ACLU supports gun rights!

[adamsreeftank]

Sorry if this is a repost:

http://news.nky.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20070720/NEWS0103/707200370

Non-citizen sues to get gun permit
State law now limits concealed carry

A British national who has lived in Kentucky for 15 years is challenging a state law than bars non-citizens from carrying concealed deadly weapons.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on Wednesday on behalf of Alexander M. Say, who contends Kentucky lawmakers should not have passed such a law last year.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Louisville, challenges the citizenship requirement.

"Kentucky's law discriminates against people who are lawful permanent residents," said Jack Harrison, the ACLU attorney representing Say.

No federal law requires U.S. citizenship for people to be licensed to purchase, carry, transport or carry a concealed deadly weapon, and neither should state law, said William Sharpe, a staff attorney for the ACLU in Louisville.

Sharpe contends the issue involves a constitutional question that the federal courts needs to address.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring the Kentucky State Police and Jefferson County Sheriff's Department - the two entities that would have to approve Say's license application - from enforcing the citizenship requirement.

State Rep. Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, said the purpose of Kentucky's law is to allow "citizens" to protect themselves, which is what the Second Amendment to the Constitutional calls for.

"That's why I have no problem limiting this to citizens," said Damron, who co-sponsored the law. "Why would we want to grant the right for an alien to carry a concealed deadly weapon?"

Damron said lawmakers didn't want to make it easy for non-citizens to carry concealed weapons at a time when Americans are concerned about possible attacks by foreign terrorists. He said "it boggles the mind" that someone would file a lawsuit to get a concealed-weapon permit in the hands of a non-citizen.

"It's not something we pass out at Wal-Mart and everybody can get it," he said.

[M. Sage]

Excellent. Good to see it!

[socalguns]

Damron is such a wonderful moron.
Either the constitution applies to legal residents
or it doesn't, there's no chopping it up.

[blacklisted]

Something tells me that they are only involved because this is an immigration related issue.

[jumbopanda]

Great, now they just need to show the same support for U.S. citizens and we're good.

[Dont Tread on Me]

I fully support this one but only for permeant residents:-)

[KenpoProfessor]

All I can say is, he is not a citizen of the U.S., therefore no CCW. In fact, I believe that if you're not a citizen, you should not be able to own any firearms. Let him get his citizenship, he's had 15 years to do so.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[paradox]

All I can say is, he is not a citizen of the U.S., therefore no CCW. In fact, I believe that if you're not a citizen, you should not be able to own any firearms. Let him get his citizenship, he's had 15 years to do so.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde



“Citizen” is used eleven times in the Constitution and zero times in the Bill of Rights.

The natural born rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, RKBA included, applies to all people within America, not just Citizens.

If you want to change that, get two thirds of the States to amend the Constitution....

[CCWFacts]

If rights such as freedom of expression, self-defense, etc, are innate they apply to all people, they predated all government, and they apply regardless of citizenship status. There are only a handful of rights that are reserved for American citizens only and they are things that are directly related to participating in our government, such as the right to vote and serve on juries. Those rights are innate but must be linked to citizenship.

The reason why people who are here illegally don't have the RKBA etc is not because they are somehow excluded from having innate rights, but because they have broken laws and DQed themselves, just like felons have (in many states) DQed themselves from voting. All rights are subject to regulation of some kind.

Also, if someone says, "non-citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry", does that mean that US citizens shouldn't be able to CCW in foreign countries either? Let's say that someday Canada went shall-issue. If you think that non-citizens shouldn't be able to carry, you would oppose a reciprocity program with Canada for example?

[Socal858]

All I can say is, he is not a citizen of the U.S., therefore no CCW. In fact, I believe that if you're not a citizen, you should not be able to own any firearms. Let him get his citizenship, he's had 15 years to do so.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

so what about those who worked hard to legally immigrate here and contribute positively to society and economy not to mention they believe in our second amendment rights?

the immigration process takes forever these days. and these kind of individuals americanize long before the process is complete, i doubt you can tell them apart from those born here . .

[M. Sage]

All I can say is, he is not a citizen of the U.S., therefore no CCW. In fact, I believe that if you're not a citizen, you should not be able to own any firearms. Let him get his citizenship, he's had 15 years to do so.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

I disagree with you. If you read the reasons of our Founding Fathers, they felt that the rights that are protected in the Bill of Rights are Natural Rights that every person has, regardless of nationality. They also felt that any government that denied persons rights such as these was an illegitimate one.

I can do nothing but agree with them. I believe that every person who hasn't committed a heinous crime (a real crime, not a political one) has the Natural Right to self-defense, and therefore the right to own and carry a firearm (or firearms).

I say good on this guy, we all need our right to pack heat recognized.

[MrTuffPaws]

Anyone that thinks rights should only apply to citizens is asking for trouble. There is nothing stopping the government from being able revoke your citizenship.

EDIT: Oh yeah, ACLU supporting gun rights? I think it just got unbearably cold somewhere.

[LEO]

To ACLU . No Federal Law bans Colt, Bushmaster,AK,etc......................
Neither should a State Law . As this affects millions of residents of this Country
Your quick action is required .

[6172crew]

“Citizen” is used eleven times in the Constitution and zero times in the Bill of Rights.

The natural born rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, RKBA included, applies to all people within America, not just Citizens.

If you want to change that, get two thirds of the States to amend the Constitution....

