VBshooter wrote:From the story on FOX ;;;;;The lawsuit was filed this week on behalf of British national Wayne Smith, who legally immigrated 30 years ago, and for years was able to get a concealed license. In 2002, however, South Dakota amended the law, making U.S. citizenship a requirement to carry a concealed weapon. When Smith went to renew his long-held permit last July, he was denied because he is permanent LEGAL RESIDENT, not a citizen.
Technicality yes ;legal to deny him in SD? Yes! Now wether the ACLU is right on this or not ,South Dakota is within it's newly amended law to deny it based on the citizenship requirement, It would be fairer if they allowed grandfathering in ,but they don't so Wayne Smith is gonna have to fight a new law while the ACLU fiddle f&%$'s around trying to gain support instead of doing something tangible for him,.
Look at the big picture. Yes, he is a lawful resident and yes, the South Dakota law was amended to make him ineligible for a concealed carry permit. His case is arguing that SD doesn't have the authority to make that law. That makes it a State's rights question.
The 10th Amendment reserves everything else to the states and the people, so unless they can find something which would require SD to not have a citizenship requirement, SD has that authority. If SD has that authority, then it is a discussion about what SD's Constitution says because the people of SD may never have given the state government that power either. If all of that is true, the citizenship law is legal. However, just because it is legal doesn't make it right. Thus, even if it is legal, I think we should argue against such requirements to exercise natural rights.
Let's take a look at the 1st Amendment. It says Congress shall make no law. It is simple IMHO, Congress shall make no law regulating speech, the press, religion; nor can they set up a regulatory authority to do that either. Those regulatory authorities which do that are extra Constitutional and have no such authority, except that which Congress is willing to use their hired guns to enforce, but that is tyranny. However, does that mean the State's can't regulate those things? No, the 1st Amendment only says Congress shall make no law. The State's did make such regulatory laws concerning speech, the press and religion. You could argue against those laws, but it is a state question, not a federal question. The first question in this case is just that, but for the 2nd Amendment. This is the punctuation and capitalization which was distributed to the States and ratified by them:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is a very different amendment than the First. It doesn't specify Congress or the Federal government at all. It gives a rational and then a ultimatum. Since this is the Federal governments Constitution there is no question it shall not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms (despite the fact it does and enforces it with the barrel of a gun despite having no such authority to do so). It is also clear that any State which ratified it, unlike the First, gave up its ability to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Remember the 10th Amendment reserves those power not given up or delegated, but this doesn't say the Federal government can't infringe like the First. It says the right shall not be infringed period. IMHO, any state which ratified it gave up its right to do so. Any further protection provided of this right provided to the people by the State's Constitutions is further recognition of their inability to regulate it. It is for this and ethical reasons that I fully support Constitutional carry for any lawful person.
Thus, IMHO there are only two remaining questions. Who are the "People" and what is infringement. IMO, infringement is anything which puts a burden on the "People" regarding the keeping and bearing of arms. Thus, the only gun laws we need are those which prohibit threatening to harm another person with a firearm; i.e. brandishing. Actually harming someone or their property is already covered and the weapon type should be irrelevant, so no additional laws are needed. Any law which prohibits or restricts the keeping and bearing of arms is infringement IMO. This doesn't mean violent criminals retain their gun rights though as that is part of the second question, who are the "People."
IMO, the People are any lawful resident of the States. The concept of U.S. citizenship didn't exist until the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. 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.
Until that point, people considered themselves and were legally citizens of the State in which they resided, not the United States. This amendment is the basis for the directly taxing and regulating the people at the Federal level. Thus, the Federal government subsided on taxing only those activities which crossed state borders. By making everyone a citizen of the federation, the People and the States gave up some of their power to the "federation." Not a good idea IMHO. At that point we were no longer a federation of anything, we were one State.
Getting back to the case, the question is does a lawful resident of the United State who isn't a citizen have 2nd Amendment rights? Unfortunately the 14th Amendment is poorly written IMHO. The first part probably doesn't apply to this guy, but the second does. SD can't deny him his due process, which they haven't. The law says X and they followed it. However, he is subject to the jurisdiction and must be given equal protection. The SD law doesn't seem to provide equal protection for all people under its jurisdiction.
Personally, I would love to see a split between the rights of citizens and the rights of all lawful people here. A citizen gets the right to vote, hold office and determine the future of government. All other lawful residents should be permitted to enjoy our freedoms while here. Illegal residents are a different story. They don't respect our laws and they should be deported. IMHO, dual citizenship should not be permitted either and you only become a citizen when at least one of your parents is a US citizen. Anyone who is a law abiding person (this includes our naturalization and work permit laws) should be able to come and participate in our society and enjoy the same freedoms. They should enjoy the same protection we do under the law, but they should have no say in our government, nor should Congress have amnesty powers.
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker
