SAF sues New Mexico over legal resident alien CCW permits

[RedBowTies88]

But then where does that leave my brethen who are still here?

I myself cannot leave as I'm tied to family and a family business I'm working for/going to be taking over one day. I can't just up and leave as much as I would like to. No to mention I LOVE where I live...down here in the nice part of jersey right on the ocean where there's not too many people and I have plently of land. Far from the "armpit of america" that most people (accuratly might I add) descibe the most well known part of NJ


I know the easy way out is to move, but thats not the answer. The answer if restoring our right just to that of every other red blooded american. Not simply just "accept" that this is the way it will always be and write off all those dealing with this terrible plight.

 

[AH.74]

Then as Don mentioned above, become even more active than you are now. If you really and truly want to get something done, maybe just being a member of some groups isn't enough.

You can consider filing a lawsuit. You can consider running for some type of office. I'm sure there are other things as well.

Otherwise, if you're not willing or able to do that, be happy with the things you mentioned and take comfort in them.

 

[RedBowTies88]

The lawsuit I've considered however after speaking with alan gura at an NJ2AS meeting it was not advised at this time.

I don't have the time for public office as was said I'm working on keeping a family business afloat and in this economic culture that makes up nearly all of my time.

I think more of a national focus would help. I don't think that average joe CCW holder in x state in real america understands what it means to be a resident of one of the few that tramples on your rights.

 

[Mike38]

I don't understand why legal residents aliens aren't afforded the same right as citizens to protect themselves and their families.

Are the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution of the United States of America applicable to non-citizens as well as citizens?

As much as I hate to admit it, I really don’t know for sure. Off the cuff, I’d say no. Legal resident aliens may be able to live, work, and play in this country, but they still are not citizens. Do they have all of the same rights as those of us that are natural born, or have applied for and received full legal citizenship?

If so, why? What good would become of gaining citizenship if you already have all the rights of the Constitution?

Should legal residents aliens even be allowed to own firearms if the Constitution does not apply to them? I say no. Get your citizenship!

Someone educate me please.

 

[poptime]

It probably has something to do with these words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...,

 

[Don H]

Mike38,

If Constitutional rights did not apply to non-citizens, then the government could: incarcerate or execute non-citizens without trial or legal representation, bug their hotel rooms and conduct warrantless searches of their possessions or persons at will, throw them in jail if a government agent didn't like something they said, torture them with impunity, etc.

Would this then be a country in which you would care to live? Is this what America stands for?

I think poptime nailed it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You know, I'm happy the SAF is helping to fight for the rights of legal aliens BUT

There are entire states of born and bred american citizens that cannot in any way shape or form legally protect themselves with any kind of weapon. I guess I just feel a little left out, like they could maybe be doing more to help us in the freedom hating states....

Favorable law is getting built for us piece by piece. Every favorable judicial ruling adds to the body of legal principles that will ultimately help clean up the issues in States like New Jersey.

 

[Mike38]

If Constitutional rights did not apply to non-citizens, then the government could: incarcerate or execute non-citizens without trial or legal representation, bug their hotel rooms and conduct warrantless searches of their possessions or persons at will, throw them in jail if a government agent didn't like something they said, torture them with impunity, etc.

It could be argued that all of the above is already happening, to non-citizens and citizens alike. But that’s another topic.

So someone tell me, what benefit is there to becoming a citizen if all Constitutional rights should be given to all persons that happen to be standing on U.S. soil? Maybe this is why no one bothers to become U.S. citizens?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for immigration. LEGAL immigration.

 

[Frank Ettin]

One might want to become a citizen in order to be able to vote and more fully participate in the business and live of our nation. Through out our history so many people have chosen to become part of the United States, not just a guest.

 

[MLeake]

Mike38, a couple of thoughts:

One immediate difference between a citizen and a non-citizen is that the non-citizen can potentially be deported for relatively minor infractions.

As a corollary to that thought, the non-citizen has to regularly re-apply to remain in the US. I have a non-citizen friend who is married to a US citizen, and he has to do regular interviews with US immigrations officers to renew his green card and maintain his ability to work in the US. It's possible, though unlikely, that he could have either or both permissions denied by some bureaucrat.

The next thought is that you say you have no problem with "legal immigration." That's what we are discussing - the law in question would bar (or the court case might allow) lawful resident aliens (like my friend) to obtain NM permits. (My friend is in FL, so it wouldn't really apply to him - though he does hold a FL CCW.)