Good point, this is just another hole poked in the gubmits efforts to take away the rights not given by them.

[sunborder]

You know, we all accuse the ACLU and the "left" of picking and choosing the parts of the constitution they like and ignoring the rest of it. I'm seeing a lot of that here too.

There is a huge difference between someone who comes over the border as an itinerant/migrant worker and someone who goes through the process of becoming a permanent legal resident. Not everyone wants to become a citizen, and many have a good reason to feel this way. International marriages are a good example. How would you like to have to wait months for a visa to visit a sick relative because you had to give up your prior citizenship? Should you have to live a life completely disarmed because you want the FREEDOM to travel? We're talking about people who already have gone through something MUCH more rigorous than the CCW background check. This isn't tourist, student, or temporary work visa. These people have to prove quite a lot to get their status.

I'll give you an example: MY wife is a permanent resident. Let's pretend for a moment she isn't a hoplophobe, and had the temperment to defend herself with lethal force. She's jumped through more hoops than you can shake a stick at. She's been X-rayed, interviewed, given an AIDS test, paid many hundreds of dollars in fees, gained home country police clearance, sworn oaths, and Should she have to walk around defenseless for FIVE YEARS before she can get citizenship and protect herself? I mean, by law, the cops don't have to protect her. I can't be there 24/7. So, you put her into a position where she can't defend herself effectively (not a large person or trained martial artist, with one year old in tow), the cops are under no obligation to, and realistically, I can't hire/become a full-time armed bodyguard. So what's she supposed to use, "harsh language"?

As has been stated before, the bill of rights applies to EVERYONE here. Having lived in another country (with a 3rd world criminal justice system) as a resident alien (non-permanent), I can tell you, it sucks to be an "un-person" in the eyes of the law.

If we start picking and choosing, then we have to start asking ourselves, do we allow free speech? Freedom of religion? Do only citizens have freedom of religion? Do you have to swear to join the baptist church to get a tourist visa? What about unreasonable search & seizure? What about a spouse that IS a citizen? So, the gestapo can come into my home and search for whatever they want, whenever they want because my wife is a permanent citizen? How far do you go?

The bill of rights either applies to everyone who is here legally, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then what kind of hypocrites are we, talking about inaleinable rights?

[striker3]

All I can say is, he is not a citizen of the U.S., therefore no CCW. In fact, I believe that if you're not a citizen, you should not be able to own any firearms. Let him get his citizenship, he's had 15 years to do so.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Wow, so much ignorance about the concepts that started our country packed into so few words.

What does inalienable rights mean to you?

[KenpoProfessor]

Wow, so much ignorance about the concepts that started our country packed into so few words.

What does inalienable rights mean to you?

Ignorant? If you'll notice I said "I believe that", not that it was so. Are you so ignorant you can't read?

If you'll also notice, I live in a FREE State, and I don't want ILLEGAL aliens having firearms to use against me.

Clyde

[CCWFacts]

If you'll also notice, I live in a FREE State, and I don't want ILLEGAL aliens having firearms to use against me.

No one is suggesting that illegal aliens have a RKBA. They have DQed themselves, just like felons have DQed themselves. Take a look at the form when you buy a gun. It asks if you're here legally. If you're not, no gun. Just like if I were in Canada illegally, I would be denied a gun, but if I'm there legally, I could bring in a gun (with proper paperwork). What's at issue is, do legal aliens have a right to own guns and do they have equal access to CCW? Under US law the answer is yes, resident aliens have the same rights to own guns, and to apply for CCWs, as citizens have. This is logical and the courts will back that up.

[Crazed_SS]

No one is suggesting that illegal aliens have a RKBA. They have DQed themselves, just like felons have DQed themselves. Take a look at the form when you buy a gun. It asks if you're here legally. If you're not, no gun. Just like if I were in Canada illegally, I would be denied a gun, but if I'm there legally, I could bring in a gun (with proper paperwork). What's at issue is, do legal aliens have a right to own guns and do they have equal access to CCW? Under US law the answer is yes, resident aliens have the same rights to own guns, and to apply for CCWs, as citizens have. This is logical and the courts will back that up.

I have no problem with ex-cons and illegals being barred from buying weapons, but dont most people here support no restrictions on firearms though?

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second.
If you support no restrictions, why should a person's immigration status bar them from the tools to defend themselves? Is self-defense not a God-given, human right?

And before someone says, "Well illegals can defend themselves without guns" .. just remember the antis will say the same thing to you about concealed carry and ownership of assault weapons.

[CSDGuy]

It's simple. Lawful Resident Aliens may purchase firearms after residing in the US for 90 days. If you can not prove that you are here lawfully, you're already legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. Those who can not purchase them legally and want them badly enough will purchase firearms illegally.

I do not believe that this is the FIRST time this type of lawsuit has been brought before the courts. However, it might be the first of it's type for the ACLU to be involved in...

[Scarecrow Repair]

The problem with ANY control of guns, even well meant limitations like illegal immigrants, is that it requires the government to also control the people. It requires people to identify themselves to the government. Lots of people here like to mention whacking the camel's nose as soon as it shows under the tent; well, here it is, big and beautiful, and dripping snot all over the idea of people having rights over the government. Here they demand that people identify themselves to the government.

I am not saying there is a solution other than the obvious one of having no borders, but all you nose-whackers out there need to see the hypocrisy of demanding freedom and servitude at the same time.

