ACLU Sues SD over Concealed Carry

[bnc]

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.

Some of us really appreciate little things like that - and absolutely despise like poison what our country of birth has become

It's truly a travesty. Britain is the birthplace of modern, western liberty. I was just about to start listing the great thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment and classical liberalism in England, but it would be cumbersome. I'm sure they have been spinning in their graves enough to bore a hole to straight to New Zealand.

[RPB]

I'm not surprised by it... here's why

1) ACLU lost a HUGE financial supporter not long ago when he passed away (Supplied almost 25% of their income annually I think)

I'm getting daily Spam e-mails from ACLU asking for contributions

They are trying to appeal to Gun owners/Tea Partiers etc etc to enable more sources from which to raise money.

They are NOT doing a "complete turnaround" see their views on other issues http://www.aclu.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From one of the 8 e-mails this week ... "Like so many, the ACLU had to deal with a serious budget shortfall this year"
P.S. I know this email comes on the heels of many messages from the ACLU. Thank you for your tolerance as we worked to gather the year-end support we needed to keep critical efforts moving forward.

2) To the ACLU... It isn't so much a "gun rights" case ... it's a "non-US citizen case"
the state Legislature amended the concealed weapons law by striking a clause... The law currently requires a person be a full U.S. citizen to receive a permit.
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/ar ... 03286.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It just happens to involve whether non-citizens are covered by the Second amendment too, making it more higher profile newsworthy...

The ACLU is trying to increase their pool of contributors
THAT is what the case is "about" (Why they took it) They reject a lot of cases.

[Liberty]

We need to be grateful for any help we get.
The RKBA is a civil liberties issue, and the right to protect our ourselves and bear arms is not and should not be a left vs right issue. The fact that most us lean heavily to the right can interfere with communicating the concept that the right to protect and defend ourselves is a universal right.

A conservative will explain with exhuberance , after a shooting "One less piece of scum to support."
A leftist might better understand." One more Daddy able to go home to take care of his family"
51% support isn't enough we need 99% for the RKBA and can'y let it receive any less respect . than other fundamental rights and freedoms.

[chasfm11]

(snip)
A conservative will explain with exhuberance , after a shooting "One less piece of scum to support."
A leftist might better understand." One more Daddy able to go home to take care of his family"
51% support isn't enough we need 99% for the RKBA and can'y let it receive any less respect . than other fundamental rights and freedoms.

While I agree with your logic, I haven't found success in dealing with Liberals and using that kind of argument. Let's look at NJ where we had to live for 3 years. The officials there don't seem to care if one more Daddy goes home. They are willing to allow the rampant BGs to kill off a few citizens rather than to allow any citizen to fight back. It is a power thing. I cannot imagine the argument that it would take to change their mind.

I've engaged what I call "Florida Liberals" in conversations on a variety of subjects including RKBA. The lady that comes to mind would have restricted burning coal "if just one person in the US had breathing problems because of it." It wasn't a power thing for her at all, she was one of those who was into "feelings" and she had a raft of subjects on which she just didn't feel it was right. She didn't feel that it was right for the LEOs to shoot criminals let alone allow ordinary citizens to do it. She would have willingly turned over any and all of her freedoms to the government.

I've developed some pretty interesting techniques for engaging in conversations with Liberals and I find it fascinating to do it. I hold no hope that I'm going to be successful any time soon in gaining RKBAs converts from those ranks. Perhaps I just not persuasive enough. I figure that the ACLU has about the same chance of consistently supporting RKBA lawsuits.

[Katygunnut]

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?

[baldeagle]

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.)

[galvestonredneck]

I was surprised to see this story. I moved to South Dakota 18 months ago. It is VERY easy to get your plastic here. It took me 17 minutes and 10 dollars at the Sheriff’s office to get mine. A few days later the actual plastic came in the mail. I know they run a background check on you but I thought is was pretty much up to the Sheriff who was approved. It makes me wonder if this guy is someone who has the Sheriff’s attention.

I ask for a copy of the law regarding CC in South Dakota. I was given a little booklet with very little information in it. It is not something that they worry about—LOL

You know, South Dakota is OC state. I wonder if this guy can OC. There is no permit required for OC as far as I know. I have seen very few OC in the town I live in, but it is legal.

South Dakota is very different from more populated states like Texas. Several towns have MUNISICIPLE bars or liquor stores! Lots of things I have seen up here that were a first.

Galveston Redneck
The Cold Texan

[chasfm11]

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.)

I listened to Megan Kelly address this matter on the O'Reilly factor this evening. She clerked for the US Supreme Court. She says that the courts have held that a strong case must be made to deny citizen's rights to those who are here legally, as the UK citizen is. With the exception of voting, a legal non-citizen can do anything that a citizen can.

Maybe a Constitutional lawyer can be more explicit.

[b322da]

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?

This is not a big philosophical problem. The answer is found in the plain wording of the Constitution. It was once an issue, with, for example, James Madison suggesting that non-citizens were not parties to this Constitution -- that they were not members of "We the people of the United States...." who gave birth to the Constitution. He lost, and the Bill of Rights passed in the form we see it today, and the fact that the issue was debated by the framers is "legislative history," if you will, which is not seriously debated any more.

The Bill of Rights speaks in terms of "the people," or "persons." Not having the time to go through the Constitution word by word, nor having time to refer this question to those new members of the House of Representatives who are our new experts on the Constitution, I will stick my neck out and guess that the only "right" not afforded non-citizen residents who are not candidates for national public office is the right to vote. That is, non-citizens are "people," and they are "persons," whether they are legally in the country or not.

For example, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "The right of the people to be secure...." "No person shall be held to answer...." The earlier words of the XIV Amendment have resulted in a little renewed debate on the question, but its last clause settled the debate.

You ask, Katygunnut, another question. "Was I misinformed in my public school education on this point?"

The answer to your question, I'm afraid, is "Yes." I can assure you that you are not the only person so misinformed by teachers who confuse their personal political views of what they think the law ought to be, with what the law really is, and they can cause a whole generation of their students to be misinformed.

Respectfully,

Elmo

[Beiruty]

Permenant residents have all citizen rights except vote, passport.elected position and some restriction on sensitive jobs.

[Purplehood]

Permenant residents have all citizen rights except vote, passport.elected position and some restriction on sensitive jobs.

Sorry, I read that as "some restriction on sensitive jokes". My bad. Had to look at it again. Cleaning up my coffee now.

[Ameer]

I don't need a license or a background check to buy a Koran or a Book of Mormon. I don't need a license to carry one in public, and I can legally carry it out in the open or concealed in my backpack. So can resident aliens, tourists, and my classmates on student visas.

If the Second Amendment protects a right that's not limited to citizens, then following the first, fourth and fifth amendments examples, neither citizens nor resident aliens nor tourists need a license or any other government approval to exercise those rights.

On the flip side, if SD has the authority to license the right, I don't see how the ACLU or anyone else can make a good argument that SD can't limit SD licenses to SD residents who are US citizens.