NRA Lawsuit against Washington State

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sinixstar

member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
897
Came across this today from the NRA Site:

NRA Files Suit Against Washington State for Second Amendment Violations
The National Rifle Association (NRA) today filed suit against the State of Washington charging it in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution by preventing firearm ownership to non-United States citizens legally residing in the U.S.

“The actions of Washington State are denying honest, hard-working men and women equal protection under the law, as held in the U.S. Constitution," said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “Under current law, these law-abiding residents are now subject to arrest, seizure of their firearms and possible deportation. NRA will always stand on the side of law-abiding individuals and the protection of their inherent right to self defense.”

Washington State’s law is unique in making it a felony for any non-citizen, including lawful permanent residents, to possess a firearm without having first obtained an Alien Firearms License (AFL). A license is not required for possession of a firearm in Washington State by U.S. citizens.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=11779

Seems like this could potentially lead to some opposing constitutional interpretations re: Foreign Nationals and Homeland Security. Some opponents of various national security measures have argued that constitutional protections do not start and stop with citizenship, while proponents have argued "yes, they do".
In the broader security context (which I believe is smack in the middle of the spirit of the 2nd) - what implications could this have?

Personally - I have to side with Washington on this one. Not to raise the alarms here, but I can think of 19 guys not all that long ago who came to this country legally, and at one point would have passed a simple background check. 19 guys who are PRECISELY the people we do NOT want to have guns on our soil.
As citizens, we have to pass a background check to buy firearms. There is an expectation of accuracy to that system, as all states are operating on the same page, and contributing to the same system in a reasonably reliable fashion. The same cannot be said for foreign countries. To me, it seems this may open the door to allow potentially violent criminals to take advantage of our open society. In the worst case, they could use that openness directly against us.

There is however the possibility, and I can only assume this is the NRA's position - that this could be the beginning of a slippery slope.

The question is - is there a line, and where should/would it be drawn?
 
Also - if this is off-topic for this area, I apologize. Couldn't quite figure out the best place to put it, and it is generally a legal question.
 
You realize you are making pretty much the same argument that antis do against law abiding gun owners, right?

Non citizens have exactly the same rights in this country that citizens do, less the right to vote. The 2A applies to them as well.
 
You realize you are making pretty much the same argument that antis do against law abiding gun owners, right?

Non citizens have exactly the same rights in this country that citizens do, less the right to vote. The 2A applies to them as well.

Well, but again - than how does that fit with some of the broader national security initiatives?

Also - you sort of said it yourself....
law abiding gun owners
Define "law abiding" as it applies to foreign nationals with potentially unknown backgrounds. "Law Abiding" in a foreign country, does not necessarily mean "law abiding" in the united states.
The Washington law also does not say foreign nationals cannot own guns. As I understand it - it's simply a way of making sure we're not handing over the keys to the kingdom.
 
The bill of rights are rights that should be extended to all people in the United States without strong convictions forcing otherwise. Period. I would not deny a legal immigrant the the 2nd any more than I'd deny them the right to free speech, or to a speedy trial.
Your evidence... you know 19 immigrants who you think are unfit to bear arms, so none should be able to keep guns?
Well I've met thousands of citizens that I wouldn't trust with a gun, so should no citizen be allowed to bear arms either? I am a Washington resident, and I'm fully behind the NRA on this one.
 
Personally - I have to side with Washington on this one. Not to raise the alarms here, but I can think of 19 guys not all that long ago who came to this country legally, and at one point would have passed a simple background check. 19 guys who are PRECISELY the people we do NOT want to have guns on our soil.
As citizens, we have to pass a background check to buy firearms. There is an expectation of accuracy to that system, as all states are operating on the same page, and contributing to the same system in a reasonably reliable fashion. The same cannot be said for foreign countries. To me, it seems this may open the door to allow potentially violent criminals to take advantage of our open society. In the worst case, they could use that openness directly against us.

Nobody said liberty was guaranteed safe.
 
The bill of rights are rights that should be extended to all people in the United States without strong convictions forcing otherwise. Period. I would not deny a legal immigrant the the 2nd any more than I'd deny them the right to free speech, or to a speedy trial.
Your evidence... you know 19 immigrants who you think are unfit to bear arms, so none should be able to keep guns?
Well I've met thousands of citizens that I wouldn't trust with a gun, so should no citizen be allowed to bear arms either? I am a Washington resident, and I'm fully behind the NRA on this one.

