Should non-citizens be allowed to buy a gun in the US

Should non-citizens be allowed to buy guns?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 30.3%

  • Yes, but only those with greencard or equivalent.

    Votes: 76 39.0%

  • No

    Votes: 60 30.8%
  • Total voters
    195
Status
Not open for further replies.
I bought my first two weapons when I was a green card holder, I certainly do not agree with the statements that you shoud be a citizen...The Army sure as heck didn't care that I was a Green Card Holder when I signed up and then served in GW1.
 
Forget that

The constitution grants the 2nd amendment right to all citizens. If you don't meet this one and only requirement, forget it.

Sorry, that's just the way it works.
 
That is not correct...

See my previous post on this - according to my citizenship test question, "Whose rights does the Contitution protect?", the answer is (according to the INS) - "Citizens' and non-citizens' living in the US".

Bought guns as a green card holder myself.

Sheslinger
 
It's curious to me that lots of people opposed to porus borders with Mexico are all for illegal Mexican's owning guns. Makes me wonder where the line should be drawn.

1) All illegals may pack.

2) Illegals in country for 1 year may pack.

3) Only green card holders may pack.

4) Only citizens may pack.
There are lots of variations in between.

Does the BOR apply to the whole wide world? No, its specific to this country.
 
Does the BOR apply to the whole wide world? No, its specific to this country.
Click to expand...

The folks who wrote the constitution seem to be in dissagrement with you. They considered them to be god-given rights. Do you think that god just gave them to us?
 
About illegal immigrants... seems to be a moot point since they are already breaking the law and could not legally own guns, right?
 
In Switzerland, you need a permanent residency permit ("C" permit) to be able to legally purchase a firearm.

In so far, most folks from the Balkans, Algerians and a few other nationalities are not allowed to possess firearms.
 
Some people seem to be having a hard time with the difference between 'this is the way I think it is' or 'this is the way I'd like it to be' and 'this is the way the Constitution is written'. One is your opinion, and one is fact. Please try to make an effort to distinguish the two. This will help to advance the conversation in a productive manner and put an end to the wheel-spinning.

It would also seem that the 'god-given rights' vs. 'piece-of-paper-given rights' distinction is being either misunderstood or simply ignored by several posters. If you are of the 'no gun rights for non-citizens' camp, please address this issue directly instead of ignoring it, as it would seem to be a pivotal point. This will also help to advance the discussion.

Good point, sheslinger.

- Gabe
 
Please list cites from the framers of the Bill of Rights for this conclusion.
Click to expand...
Byron, this is a bit ridiculous. The FF were the founders of the U.S., not Japan or France. What is the preamble of the Constitution?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Some people seem to be having a hard time with the difference between 'this is the way I think it is' or 'this is the way I'd like it to be' and 'this is the way the Constitution is written'. One is your opinion, and one is fact. Please try to make an effort to distinguish the two. This will help to advance the conversation in a productive manner and put an end to the wheel-spinning.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My opinion is that citizens of any country have the right to limit the full exercise of rights of non-citizens until such time that they have achieved full citizenship. ahenry did a good job of clarifying the fact that when a person voluntarily enters a country, they are not being forced or coerced into giving up certain rights. That is strictly my opinion and I think it would be shared by a good number of Americans and folks on this board. I would also note on this poll shows approximately 72% of the respondants want to either totally prohibit or at least place some sort of restriction on immigrants owning firearms. Now, as to what the law actually allows, I am not entirely clear as to what the requirements are for non-citizens purchasing firearms, or what process for obtaining a green card entails.

Speaking only for Texas lawyers' opinions: Several have said that a storekeeper who forbids CHL folks to carry on his premises does indeed assume legal responisbility for their safety. His action has taken away their means of self-defense.
Click to expand...
I can tell you that that is not the opinion of the AG in Texas as far as criminal law goes, and although you could seek damages in civil court, you would be hard-pressed to win a case that would not be overturned on appeal.
 
I would also note on this poll shows approximately 72% of the respondants want to either totally prohibit or at least place some sort of restriction on immigrants owning firearms.
Click to expand...
The problem with this, rock, is that when you talk about god-given human rights poll numbers do not matter. Again, it would not matter if 99.44% of the US population wanted to deny the right to own firearms to a segment of that popluation. It is a god-given right. It is NOT SUBJECT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I still can't wait to see how you're planning on disarming Lend. Or how about Oleg? There is an elephant standing in your living room that you are doing an amazing job of ignoring. But he's right there.

