Why are non-citizen's allowed to own a gun?

[JLStorm]

I am not against a non-citizen owning a gun, but I am a bit confused by it. If you are legally in this country but not a citizen, you cannot vote, but you can collect social security, you are afforded every other right that a citizen has, including the right to own a gun.

Do you view it as a positive or negative that non US Citizens are afforded the right to own and carry a firearm. Is this a security concern in your opinion? Should this be a right that is only given those immigrants who have worked to attain citizenship?

Just curious.

 

[7six2]

Why not? Not being hostile but Resident Aliens can serve in the Military. I spent 6 years (11B) in the U.S. Army and carried various low / high level security clearances with time spent all over South & Central America during the Reagan years. Intersting times.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Non-citizens are allowed to own guns because people have a right to do so and because the 2A protects that right.

Arguably, voting is the only constitutional right that is given rather than preserved, and it is given only to citizens. For one thing, although voting is an individual right, it does not afford any individual protections. Further, it affects the future when the alien may no longer even be present.

2A rights are inherent to people and are merely preserved. They are an individual right (at least in my view) and protect the individual (in addition to other uses).

While it may be easy to lose one's gun rights, *something* must happen to end an inherent right--like a felony or conservation violations or a record of domestic violence. Simply being an alien is insufficient action to warrant revocation of an inherent right, since it is no action at all, merely a state of being.

Or at least that is my understanding.

 

[Titan6]

JLStorm - You are a bit off base. Non-citizens do not have anywhere near the same rights as citizens. At least not anymore.

220 years ago the founding fathers by and large agreed that the rights outlined in the US Constitution were the rights of all free men. Post 9/11 with the Patriot Act and various other laws on the books non-citizens are no longer afforded the protections in the US Constitution to include the Bill of Rights. Still though, an allowance is made for the 2A. I see that going away sometime in the future after terrorists use legally purchased firearms on an attack on US soil.

 

[ctdonath]

Voting, Social Security checks, etc. are not in (or even implied by) the Bill Of Rights as fundamental, inalienable, natural rights.

Natural right, explicit: right to keep and bear arms for personal and community security - you exist, therefore you have this right recognized in the BoR
Natural right, implied: right to vehicular travel* - you exist, therefore you have this right even though it is not enumerated in the BoR
Organizational right: voting - for our system to work, some people can do this
Entitlement right: social security - the government provides for the general welfare**, some can get something under certain conditions



* - do you think for a moment the Founding Fathers would have said "sure, the state has the power to forbid unlicensed vehicular travel"? It's not enumerated because it was so obvious it wasn't considered. That's the kind of thing the 9th & 10th Amendments cover.
** - I think that's misinterpreted, but that's the current justification.

 

[Sistema1927]

Self-defense is a human right, granted to one by virtue of their being a human being. It matters not what your citizenship is, all human beings, everywhere, have a right to defend their lives.

Unfortunately, there are many governments and societies that attempt to stifle that right, but the Founding Fathers recognized that right and sought to protect it.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I see that going away sometime in the future after terrorists use legally purchased firearms on an attack on US soil.

It has already happened. Mir Amal Kansi was in the US illegally after his one-month tourist visa expired in March, 1991. To stay in the country, he applied (falsely) for amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to illegal aliens who came to America before 1982. Kansi missed the filing deadline for the Amnesty program. To avoid being deported, he joined a class action lawsuit filed by the Roman Catholic Church for aliens that had missed the amnesty deadline. While the lawsuit was pending, Kansi was allowed to get a job and obtain a driver's license. He used the driver's license to legally purchase a semi-auto AK-47. On January 25, 1993, Kansi killed 2 CIA workers and wounded two others outside the CIA headquarters. He then fled to Pakistan.

 

[NCLivingBrit]

As a legal Resident Alien I am thankful for my right to keep and bear arms, one not afforded to me by my birthplace.

For one thing, for my first five years here, my wife (US citizen) and I lived in a -really- crappy neighbourhood. It's a lot easier to sleep surrounded by illegal immigrants, drug dealers and assorted doper scum when you've got an SKS stashed close at hand.

While I can understand not wanting illegal aliens to be armed, but I think those of us who have chosen to come to this country by the correct and legal channels should be afforded the right of self defence. Making us wait until the completion of citizenship may mean a wait of ten years, as the processes for both legal residency and citizenship are long, slow and prohibitively expensive due to the legal representation required to navigate the morass of contradictory and constantly changing documention. After all, legal aid is only provided to illegal aliens, not legal applicants.

I think jumping through the hoops the DHS/BCIS provide more than demonstrates a willingness to both abide by US law and cooperate with the legal authorities, which more than adequately infers (IMO) the correct mindset to be a responsible firearms owner.

 

[saltpepperPA]

"220 years ago the founding fathers by and large agreed that the rights outlined in the US Constitution were the rights of all free men."

Titan, I don't think Anyone could have said it better.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

why shouldnt they?

Non-citizens' rights are also protected by the Bill of Rights. No, they cannot vote, but then again, voting isn't a right.

 

[mjolnir]

"Allowed" or "...should be allowed to..."

This, or similar wording, seems to be spreading all over the culture where it comes to discussions involving ALL of our rights. One implication is that some higher authority decides what we may do or not do....this is a feeble attitude befitting school children, not free men; indeed, this is perhaps pervasive because of the extensive authoritarian indoctrination in our quasi-marxist public schools and mass media.

Another implication is that our rights are subject to debate ("should be allowed"), i.e., if enough of us decide something should not be allowed, we can merely vote on it and erase the offending right...this is of course what happens in a DEMOCRACY, which we are NOT. Rights are not subject to what some majority thinks should be acceptable.

I'm not directing this at the poser of the original question; it's merely a side comment on how common this phraseology has become.

 

[joab]

The question should be
Why shouldn't they be?
They are subject to the same laws, are living the same dream and pay into the same social security system as citizens do.
All while having no say in the political process or legal system

 

[1911RjB]

I have to go with DELTA, and HONORSDADDY on this, any person on US Soil is protected under the constitution and bill of rights when a person moves to the US on a work visa, or school visa, they have the same rights we have, unless there is another law that changes there rights.

 

[MikeH]

If you are legally in this country but not a citizen ... you can collect social security

LPRs can get social security benefits only after paying taxes for 40 seasons. Otherwise, they have to wait until they become citizens.

 

[uk2us88]

Well, I moved here when I was 11-12 years old. I have made it through the school system, signed up for the draft (should it be re-instated) worked my entire working life in the USA. I consider myself more patriotic to the USA than most of my friends that were born here. Only a few keep up with the happenings and non of them bother to vote.

I think I should be able to protect my family should the time come.

Now to fill out the paperwork to become a citizen

 

[MikeH]

Great! Looking forward to one more pro-2A vote.

 

[Technosavant]

The vast majority of resident aliens are good and decent folks taking part in our society in much the same way as we citizens. IMO, there's no legitimate reason to deny them firearms ownership. I can understand not giving them the vote, since they have not completed the citizenship process. But they're paying taxes (hence the Social Security). They're obeying the laws (hence ability to own guns).

IMO, immigrants who follow our laws and take part in our nation are a GOOD thing, and I'm all for as many of those as we can have (ones who violate our laws and cause trouble are something else entirely), but that's a bit off topic.

 

[MD_Willington]

... okay then, how about this.. I work with or on stuff that due to NDA I cannot really tell you about, lets just say that what I work with and if I screw it up, is potentially more dangerous than me owning a single firearm...

As a permanent resident I do have some limited voting rights...

Also as a parent of almost 3 American children, one more due November 11, don't these underage Americans have the right to be protected by their parent, as in I am their proxy as far as defense with a suitable modern tool is concerned.

And I am dead set on becoming an American when I am legally allowed to do so in 2010, and my employer will even cover the cost of it!

 

[Blackbeard]

I think you need to refine your criteria by immigration status. Not all non-citizens are equally "alien". I would think that permanent resident aliens should have full gun rights. Work/student visas, maybe, maybe not. Tourist visas, probably not. Illegals definitely not.

 

[Michigander]

If being a human being is the criteria for the right to self-preservation, then shouldn't even illegal aliens have that right as well?

 

[Blackbeard]

If being a human being is the criteria for the right to self-preservation, then shouldn't even illegal aliens have that right as well?

Do you have the right to self-defense during your own commission of a crime?

 

[Michigander]

Do you have the right to self-defense during your own commission of a crime?

Would it not depend on the crime? I mean, if I'm smoking a Cuban cigar, have I forfeited my inalienable right to self-defense if one were to assault me?

Well, my comments were based upon previous comments such as:

Self-defense is a human right, granted to one by virtue of their being a human being. It matters not what your citizenship is, all human beings, everywhere, have a right to defend their lives.

Non-citizens' rights are also protected by the Bill of Rights. No, they cannot vote, but then again, voting isn't a right.

So then a citizen who is not properly documented does not possess the inalienable right to defend him/herself?

 

[Michigander]

I would like to point out that in PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the following opinion was given:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall . . . 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." Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). 9 [457 U.S. 202, 211]

Expressly stated is that a person's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are protected. Why wouldn't his/her rights under the Second Amendment be protected as well?

 

[AndyC]

So then a citizen who is not properly documented does not possess the inalienable right to defend him/herself?

Sure they do - they just can't legally purchase a firearm in order to do so.

As for me, I'm here legally, pay my taxes, tolls, etc, so I want the benefits of whatever I'm allowed under current law - firearms being one of them.

 

[Gunbabe]

My husband...

is in his first year of his 10 year greencard. He is from England and they cannot carry there. He thinks it is great and takes full advantage of it. He also plans to claim citizenship here as he can't understand people that want to have all the priviledges but can't step up and say yay I'm proud of the move I have made. He loves it here and has so much respect for this country. Carrying is just one more thing that he loves. He has done everything by the books to get and stay here so why shouldn't he be able to protect himself and his family like everyone else? I was against "normal people" carrying guns and thought only the "bad guys" did that. I now own three of my own and hope to add to that.