Fair enough - but then the second part of the question, what implications does that pose to other efforts of national security? Specifically in terms of taking action (surveillance, certain forms of interrogation, due process/legal maneuvering, etc) against foreign nationals?
 
I'm not saying which side I take in this debate, but certainly raises a lot of honest-to-goodness questions. So far, the debate has been civil (I"d say), and I think this thread could potentially be informative if kept High Road :)
 
We are talking about legal residence who even pay taxes, not illegal aliens.
I never understood why WA had this law and I disagree with it.
Good for the NRA!
 
We are talking about legal residence who even pay taxes, not illegal aliens.

We're not saying they CAN'T have guns, just that they will be held to the same standard as the rest of us.

The issue as I see it - is whether the NICS may not be equipped to handle a foreign criminal history. If we're talking about a person with perhaps a violent history, or worse an extremist history - is that reflected in NICS checks?
 
My father is nearly 80 years old and has lived here since he was four years old. I doubt anyone told him about getting a firearms card.

Should he be taken to jail?
 
My father is nearly 80 years old and has lived here since he was four years old. I doubt anyone told him about getting a firearms card.

Should he be taken to jail?

While i'm not suggesting he should be taken to jail - The question does have to be asked...

is he a citizen, or a resident alien?
 
...the NICS may not be equipped to handle a foreign criminal history...

No, the NICS will not show a criminal history outside the US.
However, in order to get a Green Card, the INS investigates this in the home country and a legal resident would not be one if there is a criminal history!
 
However, in order to get a Green Card, the INS investigates this in the home country and a legal resident would not be one if there is a criminal history!

Yea, cause we all know how great a job they do!
 
Yea, cause we all know how great a job they do!
No, I don't know.
Why don't you give us a few facts about that??

I actually think they do a good job with what they have to deal with and I know!
 
Officials said the coordination should also help to minimize the communication errors that preceded the Sept. 11 attacks. In one glaring breakdown, two Sept. 11 hijackers were allowed to enter the country and live in San Diego even though the C.I.A. suspected that they were terrorists. Other agencies later complained that the C.I.A. did not seek to put the men on domestic watch lists until weeks before the attacks.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E7DE143AF934A2575AC0A9659C8B63

By Bill Gardner, Pioneer Press, St. Paul, Minn.

Apr. 12--Marine Staff Sgt. Daniel Brown has just spent the past eight months serving his country in Iraq, only to return to the United States and find out his country had placed him on a watch list as a possible terrorist.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/politi...h_list_trips_up_marines_homecoming/index.html


So let me get this straight.
We let known terrorists into the country - who *gasp* commit terrorist acts, who knew!?!?!
Yet we give a vet returning from Iraq a hard time?

Sorry if my faith in that system is a little shakey....

Be advised, I am also playing a slight role of devil's advocate - but I do believe there's some legit questions/concerns here...
 
Yea, cause we all know how great a job they do!

I also should revise this statement - it's not strictly a dig at INS directly... that whole system is a bit... let's just say it could use some improvement...
 
It's always easy to say "know/knew it better".
If you compair the US with other agancies in the world, they are doing qauite a better job.
 
If you compair the US with other agancies in the world, they are doing qauite a better job

On "we do a better job" - Yes and no.
I would have to dig around for it - but there have been instances of people on the terror lists that slip right past our guys, flying internationally, who get stopped on the other end.

As far as "easy" to know/knew better...
Clerical errors are easy... dead bodies - not so much.
 
Folks,

If you do a search on this very site you will see a lot of relevant detail.

This suit relates solely and only to permanent resident aliens who are already federally legally permitted to own firearms

There is an anomaly in WA where previously PRA's could have CCW's but due to some badly written laws are now banned.

This was due to the stupid manner in which the law and agency about the Alien Firearm Licence came to be set up.

Law of unintended consequences at work
 
So, as a good Republican, how does one reconcile a hatred of foreigners with a love of guns?

Next thing you know, folks will be trying to argue that even gay abortion doctors should have gun rights!
 
Last edited:
I am not opposed to extending firearms rights to people who have legally emigrated to this country.
 
Is the RKBA a natural right, inherent in all humans as an extension of the right to self-preservation? Or is it a privilege that the government can extend to, and later take away from, a chosen few?
 
Is the RKBA a natural right, inherent in all humans as an extension of the right to self-preservation? Or is it a privilege that the government can extend to, and later take away from, a chosen few?

I'm not sure that anything which requires a form of man-made tangible hardware can be called a "natural" right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top