NRA Lawsuit against Washington State

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I have no problem with this, the more people with guns the better. Heck what are they going to do go start a shooting war with semi ARs..;) Without knowing who is involved here id have to say im for this, no terrorist is going to buy a legal weapon for crying out loud and if some immigrant who is here legally but not a citizen wants a shotgun (or even a AR) why not let them.:)
 
Unless you have backgrounds checks for .GOV clearance, as a LPR I've probably had a more thorough check than anyone here... Local WA, Federal USA, RCMP (Canada), UK (yes I'm dual Canadian/UK citizen)...

Besides, I have 3 American born children, don't they deserve to be protected by their Mother and Father... who happen to be Legal Permanent Residents?
 
Is the RKBA a natural right, inherent in all humans as an extension of the right to self-preservation? Or is it a privilege that the government can extend to, and later take away from, a chosen few?
Click to expand...
I am not convinced it is a natural right. If it is a right, what about people who cannot afford one? Should one be provided at government expense?

I do not believe it to be a natural right on par with freedom of religion and expression, and the general right to self defense.
 
Unless you have backgrounds checks for .GOV clearance, as a LPR I've probably had a more thorough check than anyone here... Local WA, Federal USA, RCMP (Canada), UK (yes I'm dual Canadian/UK citizen)...
Click to expand...
I am opposed to the US allowing its citizens to be citizens of another country simultaneously.

I am in favor of persons legally residing in the US having the same firearms rights as non-citizens.
 
To clear up a few misnomers:

I started the process of getting my wife into this country June of 2007. She got her LPR (legal permanent residence) last month.

1. There is ample time to check out the criminal/terrorist histories. I believe these checks are being done

2. At some point, as another poster said, we are relying on a foreign government. I know for a fact that an affirmative, notarized statement of a crime-free history is a required piece of paperwork in order to get LPR.

3. In order to falsely pass this kind of check, the government in our theoretical terrorist's home country must be sponsoring his terrorism. We know who we believe to be state sponsors of terrorism. I highly doubt we rely too heavily on such government's word when deciding whether or not to issue an immigrant visa.

4. I believe futher investigation is done beyond this good conduct certification. I don't have proof, but it is my belief based on the process as I've seen it.

I understand that false paperwork can be a problem, and that it may be easier to get fakes some places than others. Again, I believe DHS is keenly aware of the problems in such places. What they do (if anything) to effectively combat the problem, I couldn't say. I can say that it is sufficiently difficult for that average person to fake their way through our system that we don't need to concern ourselves too much with it.

Professional terrorists are just that, professionals. They are not the average person, and if they can't get a gun legally, but have the resources to fake their way through DHS, they can probably get a gun illegally if they want. In any case, it would seem guns aren't terrorists favorite weapons these days.

My two cents.

Rmeju
 
Personally - I have to side with Washington on this one. Not to raise the alarms here, but I can think of 19 guys not all that long ago who came to this country legally, and at one point would have passed a simple background check. 19 guys who are PRECISELY the people we do NOT want to have guns on our soil.
As citizens, we have to pass a background check to buy firearms. There is an expectation of accuracy to that system, as all states are operating on the same page, and contributing to the same system in a reasonably reliable fashion. The same cannot be said for foreign countries. To me, it seems this may open the door to allow potentially violent criminals to take advantage of our open society. In the worst case, they could use that openness directly against us.

There is however the possibility, and I can only assume this is the NRA's position - that this could be the beginning of a slippery slope.

The question is - is there a line, and where should/would it be drawn?
Click to expand...

The constitution doesn't say that the bill of rights only applies to citizens. The right to self defense is a basic human right, not an American citizen right.
 
Some points to consider:

1) Washington is the ONLY state to require such additional licensing.
2) The FBI refuses to share background information with any non-judicial agency.
3) The FBI told the Legislature how to fix the problem and the Legislature did so, following their specifications.
4) The FBI refuses to share the background information with an agency designated the way they require such an agency to be designated.

(Are you dizzy, yet?)

Once again, we have the NRA taking sole credit for an action taken jointly with SAF.

SAF, NRA Sue Washington State for Discriminating Against Alien Residents
The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the National Rifle Association, today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the State of Washington, seeking to overturn a state law that discriminates against legal resident aliens who own firearms by violating their Second Amendment rights under the equal protections affirmed by the 14th Amendment.

Read the release announcing the lawsuit.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=281

Read more and download case filings
http://saf.org/legal.action/wa.alien.resident.lawsuit/wa.alien.resident.complaint.pdf
Click to expand...

Pops
 
Fear leads to more regulation and restrictions. So no fear – this is home of the brave.
The case you make could be made against anyone. The Brady website has something along the lines to prevent criminals/terrorists getting dangerous weapons we need an assault weapon ban.


On the other hand no one argues immigrants shouldn’t drive because on purpose they might crash into a group of people.


Why don’t we have the same mindset toward cars as weapons?
 
So human beings have a general right to defend themselves, but no right to the tools to do so? So because a gun is man made you don't have a natural right to defend yourself with one? But you would with a rock...as long as it wasn't shaped or sharpened by a man or machine. And you could use a stick that fell off a tree in a windstorm, but not one that was purposefully cut and sharpened into a spear?
 
So again - the question that no one seems to be addressing...

If we all agree that the constitution does not start and stop with citizenship - what effect does that have on other legal initiatives?
 
One point nobody brought up is, that this law is only for those people who live by the laws anyway, because the "terrorist" and criminals will have their guns, no matter what nationality they are!
 
So again - the question that no one seems to be addressing...

If we all agree that the constitution does not start and stop with citizenship - what effect does that have on other legal initiatives?
Click to expand...

Just like rights, laws apply to everyone. Not just citizens. Am I misunderstanding your question?
 
ilbob said:
I am opposed to the US allowing its citizens to be citizens of another country simultaneously.

I am in favor of persons legally residing in the US having the same firearms rights as non-citizens.
Click to expand...

I came into the country with dual citizenship already under my belt... who says I'll keep the others once I'm sworn in as a US citizen ??
 
Just like rights, laws apply to everyone. Not just citizens. Am I misunderstanding your question?
Click to expand...

So why then is it acceptable to wire-tap non-citizens, but not citizens?
We can we suspend the rights of certain people in certain places, but not citizens?

By your logic there - given some of the things that go on these days - we should all be very, VERY scared right now.
 
So why then is it acceptable to wire-tap non-citizens, but not citizens?
Click to expand...
It's not. The bill of rights is supposed to apply to everyone.

We can we suspend the rights of certain people in certain places, but not citizens?
Click to expand...
We shouldn't. The bill of rights is supposed to apply to everyone.

By your logic there - given some of the things that go on these days - we should all be very, VERY scared right now.
Click to expand...
Yeah. We should.
 
expvideo:

So then why wasn't there more of an effort made at the time some of these policies went into place to stop them?

If a precedent is set of suspending constitutional rights for the "greater good" of national security, could the same argument be applied to domestic policy?

And just to reiterate, this isn't an attack on ideas or strategies or anything like that. Just a serious question to think about how we approach these issues.
I think perhaps sometimes we look at gun laws in a bit of a vacuum, and in some cases may perhaps miss a bigger picture trend.
 
I know about the so-called Patriot Act, but not in great detail. Are you saying it allows the government to wiretap permanent residents of this country more easily than citizens? I was not aware of that provision.
 
I'm still reading through all the text of the various bills, modifications, amendments, etc (this still will make your head spin from the sheer wordiness of it all).

Some interesting things though. You want to talk about targeting foreign nationals? Check out the amendments to Title V of the Fisa act, under section 215 of the patriot act.

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
Click to expand...

Basically, as I read it - and as i've understood it to be in the past...

If you're an American - you have a first amendment right to say whatever the heck you want. If you're not "A United States Person" however, now saying something that may be disagreeable - can get you investigated big time.

Now, when you combine this with a few other privisions - such as what constitutes a potential threat? Well - any person discussing US Policy of State overseas for one. (read about that one a little bit ago, please don't make me go back and look it up - going cross-eyed as it is).

So - there ya go. You're not a "United States Person" - and say something we don't like, prepare to potentially have your life run through - and oh btw, since this is classified intelligence gathering, we're not required to tell anybody about it...

Imagine if they tried to do that to "A United States Person"?
 
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Click to expand...

Listen to the voices people. The above is what we were founded on and what we believe in. Don't buy the arguments of seperation. Here, we believe in Liberty. Freedom. WE need to get back to those principles.
 
I am opposed to the US allowing its citizens to be citizens of another country simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's make something clear. Some countries DO NOT ALLOW you to renounce your citizenship. For example, if a Canadian citizen becomes an American citizen, ICE will require you to renounce your previous country's citizenship. However, under Canadian law you are NOT ALLOWED to renounce your citizenship for such reasons. The law requires that you notify the previous country of your intent. If there's nothing in their law to allow the renunciation to have any legal effect, what would you want the new American citizen to do? He can go to the Canadian consulates or embassy and yell until they are blue in the face, but they will not allow you to lose your citizenship.
 
Lonnie Wilson said:
However, under Canadian law you are NOT ALLOWED to renounce your citizenship for such reasons. The law requires that you notify the previous country of your intent. If there's nothing in their law to allow the renunciation to have any legal effect, what would you want the new American citizen to do? He can go to the Canadian consulates or embassy and yell until they are blue in the face, but they will not allow you to lose your citizenship.
Click to expand...

! BINGO !


This is what you get to look forward to if you renounce a Canadian citizenship:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/information/applications/renounce.asp

And here it is for UK citizenship
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/givingupcitizenship/

Bottom line, you cannot until someone gets their $100CDN in Canada and £385 in the UK, and all the paperwork is done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
NRA files Second Amendment lawsuits in Illinois and California
Replies
5
Views
589
Cougfan2
C
J
  • Locked
9/4 Washington Post: NRA Finds A Welcome Audience at State Level
Replies
0
Views
329
JohnBT
J
M
  • Locked
NRA Amicus Brief
Replies
24
Views
951
ilbob
ilbob
J
  • Locked
DC wronged by Bush judge
Replies
4
Views
796
foghornl
F
M
  • Locked
Good News on Right to Carry in National Parks
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Fisherman_48768
F
Back
Top