Otherwise you are only arguing about how much of the came to let into the tent.

[xenophobe]

You know, we all accuse the ACLU and the "left" of picking and choosing the parts of the constitution they like and ignoring the rest of it. I'm seeing a lot of that here too.

I believe that ACLU is more interested in this because it is a discrimination suit, not a RKBA suit.

The ACLU has shown slight favor to a couple RKBA/2nd Amendment issues in the past, but has remained mostly neutral.

Again, you really need to erase the fact that concealed carry is a portion of this suit. This is all about a legal permanent resident facing discrimination.

[CCWFacts]

I have no problem with ex-cons and illegals being barred from buying weapons, but dont most people here support no restrictions on firearms though?

There's a spectrum of views. At one end of the spectrum are RKBA purist absolutists, who believe that firearms should be beyond all regulation, that anyone should be able to buy or sell any firearm for cash, and should be able to carry anywhere any time with no permit. Not many people, even in the gun rights activist community, take that extreme a view. I don't. My feeling is the average NRA member probably supports NICS (banning felons from owning guns) but opposes most other restrictions. I could live with that, certainly!

I personally am a "gun rights pragmatist". I'm not opposed to training requirements, waiting periods, stuff like that, which I know the NRA opposes. I'm not saying that I oppose the NRA. They just want to go further than I care about. I'll continue paying my membership to them, of course.

If you support no restrictions, why should a person's immigration status bar them from the tools to defend themselves? Is self-defense not a God-given, human right?

Self-defense is an innate, God-given right. Even prisoners have a right to self-defense. But firearms create enough possibility for offensive use that they are restricted more than the underlying self-defense right itself is restricted. No one would argue that prisoners have a right to own guns.

And before someone says, "Well illegals can defend themselves without guns" .. just remember the antis will say the same thing to you about concealed carry and ownership of assault weapons.

It's true, that is an argument in favor of it. The argument against is that IIs have shown that they are not willing to play by the system's rules, and gun owners should be rule-following type people.

[CalNRA]

meh, a local chapter of ACLU in Kentucky cannot undo the wrong of the nation-wide ACLU's blatant disregard for the 2nd Amendment. One case is not sufficient to convince me that ACLU as a whole "supports" the RKBA. I hope I will be proven wrong but like others said, this is more likely an immigration issue than a right-to-carry issue.

[dfletcher]

I don't think it is helpful to just now bring illegals into the mix, but instead focus on the fellows who abide by the law. I do wonder what the ACLU is up to - exactly what is their end game on this? IIRC, the ACLU building in DC has/had the Bill of Rights engraved on its side - with the exception of the 2nd.

The ACLU is now promoting the rights of what we'll presume is an upstanding and law abiding, legally documented Englishman immigrant - a most sympathetic figure so to speak. But setting this person aside, how could this evolve over the next few years?

[Rob P.]

You know, everyone carries on about how the ACLU doesn't support the second amendment. They expound on how they only support the other amendments at the expense of the most important one. Because most people believe that the ACLU is currently socialist because ONE of it's founders was a socialist.

Did anyone stop to think that the reason the ACLU doesn't take second amendment cases is because the second amendment has not been fully incorporated? The ACLU only takes on constitutional issues. If the 2a hasn't been incorporated then it's not a constitutional issue as applied to individuals. Ergo, the ACLU cannot accept such a case.

It's a possibiity that no one seems to consider.

[CCWFacts]

Regarding the ACLU, here's an article on their own website about this issue. This thread here isn't the first time people have asked, "hey, what about the 2A, guys?"

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

Which is why I am a member of the NRA but not the ACLU.

State or local ACLU chapters may have different views and of course they reflect the culture of their local members.

[jumbopanda]

Regarding the ACLU, here's an article on their own website about this issue. This thread here isn't the first time people have asked, "hey, what about the 2A, guys?"

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html



Which is why I am a member of the NRA but not the ACLU.

State or local ACLU chapters may have different views and of course they reflect the culture of their local members.

Beat me to it, the ACLU claims to fight for people's Constitutional rights, but in reality they only fight for causes that are consistent with their left-wing agenda. The RKBA does not qualify.

[CCWFacts]

The problem with ANY control of guns, even well meant limitations like illegal immigrants, is that it requires the government to also control the people.

That's basically what governments do.

It requires people to identify themselves to the government. Lots of people here like to mention whacking the camel's nose as soon as it shows under the tent; well, here it is, big and beautiful, and dripping snot all over the idea of people having rights over the government. Here they demand that people identify themselves to the government.

Gun transactions are the small and least important area where our privacy rights have been violated. That camel is already completely inside the tent along with a dozen of his relatives and a few elephants and a rhinoceros. Gun registration is not like the camel's nose coming into the tent. It is more like the tip of the camel's tail not being all the way in the tent yet.

The first privacy intrusion that needs to be fixed is financial privacy. As long as they have access to all our financial transactions, no other privacy is meaningful.

[CCWFacts]

Beat me to it, the ACLU claims to fight for people's Constitutional rights, but in reality they only fight for causes that are consistent with their left-wing agenda. The RKBA does not qualify.

Their agenda, if they have one, is pretty weird. In real left-wing (Socialist) countries, the idea is that the good of "the people" trumps over all individual rights. But there is no "the people"; we're all individuals. "The people" is a euphemism for "the government and its individual leader in particular".