:banghead:

You also have not addressed the 'god-given rights' vs. 'piece-of-paper-given rights' issue. The preamble you quoted is making the point that the Constitution is the blueprint for creating a gov't. The gov't being created is the gov't of the United States, not Uganda. The part you cited has nothing to do with the issue here. The issue here is: is the right to self-defense a human right or is it granted by the state. Answer the question.

- Gabe
 
I did a little reseach to further clarify this issue:

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.
Click to expand...

and, from the Legal Information Institute:

The fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from abridging "the rights and immunities" of any citizen without due process of law. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as affording citizens protection from interference by the state with almost all of the rights listed in the first eight amendments.
Click to expand...
 
rock jock,

Out of curiousity, suppose a person from Lower Slobbovia, a nation that is a friendly trading partner of the US, decides to spend the summer here in America attending a widget-making course at your local VooTee on a student visa.

In addition to not having the right to defend himself for the duration of his stay, what other rights do you feel he doesn't have? Can we keep him from going to the local Orthodox Slobbovian church? What about if he jay-walks, can we hold him indefinitely without charges? Can the cops beat a confession out of him? Can we prevent him from writing letters to the editor? Ooh! I know! We could quarter troops in his home!

After all, the Bill of Rights only applies to American citizens within our borders, right?

I did a little reseach to further clarify this issue:
Click to expand...

...and a very little research it was, too. Care to show me a court case where it's been stated that lawful visitors to our nation don't have civil rights?
 
I still can't wait to see how you're planning on disarming Lend. Or how about Oleg?
Click to expand...
Gabe, your baiting is so unbeliebably immature. This is the kind of banter one would expect on an elementary school playground. You want an answer? Here it is - I believe citizens have a right to limit the exercise of rights by non-citizens until they achieve full citizenship. The law allows lens to have guns, but I believe that the citizens of this country can limit that right. If that becomes the law of the land, than lens may find that right restricted until he becomes a full citizen. I don't necessarily support that restriction, but I do believe it is within the perogative of the citizens of the U.S. to impose it.
 
Care to show me a court case where it's been stated that lawful visitors to our nation don't have civil rights?
Click to expand...
Care to show me one where visitors enjoy the full and unrestricted right to RKBA, equal to that of citizens?
 
rock jock,

...and now we're back to the Rights of Man being determined by counting snouts.

If the majority can vote to deny lendringser the basic Human Right to self defense, then they can certainly do the same to rock jock.

Care to show me one where visitors enjoy the full and unrestricted right to RKBA, equal to that of citizens?
Click to expand...

Why should that right be different from any other in the BoR? There are numerous court cases upholding a non-citizen's First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights; why should the Second be any different? I thought only Democrat Liberal Socialist Sheeple ACLUers treated the Second as somehow "different" from the rest of the BoR?


You haven't answered my question: can we deny visitors the right to speak and worship freely?
 
If the majority can vote to deny lendringser the basic Human Right to self defense, then they can certainly do the same to rock jock.
Click to expand...
No, I'm a citizen. lens came to this country voluntarily. Believe it or not, I'm glad he's here. But, when you are a guest, you don't don't dictate to the host the terms of your stay.
 
It sounds as if some people on this board believe that not only are Constitutional Rights beyond the will of the majority but also beyond the rule of law as established by courts. Even SCOTUS can't abridge an "inalienable" right. Okay. So you think the Framers wanted a nation that ignored sovereignty, citizenship, and the rule of law? What's next, suffrage for all, regardless of status? (Well, here in CA that dream is coming true.)
 
rock jock,

Well, for starters, your research on the Fourteenth Amendment is interesting in light that the Supremes found in Plyler v. Doe that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment " 'are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction ...' ". (Italics mine)

The INS itself says that the BoR applies to all persons in the United States, citizen and non-citizen alike.

But still, the burden of proof is on you: You made the positive assertion (ie "The BoR only applies to citizens."), therefore you need to prove that. So far, the evidence seems to be against you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Non citizens and body armor?
Replies
7
Views
822
EOTechRulesAll
E
J
  • Locked
Why are non-citizen's allowed to own a gun?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
W
  • Locked
NY Target Shooting for Non-us Citizen
Replies
11
Views
999
wuchak
W
R
  • Locked
Locking up US citizens without a trial or lawyer...
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Marko Kloos
M
C
  • Locked
"non resident aliens cannot shoot at the range"
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
duns
D
Back
Top