Lawsuit challenges SD licensing requiring citizenship

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 4, 2011.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,017
    1,419
    113
  2. Match10

    Match10 Active Member

    6,922
    4
    38
    Well, I suppose legal Alien resident can own guns too, no? Surprising from the ACLU, which means they probably have ulterior motives.... :whistle:
     

  3. RecoveringYankee

    RecoveringYankee New Member

    1,771
    0
    0
    To be fair, every now and then they are on the right side.

    Clock. Right. Twice a day.
     
  4. ookoshi

    ookoshi Moderator

    5,239
    12
    38
    It's not that surprising. This isn't a 2A case, which the ACLU would never take. This is a 14A equal protection case, which the ACLU often gets involved with.
     
  5. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,696
    10
    38
    Oh crap, first the 5,000 birds dropping dead and now this. The end is near...
     
  6. XLInfidel

    XLInfidel New Member

    277
    1
    0
    Yea...they're probably wincing that the former is necessarily tied to the latter in this one though.
     
  7. smn

    smn Active Member

    4,106
    10
    38
    From the Heller decision:
    (emphasis mine)

    The petitioner has had 30 years to become a naturalized citizen but instead wants the court to grant him something he's neglected to do all this time? Where have I heard this argument before? If the petitioner wins this case, does he then get the right to vote, too? Something really stinks here.
     
  8. ookoshi

    ookoshi Moderator

    5,239
    12
    38
    Voting and the right to bear arms are not the same thing. The right to self-defense is a natural right, secured by the constitution, and guaranteed to all people in the United States via the 14th amendment. Voting is not a natural right.
     
  9. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Yukon Cornelius

    11,607
    39
    48

    while it might not be enumerated i do feel men have a right to speak up over who enslaves them which is what voting accomplishes
     
  10. vooduchikn

    vooduchikn New Member

    504
    0
    0
    So this should apply to legal citizens, seems the plaintiff is not that, so what is the complaint? Did I miss something or is there a hidden agenda by the ACLU? :roll:

    :help: us god, as we as a country are so lost....most of the time.
     
  11. RecoveringYankee

    RecoveringYankee New Member

    1,771
    0
    0
    I really don't see the problem with allowing someone legally in the country to carry for their protection. My nephew's wife is Canadian, has been in the U.S. most of her adult life. Is her life less worth defending because she choses to maintain citizenship in Canada, the land of her birth?

    I am sure we would wish the same right was granted to us when we are abroad.
     
  12. jlcnuke

    jlcnuke New Member

    2,051
    1
    0
    No one should be denied the fundamental right to self defense and the Constitution covers this land, not certain people within it. We can either accept that the laws of this land (including the Bill of Rights) apply to all people here or decide that they only apply to those here legally. If it only applies to those here legally then our criminal laws also do not apply to them. Either the Constitution and the laws established under it's authority are for everyone or they don't really mean anything.
     
  13. RecoveringYankee

    RecoveringYankee New Member

    1,771
    0
    0
    Correct. The founding principle is that these are rights granted to us by our Creator, and therefore granted to all people, not just Americans. The Constitution does not give any rights to American citizens, or to anyone at all. It prohibits the government from violating the God-given rights of anyone.

    I would add, however, that Illegals are in the country, by definition, illegally, and therefore I am loathe to say they can claim the same immunities as those here legally, citizen or legal alien. They have the basic rights to due process, to be free from government abuse, and to defend themselves. But not much more.
     
  14. jlcnuke

    jlcnuke New Member

    2,051
    1
    0
    I agree. Illegals should be afforded all the rights guaranteed but not granted the privileges afforded to those here legally.
     
  15. smn

    smn Active Member

    4,106
    10
    38
    The petitioner immigrated lawfully to the US. However, under 14th Amendment constructs, those protections were intended for citizens. Citizens were states and federal citizens. If the petitioner can claim he's a state citizen he'll have a good chance of winning.

    From the McDonald decision:
    However, pretty much all the other amendments incorporated through the 14th have applied to everyone in the jurisdiction of the states. The ACLU has a good chance of winning this. Personally, anyone here lawfully should be afforded the RKBA. Resident aliens may already keep arms in their home for self defense. I wish the petitioner the best of luck, but be careful of any unintended consequences.