ACLU Brings Case in favour of Greencard Holder for CHL

Bears mentioning that this is a state ACLU organization, not the national group. The national group continues to claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals.

IMO people who are here legally, whether citizens or not, should have the right to defend themselves outside of the home. If you can own a gun as a non-U.S. citizen, you should be allowed to carry it too.

Green card

They do have the right, if in possession of a legit green card, A-number, they can purchase and obtain CWC....but you must be a bonifide GC holder. It's stated in the CFR for ATFE and DHS Immigration law.

AS a resident of SD, one aspect of this concerns me. While I don't think a law allowing for Greencard holders to cary concealed is out of line, I do think, that if it can be demonstrated that conducting the needed background checks and whatnot add considerably to the expense of issuing such permits, that said permits may cost more than the standard permit. AS it standxs now, a 4 yr ccw runs 10 dollars, which, of course, I am entirely comfortable with. If conducting the more extensive background checks becomes more expensive, I think those applying such bare of the cost and not all ccw holders, or all SD taxpayers, for that matter. Is it costs more to issue them a permit, the increased cost should be the applicants responsibility

My parents were both green card holders for quite some time before they became citizens. I support state recognition of the right of non-citizen residents to defend themselves.

If they are coming in though the front door (legally) instead of the back door (illegally), welcome to America, there is still some freedom left.

Clutch

If greencard holders cannot qualify for concealed carry because of a state law, then they should not have to pay local and state taxes too. "Background" checks on greencard holders are more stringent and more expensive than any CCW application.

AS a resident of SD, one aspect of this concerns me. While I don't think a law allowing for Greencard holders to cary concealed is out of line, I do think, that if it can be demonstrated that conducting the needed background checks and whatnot add considerably to the expense of issuing such permits, that said permits may cost more than the standard permit. AS it standxs now, a 4 yr ccw runs 10 dollars, which, of course, I am entirely comfortable with. If conducting the more extensive background checks becomes more expensive, I think those applying such bare of the cost and not all ccw holders, or all SD taxpayers, for that matter. Is it costs more to issue them a permit, the increased cost should be the applicants responsibility

Click to expand...

The extensive background checks are part of getting the green card, not the CHL. The checks for the CHL should be no different than for a citizen.

Agree with Wishin, if its legal for them to own, it should be legal for them to carry....

Can't believe I agree with the ACLU.....

NO guns for non US citizens. NO matter what color there card is.

NO guns for non US citizens. NO matter what color there card is.

Click to expand...

You understand the consequences of that right?

Americans go to other countries to hunt all the time. You'd deny that to citizens of other countries who want to come hunt here? How do you think countries that allow US citizens firearms would react?

That's just one possible problem, there are many more.

I seem to recall at one time this great nation was comprised of many if not mostly immigrants, and the right to bear arms arose from a conflict that would impose tyranny.

I have no problem with any person legally in the U.S.keeping and bearing arms. For people here ILLEGALLY, I'm not in favor of them owning guns, but at the same time,if there was a case where one used guns for self-defense, I wouldn't demand they be prosecuted for the gun possession.

As for the ACLU being on our side......like they said above, it's the state agency, not the national. And.....I've been to one bar mitzvah. That does NOT make me Jewish.

Cowpoke, I have to respectfully disagree. My wife is a green card holder and I want her to be able to defend herself if necessary. We spent a lot of money and filled out a lot of forms so that she could legally be in the country. Getting a green card is much harder than people really know, and it takes a lot of guarantees and finances to get it, in addition to the regular red tape. But that is beside the point: she is legally here, and can legally possess a firearm, why should she not be able to defend herself?

NO guns for non US citizens. NO matter what color there card is.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. Green card holders have as much right to self-defense as anyone else. The Bill of Rights does not exempt legal immigrants, and the 14th prevents the government from infringing the rights of any person (not "any citizen") without cause.

As for the ACLU being on our side......like they said above, it's the state agency, not the national.

Click to expand...

Not to stray too far afield, but except for their dyslexic stand on the Second Amendment, the national ACLU is on our side more often than they aren't, especially on 4th and 5th Amendment issues post-9/11, and I appreciate their protection of the 1st Amendment as well. One can hope that they'll eventually take a position on the 2ndA that is consistent with their reading of the 1st/4th/5th, but I don't see that happening in the short term. Some of the state ACLU's are quite good on the 2ndA, though.

NO guns for non US citizens. NO matter what color there card is.

Click to expand...

A very typical leftist/statist sentiment. "I don't like or trust a group of otherwise law abiding people, so I'll use the government to deny them Rights."
:banghead:

absolutely... the bill of rights does not only pertain to U.S. citizens... was not our country based on the belief that ALL PEOPLE are endowed with certain unalienable rights? Our founding fathers revolted and over threw the existing government because that government did not recognize their rights...

Another spin on this to add for consideration.

If a US citizen renounces their US citizenship they permanently lose the right to have arms and ammunition in the USA, even when visiting legally.


So a foreigner coming to the USA can have the RKBA, but someone US born that has moved to another nation cannot.
(I wouldn't renounce mine, but some people do because the USA double taxes those living abroad, and is one of the only nations in the world that does so. Meaning you have to pay income taxes both where you live, and to the US government. Those in higher tax brackets could even have tax rates of over 100% of their income if they moved to certain places that had similarly high taxes, especially without the "Bush tax cuts" in place.)

