ACLU challenges citizenship requirement for concealed weapons

[PavePusher]

And another State chapter of the ACLU put the National org. to shame.

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_c4c0ab82-1794-11e0-9ff1-001cc4c03286.html

"ACLU challenges citizenship requirement for concealed weapons


South Dakota’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit against the state Monday hoping to open up the state’s concealed weapon law to all legal U.S. residents.

ACLU officials are seeking an injunction for a Sioux Falls man who was recently denied his concealed carry permit since he is not a U.S. citizen.

In 2002, the state Legislature amended the concealed weapons law by striking a clause that allowed legal residents to apply for permits. The law currently requires a person be a full U.S. citizen to receive a permit."


More at link.

Wooo-hooooo!!! :woohoo: :woohoo:

Good for them, hope they win this one.

[X_Digger]

1. Good to see a state chapter stepping up! n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Are illegal immigrants allowed to OWN a handgun?

It woul be illegal to import one.
It would be illegal to get from an FFL.
Out of state private sale/urchase is illegal.
Is it legal to sell an illegal immigrant a pistol?

can an illegal immigrant even HAVE a handgun?

[PavePusher]

4. I don't think that this had anything to do with illegals.

But, as far as I know, no, they can not.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. This has to do with legal Alien Residents of the United States.

Where's this illegal alien thing coming from?

[Euromutt]

9. The OP says "all legal U.S. residents"

Under federal law, for a non-U.S. citizen to acquire a firearm in the U.S., you need to be in the United States on an immigrant visa (no tourist visa, student visa, H-1B work visa, etc.) or have been granted permanent residency. You can handle a firearm under the supervision of someone not prohibited from acquiring one in the U.S. (e.g. I can take my foreign friends to the range and let them shoot my guns as long as I'm with the guns at all times). You cannot legally transfer a firearm to any foreign national except those in the U.S. on an immigrant visa.

You may possess a firearm if you're a visiting foreign national, if it's a firearm you legally own in your country of residence that you're bringing along for some hunting/sporting event, but you have to have ATF paperwork to bring it into the country, and you can only carry it while participating in that event.

State law is a different matter. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, New York State's infamous Sullivan Laws prohibits any and all non-U.S. citizens (including permanent residents) from possessing any kind of deadly weapon. The state of Washington used to require legally resident non-U.S. citizens to acquire an "Alien Firearms License" to possess firearms, but that was abolished a year or two ago.

[lawodevolution]

11. If you are not here legally you can't possess a gun legally

but most of them can get guns off the black market. In fact the ban on gun ownership on this group of people living in the US helps to create a rather healthy black market of guns.

[slackmaster]

17. No

It's illegal for any person to transfer any modern firearm to a person who is not in the country legally.

[brewens]

3. What do the right-wingers do with this one? To oppose the ACLU

would mean fewer people with permits. Racist teabagger types can't want minority immigrants going around armed, legal resident or not. But they can't be against someone here legally being able to defend themselves, can they? But that would mean supporting an ACLU position!
That popping sound won't be the boys out at the gun club having a trap shoot. It will be the sound of their heads exploding:)

[PavePusher]

5. Believe it or not...

but most of the "right-wingers" I know applaud this and heartily wish they would do more of it. I now lots of'em that are members of the ACLU.

'Course, I may be atypical...

[RSillsbee]

7. I think it's because you're a member

of Gunrightsmedia (formerly THR.us)

[oneshooter]

13. And there is a problem with that? n/t

[RSillsbee]

14. Not at all

but you're more likely to run into some very pro RKBA over there. Even if you go to the dark side (.org)

[spin]

18. Gun control has racists roots ...

as was documented in this amicus curiae brief filed in the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia v. Heller case.

The entire brief is very informative and well worth reading.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Petitioners recite a selective portion of the
history of gun control laws in the District of Columbia,
but omit portions of that history which demonstrate
that the Petitioners’ laws are deeply rooted in a
racist attempt to keep arms out of the hands of the
politically and economically disadvantaged. This brief
will explore the racist history of gun control in the
District of Columbia and throughout the country. It
also will show how the principles of black oppression
via gun control laws of yesterday are used to oppress
the politically weak today via those same, and additional,
laws.

***snip***

II. Gun Control in the United States
The history of gun control in the District of
Columbia closely parallels the experience of the
several states, particularly (though not peculiarly),
the southern states. Gun control was used as a tool to
subjugate blacks.
he simple truth-born of experience is that
tyranny thrives best where government need
not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our
own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament
was the tool of choice for subjugating
both slaves and free blacks in the South. In
Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for
weapons, confiscated those found and punished
their owners without judicial process.
In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised
their right to bear arms to defend against racial
mob violence. Chief Justice Taney well
appreciated, the institution of slavery required
a class of people who lacked the
means to resist.

