal ones."

hoffmang
01-08-2011, 4:08 PM
GOA. The gun rights group that compromises gun rights for Canadians, Brits, Aussies, etc...

-Gene

nicki
01-08-2011, 6:31 PM
The national ACLU is hostile to our gun rights, however state chapters are breaking ranks with the National ACLU.

The reality is that you can't file a lawsuit against the government unless you can show some injury and that you have standing.

The "Parker-Heller" case originally had muiltiple plantiffs, but the Appeals court dismissed all but Dick Heller because of "standing issues".

It is probably difficult to find any plantiff who has standing to file a second amendment case in South Dakota because they don't have our enlightened gun laws.

I would expect that we will see attempts by various state ACLU's to file lawsuits for second amendment rights if they can find good plantiffs who have standing and injury.

Having the ACLU on our side on gun cases helps us appeal to people in the political center and middle.

Who knows, if this case actually makes it to the SCOTUS, we could have something better than 5 to 4.

Nicki

GrayWolf09
01-08-2011, 7:05 PM
Interesting discussion and I have no issue with the legal points of view here.

However, I want to comment on the ACLU. This is nothing but unfounded opinion and speculation, but I believe the ACLU is liberal to the core and marches to liberal ideological beliefs, not necessarily a rigorous defense of the Constitution. Therefor I believe they have a hidden agenda in this case.

By arguing that non-citizens should have concealed carry rights, same as citizens in the State in question, the ACLU hopes to alarm unthinking citizens all over the U.S., in order to increase anti-gun sentiments in general. Those citizens who are not gun owners and/or have anti-gun sympathies will thus become opposed to concealed carry in general. The ACLU is strategic in its thinking and has a pretty successful track record. Nothing they do is anything less than strategic and ideology-based.

So, I'm not ready to jump into the warm embrace of the ACLU. We will be fighting them in the courts until the cows come home on all manner of ideological issues.

The liberal agenda IS a rigorous defense of the Constitution. Who has been fighting all those state laws prohibiting recordings of LEO's violating our constitutional rights?:confused: And who fought the Patriot Act and it's unconstitutional invasion of our privacy? :mad: Who fought the government reading your e-mails and listening into your phone conversation without a warrant?:(

Now they are taking up the cause of our gun rights. I say God bless the ACLU!:)

GaryV
01-08-2011, 10:07 PM
The liberal agenda IS a rigorous defense of the Constitution. Who has been fighting all those state laws prohibiting recordings of LEO's violating our constitutional rights?:confused: And who fought the Patriot Act and it's unconstitutional invasion of our privacy? :mad: Who fought the government reading your e-mails and listening into your phone conversation without a warrant?:(

Now they are taking up the cause of our gun rights. I say God bless the ACLU!:)

I agree that we shouldn't go beating up on people while they're doing work on our behalf, but there is a difference between defending the Constitution and using it as a weapon. The ACLU does the later, not the former. They don't actually believe in the sanctity of the Constitution. They are in fact very much of the "living document" school of thought. But they do very much believe in certain political and civil rights, and they are experts at using the Constitution as a powerful weapon to defend those rights.

This case, for example, is not being argued on 2nd Amendment grounds at all, but is being treated as an equal-protection case. One of the really smart things about the ACLU is that they understand that rights apply to everyone or no one. So they don't mind taking a case where they fundamentally disagree with their client and what they want, as long as it also helps the ACLU achieve their own political goals. That's why they defended the right of the KKK to hold marches and rallies.

I would imagine that this is just more of the same. They very much believe in the equal protection clause. And for them, this is an equal protection case, just as the KKK case was a 1st Amendment case, not a case racial issues. I would imagine that they are holding their nose every bit as much over the fact that it involves guns and concealed carry as they did while (successfully) defending the KKK. Of course, a couple of the state chapters truly have accepted Heller and have embraced it, but they're exceptions.

So, while I respect that they have the integrity to live up to their beliefs in the true universality of rights, and their expertise in using the Constitution to enforce that, I have to doubt that this is an indication that they're coming over to our side on the 2A just because it's in the Constitution.

glockwise2000
01-08-2011, 11:38 PM
I saw the same story but at NRA's website:


http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6111


South Dakota ACLU Sues To Broaden Right-To-Carry Law

Friday, January 07, 2011

The ACLU of South Dakota has filed a suit on behalf of a British national and permanent legal immigrant who was denied a Right-to-Carry permit in South Dakota. According to a January 6 FoxNews.com story, the 30-year legal resident and previous Right-to-Carry permit holder was denied due to a 2002 change in South Dakota’s Right-to-Carry law that requires an applicant to be an American citizen. Citing the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, the ACLU of South Dakota has leveled the suit against the South Dakota Secretary of State and the Minnehaha County Sherriff’s Office and has also filed for an injunction to stop the enforcement of the citizenship requirement.

The case is on strong legal ground, since the Supreme Court has long held that lawful permanent residents of the U.S. have the right to equal protection under the laws, and restrictions based on citizenship status must be strongly justified by the government. Under federal law and the law of most states, permanent legal residents are not prohibited from possessing firearms and their right to carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense should also be recognized. After all, a criminal attacking a law-abiding person doesn't care if the victim is a citizen or a "green card" holder.

A similar ACLU case in Kentucky was successful two years ago, and an NRA-supported case challenging aspects of a Washington state law requiring "alien firearm permits" was successful in forcing a legislative solution for legal residents of that state.

Curiously, some in the pro-gun community have come out in favor of South Dakota’s restriction on Right-to-Carry, stoking fears of illegal aliens carrying guns. Even if we could believe that people who enter the country illegally would concern themselves with obeying the concealed carry laws, elimination of South Dakota’s citizenship requirement for Right-to-Carry would in no way affect those who are in the country illegally. The NRA remains strongly opposed to gun possession by illegal aliens.