If there ever were Socialism in this country, the ACLU types would be the first to be sent off to whatever our Siberia is.

[jumbopanda]

Their agenda, if they have one, is pretty weird. In real left-wing (Socialist) countries, the idea is that the good of "the people" trumps over all individual rights. But there is no "the people"; we're all individuals. "The people" is a euphemism for "the government and its individual leader in particular".

If there ever were Socialism in this country, the ACLU types would be the first to be sent off to whatever our Siberia is.

Well I guess it's more of a bleeding-heart hippie sort of left wing, as opposed to socialist left wing. I don't think they want the government to control the economy and establish a welfare state (I could be wrong though), but they are extremely liberal in their social views.

[KenpoProfessor]

I have no problem with ex-cons and illegals being barred from buying weapons, but dont most people here support no restrictions on firearms though?

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second.
If you support no restrictions, why should a person's immigration status bar them from the tools to defend themselves? Is self-defense not a God-given, human right?

And before someone says, "Well illegals can defend themselves without guns" .. just remember the antis will say the same thing to you about concealed carry and ownership of assault weapons.

No restrictions for citizens, and that's what we do HERE now. I literally bought a gun in the parking lot of a Basha's grocery story yesterday morning, and paid cash, the Friday before, did the same thing in the parking lot of a Circle K.

If ILLEGALS want to claim RKBA and self defense, let them do it in their country of origin, not here. As far as I'm concerned, ILLEGALS have NO RIGHTS here in the USA other than the right to leave, escorted or not.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[Crazed_SS]

No restrictions for citizens, and that's what we do HERE now. I literally bought a gun in the parking lot of a Basha's grocery story yesterday morning, and paid cash, the Friday before, did the same thing in the parking lot of a Circle K.


There's no restrictions where you live? lol.. please get off your AZ high horse from one minute. Can you legally buy a brand new M249 SAW in the parking lot of Circle K? Didnt think so.. We understand you live in AZ and the gun laws are less strict there, but stop acting like you're living in some kind of free man's utopia. It's just another state like Nevada, or Texas, Georgia.


If ILLEGALS want to claim RKBA and self defense, let them do it in their country of origin, not here. As far as I'm concerned, ILLEGALS have NO RIGHTS here in the USA other than the right to leave, escorted or not.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Well everyone has basic human rights (illegals are humans), but I agree illegals shouldnt be able to legally buy firearms.

[paradox]

If ILLEGALS want to claim RKBA and self defense, let them do it in their country of origin, not here. As far as I'm concerned, ILLEGALS have NO RIGHTS here in the USA other than the right to leave, escorted or not.


Who said anything about illegal immigrants other than you?

The man in question who is suing with ACLU help is a LEGAL, papered, immigrant. Why shouldn’t he have just as much right to pack heat as you?

[luvtolean]

I believe that ACLU is more interested in this because it is a discrimination suit, not a RKBA suit.

+1

When the ACLU gets around to a suit like this for a white boy who is a natural born citizen, I'll be a card carrying member.

Still, happy to see the suit.

[Crazed_SS]

Other than their gun rights policy, what is everyone's beef with the ACLU? Im looking at their website and it seems they take all kinds of cases.. some would be unpopular with the left and other unpopular with the right. I dont see any "socalist" or "communist" agenda here.. it seems their mostly for standing up for individual rights. How is that socialist?

[simonov]

All I can say is, he is not a citizen of the U.S., therefore no CCW. In fact, I believe that if you're not a citizen, you should not be able to own any firearms.

You can read through the entire Bill of Rights and will never find the word 'citizen.'

The Bill of Rights codifies - not grants - inalienable human rights enjoyed by everyone regardless of nationality and limits US government infringement of those rights for anyone under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

That's what the ACLU is arguing.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Other than their gun rights policy, what is everyone's beef with the ACLU? Im looking at their website and it seems they take all kinds of cases.. some would be unpopular with the left and other unpopular with the right. I dont see any "socalist" or "communist" agenda here.. it seems their mostly for standing up for individual rights. How is that socialist?

Because people in these forums throw around words like "socialist" and "communist" as curse words without having a clue as to what those words actually mean. I have a friend, competitive to the Olympics (twice) and national champion (biking and archery) level, who uses insults as a competitive edge, and will throw out ANY insult he can think of to get his opponents' minds off kilter. He doesn't care what the words mean, either in the dictionary or in his opponents' minds, as long as it upsets them and gives him an edge. I suspect a lot of insults are like that.

Thus people call ANY person or organization they don't like "socialist" or "communist", as an insult, without having any idea what the word really means.

Someone on this foum has a signature of a quote by hitnrun on what calguns forum members are like and it is not flattering. But there's a lot of truth in it. Too many people here simply parrot somebody else's words without even caring that they don't know the meaning. Too many people ape some leader because they are afraid to think for themselves. The most ironic of all are the ones who ape words of independence and individualism and liberty.

I am sure this is more than you wanted to get :-)

[Piper]

I personally have no problem with a LAW ABIDING individual having a firearm for his or her protection and that includes LEGAL residents. I do have a problem with CRIMINALS and ILLEGAL RESIDENTS (squatters, aliens, tresspassers etc.) from possessing a firearm. I think that being able to protect yourself is fundmental and those that commit valid criminal offenses like rape, robbery, murder, and any other violent offense that I failed to mention, give up that right.