***snip***

The history of gun control can be summarized as
consisting of four time periods: 1) pre-Civil War bans
either non-existent or applying only to slaves or free
blacks, accompanied by widely-held beliefs (and
appellate court opinions) that all (white) people had
the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms; 2)
immediate antebellum and early Reconstruction-era
civil unrest associated with armed, black self-defense
incidents, and court opinions reversing earlier expansive
views on the right to keep and bear arms; 3) late
Reconstruction/Industrial Age legislation that was
facially race-neutral, ostensibly restricting gun rights
for the first time for the population generally, but
with those restrictions commonly applied only to
black citizens; and 4) mid-20th Century expansion of
application of gun control laws to all citizens, accompanied
by stricter laws generally.

***snip***


CONCLUSION
American history, from colonial times to the
immediate past, is replete with evidence that gun
control has frequently been implemented with a
nefarious purpose of subjugating blacks and other
minorities. Even today’s gun control laws are often
vestiges of, or the continuation of, the nation’s Jim
Crow past. At best, many such laws have greater
effects on minorities and the economically disadvantaged.
As the parties and other amici no doubt will
argue, the Framers put into place a constitutional
guarantee that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed. It clearly was the
intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment
to ensure that this guarantee applied to all people
and against the states as well as the federal government.
This Court should apply the Second Amendment
as it was intended, and eradicate any vestiges of Jim
Crow in the District of Columbia’s firearms laws.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. MONROE*
*Counsel of Record
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
[phone]
EDWARD A. STONE
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacGeorgiaCarry.pdf

[one-eyed fat man]

20. Hey, wait a minute!!!!!!!

I have not heard damn little campaigning against LEGAL immigrants. The ones with real green cards, visas and everything. I have heard a lot of complaints about the ones who sneak in. The ones who sneak in, the ones without legal documents, the one who get their panties all in a twist when you call them what they are, ILLEGAL ALIENS, they are the ones who are not playing by the rules.

I am almost certain that the stereotypes your slinging also shine brightly in your mirror. Not everyone opposed to illegal immigration is a racist. Many who immigrated legally, and certainly many of those who have relatives going through the process to immigrate legally find it difficult to advocate amnesty for the scofflaws who cut the line.

[Callisto32]

8. Wonderful.

I have always (well, maybe not always, but at least since my libertarian conversion in high school) though that the idea that rights are somehow linked to which side of some arbitrary line in the sand is pretty preposterous.

[enough]

10. k&r (nt)

[lawodevolution]

12. Legal immigrants do background checks just to enter the US and although some come from countries

in which the background check itself may be in question, at least it is something.

I see no reason why they cannot get a concealed carry permit as long as their record is clean here and in their home country. I have never seen evidence that legal immigrants commit crime at a higher rate than natural citizens.

[Xela]

15. Good job ACLU.

Nice to hear good news from that front.

Xela

[Atypical Liberal]

16. Bwhahahaahah!

Good stuff. The right-wing pro-firearm folks' heads are going to explode.

[Bold Lib]

22. Please see post number 5.

[Kennah]

19. Legal v. Illegal

I believe under federal law one who is in the U.S. illegally cannot own or possess a firearm.

Here in Washington state, one can obtain an Alien Firearms License. Once you get one, you can get a Concealed Pistol License.
http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faalien.html

[Euromutt]

24. The WA AFL has been abolished

I don't know if you were following those developments, but two or three years ago, the FBI decided that the DoL (which administers AFLs) is not a law enforcement agency, and therefore not entitled to ask the FBI to run background checks. Which meant that the DoL couldn't issue or renew any AFLs and a number of legal permanent residents had to scramble to put their guns in friends' gun safes before their AFLs ran out and couldn't be renewed. Still, the silver lining was that it finally convinced the legislature to do away with the AFL all together, and not before time (given that you have to have a clean criminal record to immigrate in the first place).

[one-eyed fat man]

21. It's right on the 4473

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf

on page 1, question 11(k) "Are you an alien illegally in the United States?

also on page 1, question 15: "If you are not a citizen of the United States, what is your US-issued alien number or admission number?"

There are exceptions for certain non-immigrant aliens who are in the United States legally and the form explains those. There are no exceptions for illegal aliens.

[Euromutt]

23. Good for the SD ACLU

And they're right: this is a Fourteenth Amendment issue, not a Second Amendment one.

Notice, incidentally, that the article says the legislature struck "a clause that allowed legal residents to apply for permits" in 2002. Why do I suspect a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, equating all foreign nationals with terrorists? As if nobody had heard of John Lindh by then...