Subdeacon Joe Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 ACLU sues over CCW The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a non-U.S. citizen that alleges South Dakota’s concealed weapons law is discriminatory – a legal move that one gun-rights group warns will open the door to arming illegal immigrants. 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. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-a.../#ixzz1B7r4zggJ Suing to ALLOW someone to carry!!! Whoodathunkit?
T. H. O' Sullivan Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Sounds like it's time for Wayne Smith to renounce his allegiance to the Queen, and apply for citizenship. If he qualified for a concealed weapon permit before, he's probably an upstanding member of society already. However, getting the ACLU involved was a mistake. T.H. O'Sullivan Black Mesa Ranch New Mexico
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 If I were to suspect an ulterior motive, I would think the result of a succesful suit would be "The only way to prevent Mr Smith from having a permit is to not let anyone have a permit."
Blasted Cap Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 His last 4 permits were through Lincoln County SD. Lincoln is just south of Minnehaha. Our permits last 4 years so at least 1 previous permit was granted after the law was passed. From the folks I work with the Sheriff in Minnehaha really rakes people over the coals for their permits. In this case he was just following the law. When I go to renew mine in Union County (south of Lincoln) I call ahead and the Sheriff has it waiting for me. Depends on the head honcho. There was also a story in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader about this last week. I lack the computer literacy to post the links so I kept my yap shut for a change.
Badlands Bob #61228 Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Easy fix. Change the law to authorize a CCW for anyone who is a legal immigrant who was born at any longitude north of the issuing agency. That should fix the problem.
Dog Ears Wilson, SASS #77948 Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Do you think the ACLU would've gotten involved if he was a US citizen?
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 15, 2011 Author Posted January 15, 2011 Do you think the ACLU would've gotten involved if he was a US citizen? Likely not. But it is a first step - recognizing the RKBA as an individual right.
Utah Bob #35998 Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Very interesting. Note that the 2A says "the right of the people.." not necessarily citizens. Hmmm
Chantry Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 If I were to suspect an ulterior motive, I would think the result of a succesful suit would be "The only way to prevent Mr Smith from having a permit is to not let anyone have a permit." This might be the state level ACLU, not the National level ACLU. I've been hearing rumors that some of the state level ACLU's have been filing lawsuits or otherwise working to support 2nd Amendment & gun rights.
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 15, 2011 Author Posted January 15, 2011 This might be the state level ACLU, not the National level ACLU. I've been hearing rumors that some of the state level ACLU's have been filing lawsuits or otherwise working to support 2nd Amendment & gun rights. Hmm....sounds as if there is some dissension in the ranks. Do you have any references you could post, please?
T. H. O' Sullivan Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 Very interesting. Note that the 2A says "the right of the people.." not necessarily citizens.Hmmm Bob, that's an excellent point. Keep in mind the opening line of the Constitution says: We the People of the United States.... Note "of the United States". Does this include every person here on a work visa, tourists, etc.? I think the broad interpretation has always been United States citizens. However, we have always given guests, and temporary workers the same rights that we benefit from. And this has created an even broader debate as to how far we should go in offering the same rights that citizens enjoy. At some point it would make no sense for an immigrant to seek citizenship status since he has all the benefits already. T.H. O'Sullivan Black Mesa Ranch New Mexico
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 15, 2011 Author Posted January 15, 2011 Here is a Calguns page on a KY case two years ago: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive...hp/t-92209.html And the NRAILA take on the SD case: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=6111
Chantry Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Hmm....sounds as if there is some dissension in the ranks. Do you have any references you could post, please? Sorry, there are just too many websites that I read to keep track off where I saw something. It was probably middle to late 2010 when I read something about that.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.