[stator]

I cannot be quick to describe that the 2nd amendment is applicable to all people and not just citizens. The 2nd amendment was create in defense, but not personal defense but defense of our country against all invaders, foreign and domestic.

It has been universally held that only male citizens are required to defend our country and, hence, be included, automatically, as our country's unorganized militia. Non-citizens are not subject to the draft and are not required to defend our country. They can (and do) volunteer and be accepted into our military though.

To the other poster who describe a possible scenario of reciprocation of CCW with other nations -- that is just a pipe dream and a false fantasy in our life times. The Department of the Navy has shipped me out to live in foreign countries and they are nothing like we are in terms of granting rights to non-citizens. We are the extreme exception and not the rule.

In the end, it is best to look at the 2nd amendment like the Swiss and it's defense forces (which is every able body male). It is just that they are issued rifles for home storage, we are expect to go out and buy ours. Granted, our federal government has implemented a grant program to foster this, the Civilian Marksmenship Program, but our modern politicians have found this program to be un-PC and have systematically gutted it in recent history.

[M. Sage]

There's a spectrum of views. At one end of the spectrum are RKBA purist absolutists, who believe that firearms should be beyond all regulation, that anyone should be able to buy or sell any firearm for cash, and should be able to carry anywhere any time with no permit. Not many people, even in the gun rights activist community, take that extreme a view. I don't. My feeling is the average NRA member probably supports NICS (banning felons from owning guns) but opposes most other restrictions. I could live with that, certainly!

I personally am a "gun rights pragmatist". I'm not opposed to training requirements, waiting periods, stuff like that, which I know the NRA opposes. I'm not saying that I oppose the NRA. They just want to go further than I care about. I'll continue paying my membership to them, of course.

Question - and don't take this as an attack, I've been mulling this all day wondering and really want to know:

Are you a "pragmatist" about other rights? Do you support warrantless wiretaps against individuals suspected of things like terrorism? Do you support searches of people based on factors that don't add up to reasonable probable cause (IE something like random searches on the sidewalk)?

I have to disagree with pragmatism on this one, since the Founders obviously meant the rights in the Bill of Rights to be absolutes. Obviously, when your actions start to infringe on the rights of someone else, you're outside our right... But look at what happens when we decide to be "pragmatic" and compromise our rights away. We get BS like the Patriot Act and no-fly lists that, once you're on it, you can't get off and aren't even given a reason why you're on it.

I'd like to know: how did you come to the decision to become a pragmatist.

(I used to be one, too, until I started reading things like the Federalist Papers, and re-reading the Amendments more closely.)

[Socal858]

No restrictions for citizens, and that's what we do HERE now. I literally bought a gun in the parking lot of a Basha's grocery story yesterday morning, and paid cash, the Friday before, did the same thing in the parking lot of a Circle K.

If ILLEGALS want to claim RKBA and self defense, let them do it in their country of origin, not here. As far as I'm concerned, ILLEGALS have NO RIGHTS here in the USA other than the right to leave, escorted or not.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

dude i dont think you can find anyone in this thread who disagrees with the fact that ILLEGALS should NOT own weapons and most of us believe they ahve NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.

however, tell me why you are so caught up wtih that and have to mention it every time?

we are talking about legal immigrants who 1) contribute actively and positively to society and the economy 2) have jumped through the hoops, peed in the cup, paid taxes, learned the laws and 3) hate the illegals probably more than you do, because you dont know how much it takes to become an american. that knowledge makes legal immigrants appreciate so much more the freedoms offered by our nation

[Scarecrow Repair]

As long as I am waiting for the computer to finish its boring work, I may as well throw in a ramble here. Why not, I can ramble with the best of them ...

Seems to me the biggest mistake the founding fathers made with the constitution is having too much respect for both the integrity of the government "leaders" and the interest of the people in watching over them. Thus they did not always write simple strict language into the constitution. In particular, that introductory clause of the second amendment has caused a lot of needless trouble. It's a very easy argument to make that it must mean something or they wouldn't have added it.

What is lacking by people who worry about that clause is any understanding of what things were like back then. I don't know what crime was like back then. No gangs, but probably more highway men and petty thieves, and people on the frontier certainly couldn't call 911. Common sense says they wanted people armed for several reasons: for hunting, for self protection, for self training in case of war, and to keep the government wary. It is also obvious that these are all individual functions, and like many have pointed out, it is ludicrous that out of all the other natural inalienable rights listed in the Bill of Rights, they'd throw in this one to give the government the right to arm itself! This can't be stressed too much: they simply did not trust government and power hungry politicians. You only have to read Jefferson's quote about each generation fertilizing the tree of liberty with blood of patriots to understand how much they mistrusted government.

Nervous hoplophobes (thanks!) clutching at straws bring up the argument that it meant state militias armed against a federal government, and that is an obsolete concept today. Only the truly naive and desperate would think anyone could trust a state government but not the federal government. Both are run by politicians, and if citizens need to scare the federal government, they also need to scare the state government.

To argue that the second is only for state militias is inexplicable. You have to ignore that guns had other purposes, practical every day purposes, and still have them. You also have to think the founding fathers were naive enough to trust one government but not others, and think it natural to have one oddball amendment granting a natural inalienable right to one of those governments but not the other and not the citizens.