Greencard holders also typically cannot vote, cannot be on a jury, cannot hold an elected position, etc
I am not saying I am against, it is just extra considerations.

I actually think people in every part of the world have the inalienable rights that our founders felt were the right of every man, irregardless of which borders they were in between.
They are rights which are simply not being recognized as they should be everywhere.
However many do not agree, including our own government which for example actively participates in restrictions to keep arms foreign governments already have from going to regular citizens in foreign nations. (Or as the UN likes to call them "small arms and light weapons.")

Really, GOA?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/0...'s_Gun_Rights_From_Change_in_South_Dakota_Law

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

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

...

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.

Click to expand...

NO guns for non US citizens. NO matter what color there card is.

Click to expand...

That doesnt make sense, and I am glad that previous generations did not agree with you. The frontier west was tamed and settled to a large degree by people who had immigrated here from other countries, but were not yet US citizens. You would deny frontiersmen who were not US citizens the right to have a gun for defense???

cowpoke said:

NO guns for non US citizens. NO matter what color there card is.

Click to expand...

I also respectfully disagree. I'm just looking at it from a practical point of view -- the US citizen just has to go through the CHL process, while the green card holder has (1) had extensive background checks by the FBI including in country of origin AND (2) has been assessed against further requirements (e.g. highly skilled worker, or extraordinary ability in certain professions, or is an investor/entrepreneur, or has a US spouse, etc.) AND (3) has been through the CHL process. The green card holder is thus subject to a much more rigorous screening than the US citizen. It doesn't make sense to allow a permit to the less well screened US citizen and deny one to the better screened GC holder.

The article linked by the OP seems to confuse illegal immigrants with green card holders. There is a world of difference.

PS It has been pointed out that GC holders (more correctly known as permanent residents) cannot vote, serve on juries, hold elected positions, be a Federal employee, etc. I don't see much reason for those restrictions but let's grant the possibility that there is some smattering of logic in those rules (e.g. until you swear the oath of allegiance you cannot be trusted to act responsibly as a voter, juror, Federal employee etc). All green card holders if they keep on the right side of the law and follow certain rules (such as actually living in the USA) become automatically entitled to become citizens after a waiting period. Why should those thoroughly screened people be denied the right to defend themselves while they are waiting for their citizenship? Some may not want to become citizens because they are emotionally attached to their country of origin -- but they have still been checked out more than any natural-born US citizen so I still don't see any problem in allowing them the same RKBA as citizens.

Excellent points duns. If I may be the devil's advocate though, the Brit in question was not denied the ability to possess firearms but was denied his concealed carry permit. I don't know enough about South Dakota law to determine whether that means one and the same thing. If he can open carry there without being harrassed (open carry not always being desirable), then that may be his only option at this time until this whole mess gets resolved.

In South Dakota no permit is required to open carry or to keep a loaded gun in a vehicle. A person just cannot conceal the gun on their person without a permit.

As far as citizen vs. non-citizen rights to carry firearms, I think it boils down to what is your personal belief as far as self-defense goes. I am of the personal belief that the right to self-defense is an unalienable human right bestowed upon persons before and beyond the confines of government. As such I believe that every free person, who has been deemed safe enough to freely walk the streets in public, should have the right to bear a firearm for self defense. I feel that the age limit for unsupervised carrying a firearm should be the age of majority - 18 in the United States.

I feel that if the United States were to truly take the moral high road that our government claims, the only requirement for the purchase and possession of a firearm should be the ability to walk freely into a gun store and buy one. Is there any real evidence to indicate that the GCA of 1968 did anything to make the US safer? Is there any real evidence to indicate that the Brady Act of 1993 has accomplished anything? I just don't see that unhindered firearms possession prior to 1968 was any kind of problem at all.

If you don't want a person to have a firearm, then incarcerate them. Deal with the criminal - not the tool that has more beneficial uses than evil uses. If we parallel gun control in other areas, then we should control the most common dangerous weapon out there the same way the government controls guns - the automobile.

TexasRifleman said:

Quote:
NO guns for non US citizens. NO matter what color there card is.
You understand the consequences of that right?

Americans go to other countries to hunt all the time. You'd deny that to citizens of other countries who want to come hunt here? How do you think countries that allow US citizens firearms would react?

Well let's look at the flip side of that: If we allow non-citizens to have guns then does that Americans abroad automatically have the right to carry a gun? OF COURSE NOT! And certainly not in counties where they don't even allow their own citizens to own, much less carry, guns. Great Britain comes to mind.

My point is that we in the US need to decide how to handle this issue ourselves and it should not based on what other countries allow or don't allow.

IMO this is SUPPOSED to be the land of the free. Therefore I think we should allow LEGAL residents to own and carry guns. BUT that in no way applies to ANYONE that came here illegally even if they have applied for asylum or other employed other delaying tactics. The fact that they BROKE into this country is good enough grounds to deny them the right to own or carry a weapon! To me if an illegal is caught with a gun then they should be MORE severely treated just as a ARMED trespasser is treated vs an un-armed trespasser.

In addition I do realize that there could be serious practical problems with investigating immigants' past in other countries (Cuba for example) so is some cases I think it would not be wise to grant a CWP if we could not adequately investigate them and/or their past.