The case has nothing to do with allowing illegal aliens to obtain permits.

 

[Tom Servo]

So someone tell me, what benefit is there to becoming a citizen if all Constitutional rights should be given to all persons that happen to be standing on U.S. soil?

Natural rights apply to all human beings by default and are irrespective of laws. Those rights are respected for all people on our soil. Certain legal rights are restricted for actual citizens.

That said, general discussions of immigration policy are off-topic for the forum, so let's steer it back on track.

 

[Al Norris]

To get us all back on track and show the validity of the lawsuit, I give you, the 14th Amendment:

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.

I've highlighted the relevant portions, as you can see.

After defining the two types of citizenship, the section then goes on to talk about any person. In particular, any person subject to the jurisdiction of a State.

Lawful aliens are just that type of person that the amendment is about.

The State may not deprive them of their rights without due process of law. Nor may the State withhold the equal protection of the law from lawful aliens.

By providing licenses or permits to lawful citizens of New Mexico, they must provide the same to lawful resident aliens.

Further, by statutory law, the US Government provides to lawful resident aliens the same fundamental rights and protections it affords to US citizens. That law is generally referred to as immigration law and preempts any State law to the contrary (sorry Tom, it is part of the complaint).

The complaint cites three civil rights violations: 1. Violation of 2A. 2. Violation of 14A. 3. Preemption of US Immigration law.

 

[Mike38]

Thank you Mr. Norris, you have educated me.

 

[KyJim]

It probably has something to do with these words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...,

Inspiring words which should always be kept in mind but those are from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. Sadly, our Constitution did not live up to these fine words as it tolerated slavery and contained other vestiges of inequality. The Constitution was a document intended for practical application where the Declaration of Independence was intended to explain the inspiration for our break away from England.

 

[KyJim]

Al has hit it on the head. The applicable provision of the 14th Amendment talks about the right of a person and not a citizen. Since the RKBA is now a fundamental right incorporated by the 14th, it seems obvious that lawful resident aliens are included within its protection. I think the tougher issue is the rights of non-resident legal aliens or even illegal aliens but that's going off-topic.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As a corollary to that thought, the non-citizen has to regularly re-apply to remain in the US. I have a non-citizen friend who is married to a US citizen, and he has to do regular interviews with US immigrations officers to renew his green card and maintain his ability to work in the US. It's possible, though unlikely, that he could have either or both permissions denied by some bureaucrat.

There's something wrong about that. My wife is a "green card" resident alien. Although her original green card said "PERMANENT" in bold letters across the top, it expired one (two?) years after issuance. Once that was renewed, however, "permanent" means "permanent." No renewals, no interviews. And she is allowed to work.

 

[MLeake]

I'm happy for your wife, AB. (Seriously, not sarcastically; it's always nice to come to the end of red tape.) There may be some difference based on jobs, times, I don't know. My friend is an airline transport pilot, so there may be some other issues that come into play (TSA? DHS? Dunno.)

My Dutch friend has had multiple interviews in the past several years. I'm not sure if he has met or will meet a gate where that becomes no longer necessary, but I'll ask him.

(I'm only aware of his interviews because our scheduling office kept screwing up his day off to go to the Federal Building, and he kept having to fix it.)

Anyway, I don't want to veer off into the bushes. But I am all in favor of legal resident aliens having carry rights, just like citizens.

 

[hermannr]

I am also an X green card. I had a green card for 15 years (1955-1970), I don't remember ever having to "renew" it, even when I spent extended periods of time outside of the US.

I also know a Dutch fellow (same guy?) engineer, very inteligent and well educated. He is not here on a real "green card". He is here on a work permit, and yes, the work permits are only good for 3 years, and it has to be for a guaranteed a job that only that person can fill because of some unique training or experience.

This Dutch guy I know is also trying to get a perminent green card. IMHO, today's immigration laws are not for the good of the country, they are for the good of the politically connected.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

To move to other rights, should a resident alien not get a fair trial or be subject to torture?

Human rights would seem to extend beyond tribal designations.

If you were arrested in a foreign country and subject to their laws and subject to torture - would you be OK with that as it is their legal structure?

 

[Tom Servo]

To move to other rights, should a resident alien not get a fair trial or be subject to torture?

Under the spirit (and letter) of our laws, no. The whole idea is that those rights are endowed to all people and are not subject to being "granted" by a government. To reserve them to citizens, or any other sub-class is to invalidate them as natural rights.