There's the question of how it changes over time. The most obvious is what does "arms" mean? Only a few argue it includes nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Most think it means weapons carried by individual soldiers, usually excluding backpack nuclear weapons. Some say it includes manpad anti-aircraft missiles, but I am not sure how many of them actually believe that and how many just argue for the sake of arguing; poop stirrers I believe is the term.

What it really comes down to is your basic infantry rifle and handgun. I can't see how any common sense interpretation of the second amendment, especially considering the context of when it was written, can come to any other basic conclusion. I do see why some people argue against full auto, since that makes for a pretty sloppy self defense. But that's what the military has, and you don't have to put that selector on full auto, so it is part and parcel of the definition.

Then there is the question of who gets to have arms. Only a nut would say males only, and you have to turn your guns back in once you hit 45.

Seems to me there are only two areas of debate -- males 18-45 and what are arms? But again, if you simply use common sense and consider the context, and ask what would the founding fathers mean today, it seems obvious as all get out that it means every sane and upstanding adult and full auto M-16s. Crew served weapons are open to debate, grenades open to debate, and that's about it for the first draft of what the founding fathers would say today.

But there's that pesky clause, and the idea that laws have to be written clearly, and that's where the trouble comes in.

[CCWFacts]

Question - and don't take this as an attack, I've been mulling this all day wondering and really want to know:

No attack taken!

Are you a "pragmatist" about other rights?

Maybe... let's see:

Do you support warrantless wiretaps against individuals suspected of things like terrorism?

No way. Here's a way to look at it: We have a right to privacy and private communications. But that right isn't absolute. There is a pragmatic way to break that right, which is to have a judge issue a warrant. That's a pragmatic compromise. I would say that NICS is like that. We have a right to be armed. But people who have done certain things should be excluded, so there is a pragmatic way to break that right for those people, which is NICS, just like a warrant from a judge breaks the right to private communications when it is necessary to do so.

(As an aside, I'm not afraid of terrorism. It ranks so far down on the list of things that could hurt me, it's not worth me personally worrying it, and it's not worth giving up any freedoms over it.)

Warrantless wiretaps are like the may-issue gun permits of the Jim Crow south. It's too far over on the spectrum.

Saying, "communications should never ever be intercepted" is an absolutist / purist rights viewpoint. Not many people believe that.

Do you support searches of people based on factors that don't add up to reasonable probable cause (IE something like random searches on the sidewalk)?

No way. I don't know all the legalese, but an officer should have a clear reason, based on officer safety or public safety, to hinder anyone from going about his business.

I have to disagree with pragmatism on this one, since the Founders obviously meant the rights in the Bill of Rights to be absolutes.

I don't think they did. There are compromises in there, like warrants, pardons in cases of obvious injustice, etc.

Obviously, when your actions start to infringe on the rights of someone else, you're outside our right... But look at what happens when we decide to be "pragmatic" and compromise our rights away. We get BS like the Patriot Act and no-fly lists that, once you're on it, you can't get off and aren't even given a reason why you're on it.

Yup. Those are bad. I would say those are like California's AWB and may-issue law. They are not things of pragmatism, they are things of unrestrained and dangerous government power.

I'd like to know: how did you come to the decision to become a pragmatist.

I hope what I said makes sense. I know there are people who argue against NICS, against needing CCW permits, etc, saying that the RKBA is absolute. I'm just saying, I don't feel that way. But I can work with people who do have a stronger stance because it's not like we're working on opposite goals, and I wouldn't be unhappy if they did achieve their goals by some miracle.

[xenophobe]

Thus they did not always write simple strict language into the constitution. In particular, that introductory clause of the second amendment has caused a lot of needless trouble. It's a very easy argument to make that it must mean something or they wouldn't have added it.

Actually, I would have to disagree in a manner of sorts. They did write what they thought was simple, strict and defined language. The problem lies in that they debated the meaning of specificity to such a degree, that when writing the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as later amendments, that their meaning was clear to them. However it may not appear clear to those who never witnessed or participated in the debates surrounding the reworking of a specific clause or changing a particular word in any portion of any of the Amendments.

If you look at any pre-ratification, or state RKBA verbiage, you will see that the language is much more understandable to the common person today, but the goal of the Founding Fathers was to make the language short and indisputable, and actually thought that the current language was much less prone to creative interpretation than the language preceding it.

They really should have run it by focus groups, to see if the meaning applied equally to those not familiar with the endless hours of debate upon which written form conveyed the meaning most easily to the layperson, however the lay person's knowledge of English was considerably better then than it is now, and that is what they did not foresee.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Actually, I would have to disagree in a manner of sorts. They did write what they thought was simple, strict and defined language.

... the lay person's knowledge of English was considerably better then than it is now, and that is what they did not foresee.

I should have been simpler and clearer myself :-) Language changes, and they did no have the foresight to to think that what was simple language then has become flowery and ornate now. That introductory clause should have been left out. We just don't do that stuff nowadays.

[xenophobe]

hehe... Yeah, I couldn't agree more.

How could they have known the general population would have devolved so much in such a short time. ;)

[M. Sage]

I hope what I said makes sense. I know there are people who argue against NICS, against needing CCW permits, etc, saying that the RKBA is absolute. I'm just saying, I don't feel that way. But I can work with people who do have a stronger stance because it's not like we're working on opposite goals, and I wouldn't be unhappy if they did achieve their goals by some miracle.

Yeah, it did. Thanks!

I agree with you that it's currently not feasible to have an absolute world where NICS doesn't exist, but feel that we should try reforming our prison and legal system to the point where it would be.

Going by what you said, I guess I still fall more toward "pragmatic" than "absolutist," but I'm looking at one as a stepping stone toward the ideal, I suppose.

[CalNRA]

Other than their gun rights policy, what is everyone's beef with the ACLU? Im looking at their website and it seems they take all kinds of cases.. some would be unpopular with the left and other unpopular with the right. I dont see any "socalist" or "communist" agenda here.. it seems their mostly for standing up for individual rights. How is that socialist?

so one day you wake up, a bunch of Klansmen are congregated outside yoru residence, waving the rebel flag, holding posters depicting various agendas that hey are known for. They are careful in no making terrorist threats and technically breaking no laws. They are loud, and refuse to leave. Your local police is no where to be found. You are inside, sitting there, with your lawfully owned firearm with your family.

the only thing the ACLU will not defend is your ownership of a firearm.

[Pont]

the only thing the ACLU will not defend is your ownership of a firearm.

The ACLU may not defend your 2nd amendment rights, but they won't fight against them either.

All in all, I think they're a beneficial organization. I can see how certain christian groups who don't enjoy the separation of church and state would see it differently.

[Crazed_SS]

so one day you wake up, a bunch of Klansmen are congregated outside yoru residence, waving the rebel flag, holding posters depicting various agendas that hey are known for. They are careful in no making terrorist threats and technically breaking no laws. They are loud, and refuse to leave. Your local police is no where to be found. You are inside, sitting there, with your lawfully owned firearm with your family.

the only thing the ACLU will not defend is your ownership of a firearm.

Why would the police be nowhere to be found? Is 911 down?

And if they are loud and refuse to leave, it sounds like disturbing the peace to me.. and if they're sitting outside one person's house in particular, I'm sure a prosecutor could get a harrassment charge to stick. In such a situation, a firearm wouldnt help anyway as you couldnt just start shooting at the Klansmen and it'd also be illegal to walk outside brandishing a firearm in an attempt to scare them away.

The Klan and Neo Nazis have rallies and parades all the time. I'm sure the ACLU would defend their right to express their hate speech as long as they arent terrorizing and threatening anyone.

[socalguns]

a quick check shows one founder of ACLU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Eastman
is a socialist ...

[CalNRA]

Why would the police be nowhere to be found? Is 911 down?


so you believe that the police can be there to protect you all the time?



to use an extreme example: what if the police is among the Klan?

And don't say that would never happen. I distinctly remember this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Price

[Scarecrow Repair]

a quick check shows one founder of ACLU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Eastman
is a socialist ...

Oooohhh .... woow .... jail that SOB for impure thoughts.

[socalguns]

Uh crow, she's been dead a while.
He was wondering why people throw the term around, that's one reason why, not merely because they're parroting someone else

[M. Sage]

Some of us do understand what socialism is about. There are worse things to call someone, but not many.

[simonov]

Some of us do understand what socialism is about. There are worse things to call someone, but not many.

George Orwell was a socialist, and one of the greatest political minds of the 20th century.

[mblat]

George Orwell was a socialist, and one of the greatest political minds of the 20th century.

Honestly, George Orwell writings can impress only people who never lived in REAL socialism. My thirteen years old son was totally impressed.

As tovarish Stalin used to say:
No, it was different, totally different. :D

That is said, it is in general irrelevant if the person is socialist or not - so he never grew up and stayed an intellectually underdeveloped kid - it does happened to some very smart and affable people. Point I think is that many of "progressive" organizations from anti-war groups to civil rights all the way to environmental groups were funded by KGB. Of cause I never seen any prove that ASLU had any connections to KGB - so any speculations on that matter are indeed just speculations .

[Wizard99]

I think the answer to were the ACLU stands on the 2nd will come when Parker is decided in the USSC. We will see how the ACLU lawyer that is sitting on the courts rules. My hope is that she is pro 2nd.

[sixtringr]

To give an Englishman a permit to carry? I really like my lend-lease enfield.
Be wary of the ACLU. My take is that this has nothing to do with the amendments to the constitution, and everything to do with those terrorists down in Guantanimo.

Mike

[CalNRA]

George Orwell was a socialist, and one of the greatest political minds of the 20th century.

yet many of the socialist countries look like the scene from 1984...hmm....

[Zhukov]

It just seems everytime people claim socialism, they actually mean communism, which is a completely different thing all together.

1984-ish scenario's tend to be in all the COMMUNIST countries that are censoring everything.

Think Russia(USSR era), China, etc. - All Communist, not Socialist.

[mblat]

It just seems everytime people claim socialism, they actually mean communism, which is a completely different thing all together.

1984-ish scenario's tend to be in all the COMMUNIST countries that are censoring everything.

Think Russia(USSR era), China, etc. - All Communist, not Socialist.

My friend...

USSR - Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics. They never claim that they are communist country, they were claiming they were building communism..... while being socialistic country, which USSR was..... as well as China used to be.

[M. Sage]

It just seems everytime people claim socialism, they actually mean communism, which is a completely different thing all together.

1984-ish scenario's tend to be in all the COMMUNIST countries that are censoring everything.

Think Russia(USSR era), China, etc. - All Communist, not Socialist.

