The ACLU of South Dakota filed the lawsuit this week on behalf of U.K. citizen Wayne Smith alleging the state's concealed weapons law is unconstitutional. Smith -- who legally immigrated 30 years ago -- was able to get a concealed license for years, but in 2002 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.Fair enough so far. But here's the pitch...
But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens.WTF? I don't follow the personalities in the lobbyist game - is Pratt so afraid of Evil Brown Peopletm that he's forgotten who fills the account behind his paycheck?
"If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?" Pratt told FoxNews.com.
Pratt says the only reason the ACLU brought the suit is to pave the way for illegal aliens to have conceal carry permits.
"They want to make it so illegal aliens have the same rights as everybody else...every little bit chipping away," he said.
Only citizens have the right to keep and bear arms? You're gonna have to show me where that's written down, Larry. So I know what document to disdain and ignore.
-------------------------------------------
* Yes, you've visited TUAK and Joel isn't bitching about the weather. We're administering pharmaceutical care, and he should be back later with a massive post concerning frostbite and frozen horseshit. Thank you for your patience as we straighten this out. It is, in fact, bloody freezing.
14 comments:
Well, fucknuts. I did not need that piece of Twilight Zone today.
Hopefully something will come along and clear up the stupid, and fast.
I guess Pratt is going on the Republican version of the Constitution, which has "...unless you're not a citizen, in which case screw you" after every restraint on government power.
The GOA actually has an article on their website endorsing Joe "Worst Sheriff in the Country" Arpaio for Homeland Security Chief, so it's hardly surprising that their support for liberty is, well, pretty much nonexistent in reality.
The GOA actually has an article on their website endorsing Joe "Worst Sheriff in the Country" Arpaio for Homeland Security Chief,...
That's very depressing. And also pretty neatly answers my question.
I thought before this that Pratt was OK guess I was wrong. And now that I see that about arpaio I was very definitely wrong.
I'm (or rather have been till now) life member of GOA. Since I'm one of those dstardly furriners Larry doesn't think have any rights, I'm simply gonna ask them to revoke my membership.
It is a sad day: with the death of Aaron Zelmann and uncertainity of the future of JPFO, there seems to be no organization caring for my rights...
OK, I can live with that. As a Groucho-Marxist I should have known better than joining an organization that would have me as a member... ;)
A California appellate court decision from 1972 addresses this issue, where handgun ownership is concerned:
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/rappard.txt
I see no reason why the same logic wouldn't apply to carry rights.
The Rappard case is damned interesting because it marks the only time a high court ever ruled that parts of the original California discretionary CCW permit process were unconstitutional on the basis of discrimination. The Rappard case removed the code section that barred "green card holders" from handgun ownership AND declared them felons if they illegally carried when US citizens would be guilty of a misdemeanor under the same circumstances.
Jim March
I learned the truth about GOA and Pratt a decade ago, during the Bush administration. Basically they gave Bush a pass on anti-gun legislation because he was a republican and anti-abortion.
Pratt also fired Dennis Fusaro because he was making anti-gun state politicians uncomfortable.
http://bit.ly/hBD4g0
Pratt's invocation of a "personality clash" makes it clear that he thinks of GOA as his personal social club. I had been a regular supporter but after corresponding with them over the Fusaro incident I stopped cold.
It's too bad, with the passing of Aaron Zelmann there isn't a gun rights group worth a nickel.
-S
Rights: Life, liberty, property - these are the ONLY "rights" and belong to all human beings.
The "rights" being discussed, such as concealed carry, are state granted PRIVILEGES, not rights - whether or not they should be. Vermont, Alaska and Arizona could easily decide to withdraw their present carry laws. Just because the legislature voted one way at some point doesn't change the fact that they consider this sort of thing to be within their authority to decide for everyone in that state. The feds will do their best to impose whatever it is THEY decide.
"Citizenship" is also a privilege dispensed by the state. A "citizen" is required to give allegiance and tribute to the state to which he belongs. The citizen is the property of the state to which he pledges allegiance. Remember: ownership equals control. We are owned by others to the extent that they control us.
It makes perfect sense for the state not to extend privileges to non citizens. What doesn't make any sense to me is the idea of being owned by the state in the first place.
Don't confuse rights with privileges granted by the state.
Groups do not have "rights," only the individuals do. And the ACLU has never been interested in anything but manipulating groups for their own purposes.
I've been very disappointed in GOA for a long time.
Pratt also fired Dennis Fusaro because he was making anti-gun state politicians uncomfortable.
http://bit.ly/hBD4g0
Pratt's invocation of a "personality clash" makes it clear that he thinks of GOA as his personal social club. I had been a regular supporter but after corresponding with them over the Fusaro incident I stopped cold.
I won't say I'm surprised to see stories of lobbyists acting like lobbyists. I will say that, after so many years of hearing GOA's praises sung, I'm surprised that this sort of thing has been going on for so many years under my nose and I was oblivious to it.
Depressing. How on earth has our side been doing so much winning? Makes you wonder how utterly dysfunctional the anti's must be behind the scenes, if they can't take advantage of this sort of thing.
I'm sticking w/Pratt on this. If people want the rights of US citizens, then they need to be US citizens. I don't see what's so complex about this issue. Seems to be allot of leftish p____ies around here all of the sudden.
Anonymous -- So you really believe that the inalienable rights spelled out in the BoR -- you know, the rights that existed within our nature before (and often in spite of) any government -- were only given to those of a "U.S. citizen nature"?
Can you explain that to me, please?
I will say, though, that I agree with Pratt in an entirely different sense. Non-citizens shouldn't get concealed carry permits -- because nobody, citizen or otherwise, should have to ask government permission to carry a self-defense weapon.
From David Codrea at War on Guns 01/11/11
"Mr. Pratt is contacting Fox News to correct their misunderstanding," the GOA spokesman informed him. Here's the statement:
As much as I appreciate Fox News, they misstated my position on the Wayne Smith case arising out of South Dakota. So let me break it down:
1. As I have stated all along, I do not agree with what South Dakota is doing in denying the right to keep and bear arms to alien residents. Wayne Smith SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN A GUN!
2. Our fundamental rights do NOT come from government, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution … they come from God. Hence, law-abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed firearms as a matter of right (without permission from the government) and that is why GOA has consistently supported legislation modeled after Vermont’s successful permitless carry law.
3. Aliens living in this country still possess their God-given rights. Note, however, that within our constitutional system of government, some rights of citizenship (such as the right to vote) are fully protected only for actual U.S. citizens. This is, perhaps, where the confusion has arisen. On the one hand, I argued that aliens should not be able to vote in our country. But fundamental human rights such as the right to self-defense as embodied by keeping and bearing arms, on the other hand, SHOULD MOST DEFINITELY extend to everyone, period.
4. As for the xenophobia that some have accused me of because of the misunderstanding relating to Wayne Smith … well, that’s laughable. I’ve been happily married to a Central American immigrant for nearly 50 years -- and I fully support her right to keep and bear arms as much as I support Smith’s … and yours.
-- Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America
http://www.thoughts.com/IndividualSecession101/what-are-rights-anyway
"But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens."
Larry is right, they do, because "citizens" have submitted themselves to the dominion of a government".
Citizen. ..."Citizens" are members of a political community, who...have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the protection of their individual...rights. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 244
Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. ~ Ibid. page 486
Most people will throw a hissy fit and claim that they didn't know they had submitted themselves to the dominion of a government, but now that they know...what will they do? What can they do? Well, here's one possibility.
http://www.thoughts.com/IndividualSecession101/individual-secession
Post a Comment