TexasCHLforum.com

cbr600 wrote:

chartreuse wrote:Precisely. In law, this isn't a Second Amendment matter, it's a 14th Amendment one.

How so? I thought the 14th Amendment said:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

On the other hand, if the argument is based on the "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" clause applying to gun laws, then the same argument says the state can't impose a residency requirement, and tourists have the right to get a concealed carry license. Even tourists from other countries have that right while they're in a state, if equal protection applies.

I disagree with your analysis. Note that the first phrase clearly distinguishes citizens of the United States as those whose "privileges and immunities" cannot be abridged. The latter phrase refers to "any person" and says that they cannot be denied equal protection of the laws". Laws are different from privileges and immunities. In the former case, all the rights and privileges of citizenship are protected. In the latter only equal protection of the laws is contemplated. Tourists visiting the United States would be persons but not citizens and are therefore not guaranteed that the privileges and immunities granted citizens will not be abridged for them.

Katygunnut wrote:I may be slow, but there is a fundamental question that I think I'm missing here.

Does the US Constitution grant rights to only US citizens, or does it also grant rights to people who are not US citizens? If the latter, then exactly who gets US constitutional rights? Do you have to be physically present in the US, or can you get constitutional rights by virtue of being alive (practical considerations of giving US constitutional rights to someone in say North Korea notwithstanding).

I always thought that the US constitution applied only to US citizens and that the framers did not intend for the bill of rights and other provisions to apply to others who were merely located in the US (slaves, British soldiers fighting the war of 1812, Native Americans, etc. etc.). Was I misinformed in my public school education on this point?

I may be wrong, but I think the logic goes like this. Humans have certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure those rights we Americans formed a government designed to interfere with those rights as little as possible and built in all sorts of checks and balances against the natural human tendency to abuse power. Therefore, anyone residing within our borders, citizen or not, is entitled to those basic rights. They are also responsible to abide by our laws. As far as the shades of the law and exactly which rights they enjoy, I think perhaps Charles or another lawyer on the forum could answer better than I.

To put it another way, do you think it would be morally acceptable for us to try and convict a non-citizen without the benefit of a lawyer and a jury simply because they are not a citizen? Or to deny them the right to speak? Or to worship as they saw fit? (Note that I am not referring to people who are in the country illegally. They are lawbreakers and the responsibility of the government.)

AndyC wrote:Well, let's remember the good work that the Texas ACLU in particular has done - they threw their weight behind the change in law a few years ago to allow folks to carry their firearms in their cars, for example.

Those must be rogue elements of the ACLU.

I couldn't help but be struck by the irony of a British citizen fighting for the right to carry a concealed weapon in the US when, if he returned home, those same rights would be completely out of the question.