Hmm... Communsim = no personal property, no claim on the products you produce, they belong to society.

Socialism = no personal property, you work for the good of "society" and not the good of yourself.

Not really a difference there. Communism is just a specific form of socialism; Not all Socialists are Communists, but all Communists are Socialists.

[CalNRA]

It just seems everytime people claim socialism, they actually mean communism, which is a completely different thing all together.

1984-ish scenario's tend to be in all the COMMUNIST countries that are censoring everything.

Think Russia(USSR era), China, etc. - All Communist, not Socialist.

that's funny, I distinctly remember the Chinese government calls their system "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics"

[mblat]

Hmm... Communsim = no personal property, no claim on the products you produce, they belong to society.

Socialism = no personal property, you work for the good of "society" and not the good of yourself.

Not really a difference there. Communism is just a specific form of socialism; Not all Socialists are Communists, but all Communists are Socialists.

I am sorry, but who told you that Socialism = no personal property? I guess my parents' car, library of several thousands books and the rest of the stuff wasn't theirs?
There is A HUGE difference between socialism and communism, at least in theory. And since nobody ever even claimed that they have build communism then all we have to go by is the theory.

Definition of socialism ( if I will managed to recall and translate it correctly)
Socialism is society characterized by public ownership on means of production

In no matter shape or form that means no personal property. As the matter of fact theoretical communism doesn't disallow private property either.

[M. Sage]

That's communism. I realize Wikipedia isn't the end-all be-all, but...

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and movements which aim to improve society through collective and egalitarian action; and to a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Either way, you can be granted personal property in a socialist or communist state, but you have zero right to it. That stuff wasn't theirs. It was theirs to use at the whim of the state, if they were living in a truly communist or socialist country.

[mblat]

That's communism. I realize Wikipedia isn't the end-all be-all, but...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Either way, you can be granted personal property in a socialist or communist state, but you have zero right to it. That stuff wasn't theirs. It was theirs to use at the whim of the state, if they were living in a truly communist or socialist country.

You probably simply don't know that I am from Russia. And I don't care what wikipedia says, I can tell you how it WAS.

Me and my parents worked, receive paychecks every month, bought stuff and brought it to our apartment ( which wasn't technically ours, but belong to the city, but we also didn't pay any rent for it). And nobody could take that property away from us, except by court decision. So in a sense it wasn't all that different from what we have here - after all we have seizure laws here, in Russia they would cover much bigger array of crimes, but you had to be convicted first.
Again, there are a lot small details that no so easy to cover. For example courts were heavily defendant on local communist leader. But unless you did some "political" or high profile economic crime or something directed against them they usually don't get involved, and you would get a trial with judge and 2 jurors. Well kind of jurors.
Again, as a detail the system heavily favored prosecutors, instead of defendants. BUT. That are details. Principal question is that we HAD a private property. Socialism, as an ideology, doesn't forbid it.
It frowns on it, and private property on mean of production is almost complete no-no, but even some means of production in some socialistic countries (Poland and East Germany come to mind) were private. Hell! There was a guy, in SOVIET UNION who managed to have private organization that would dig for GOLD. Because Soviet Laws didn't forbid that explicitly. And he was first to declare himself a milioner, once Soviet Unit started to fall apart.

So it was different, totally different

[M. Sage]

You probably simply don't know that I am from Russia.

Actually, I had kind of gathered that...

I know it was different, the Soviet Union didn't stick to the Communist "ideal" terribly well. China even less-so (especially these days.)

Would you go back to the way it was there? Or do you prefer the way it is here?

[mblat]

Actually, I had kind of gathered that...

I know it was different, the Soviet Union didn't stick to the Communist "ideal" terribly well. China even less-so (especially these days.)

Would you go back to the way it was there? Or do you prefer the way it is here?

Go back to Soviet Russia? You would have to shoot me first. Literally.
Go back to today' Russia? I will probably visit one day, but not soon. I have a lot of other places in queue.

[M. Sage]

Go back to Soviet Russia? You would have to shoot me first. Literally.

That's what I figured. I'm not from Russia, and have never been there (before or after the fall of the USSR,) but that's how I feel about it.

[Zhukov]

My only reply is this:

They do have similar beliefs.

Socialism is a broad idea, it can be encompassed in many ways.

Communism is a very specific form of socialism, to an extreme level.

Due to that extreme difference, I do not consider them to be the same thing.

Just as I don't consider a fundamental muslim to be the same thing as a moderate muslim. In a very short-sighted view, you could just say they're all the same because their core beliefs are that of Islam. Yet, their actions tend to be at extreme odds when it comes to very important topics such as personal rights.

Just because a Communist can be seen as being a form of Socialist, it doesn't mean that Socialism is bad. It just means that the Communist is bad.

Hell, most of the so-called Socialist countries that you listed (USSR, China, etc.) would be better described as military dictatorships.

Just because a criminal calls himself an LEO doesn't mean he is actually an LEO. He's still a criminal.

So stop always lumping them into the same boat.

[swhatb]

i'm sorry...

Not a citizen of the U.S., NO CCW. If not a citizen, cannot vote; forget there help in RKBA to elect pro-gun reps. If you want to make things better, you need to vote. Period! I dislike people wanting certain benefits, *itch when they don't get them, and don't want to be a U.S. citizen. "We" do recognize duel citizenship, so what's the problem :confused: