Should it be legal for foreign nationals to own & carry guns?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Should it be legal for foreign nationals to buy and carry firearms?


    • Total voters
      0

    bingley

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 11, 2011
    2,295
    48
    The thread about the recent IHOP shooting got me thinking: should it be legal for foreign nationals to own and carry guns?

    Under current law, as long as they are in the process of becoming a citizen (have a green card, will naturalize in five years), establish residency in a state, pass the background check, they can buy guns. It doesn't look like there is a clause that excludes them from Indiana LTCH if they meet the criteria above.

    It seems to me there are many ways to look at it. Let me suggest a few:

    - The principle of self-protection. Foreigners living in the US deserve to be able to protect themselves as much as Americans do, as long as they abide by the law. So green card holders obviously should be allowed to buy and carry firearms. What's more, foreign students and others on temporary visas need to protect themselves against criminals also, so let's expand the current law to include most foreign nationals on US soil, again, as long as they abide by the law.

    - The principle of citizenship. Gun ownership is a privilege of US citizens. Foreign nationals shouldn't have this privilege, because they are not covered under 2A. Sorry, green card holders, go buy life insurance instead.

    - Status quo. The logic is that is you are on track to become a citizen, then you can exercise the privileges of citizenship. We like the law as it is.

    What do you think? Please vote and state your reasons! Thanks.

    Da Bing
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    Yes. The right to keep and bear arms is not a mere privilege of U.S. citizens, it is a natural right.
    The fact that others are not protected from the infringement of that right via the 2A is no reason to condone infringement or consider that we are somehow "granted" the right by our citizenship.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    As it currently stands, all people in the United States (for whatever reason) are extended Constitutional protections. I personally believe that foreign nationals should not be entitled to the same privs as American citizens. I vote no. To firearms and almost all other protections, save "cruel and unusual."

    Edit: I am not opposed to another document be generated that explains the rights of foreign nationals, and even allows some the ability to possess firearms, but I 100% disagree with the Constitution being applied to them.

    For example, illeagls that commit crimes should not have a 5th Amendment protection, nor should that have 4th or 6th. They are to be judged by their peers? Well legit Americans aren't their peers. They have a gun in plain view in their car, they're illegal, and they suspected of murder... why is a warrant needed?

    Of course this is dependant on confirming that they are NOT US citizens; first.
     
    Last edited:

    halfmileharry

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    11,450
    99
    South of Indy
    As it currently stands, all people in the United States (for whatever reason) are extended Constitutional protections. I personally believe that foreign nationals should not be entitled to the same privs as American citizens. I vote no. To firearms and almost all other protections, save "cruel and unusual."

    Edit: I am not opposed to another document be generated that explains the rights of foreign nationals, and even allows some the ability to possess firearms, but I 100% disagree with the Constitution being applied to them.

    Agreed
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    It should be legal for everybody to own and carry a gun.

    Because making it illegal sure wont stop them.

    Bad argument. Should child porn be legal since it's prohibition hasn't stoppped the sickos?

    Look at it this way (focusing on the 2nd Amendment). 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. Looking simply at the text, for what reason would a foreign national choose to pick up arms in defense of a "free state," that isn't his own? You, I, and every other American will hopefully fight to defend our nation. But what happens if we lose. What's the foreign national going to say? Oh I know, "Oy comrade, I no Americano, I was just on holiday."

    Kudos to the OP, this is a good topic
     

    Cool Hand Luke

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Bad argument. Should child porn be legal since it's prohibition hasn't stoppped the sickos?

    Look at it this way (focusing on the 2nd Amendment). 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. Looking simply at the text, for what reason would a foreign national choose to pick up arms in defense of a "free state," that isn't his own? You, I, and every other American will hopefully fight to defend our nation. But what happens if we lose. What's the foreign national going to say? Oh I know, "Oy comrade, I no Americano, I was just on holiday."

    Kudos to the OP, this is a good topic

    So they dont have the right to self defense?

    I guess my opinion stems from the fact that I believe that basically anybody should legally be able to carry a gun. I mean you can make it illegal for felons or violent felons all you want, but they are still going to get them. And even if they do get caught with one, they will get 2 slaps on the wrist instead of one in this country.
     
    Last edited:

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    So they dont have the right to self defense?

    I guess my opinion stems from the fact that I believe that basically anybody should legally be able to carry a gun. I mean you can make it illegal for felons or violent felons all you want, but they are still going to get them. And even if they do get caught with one, they will get 2 slaps on the wrist instead of one in this country.

    No, I'm not saying they don't have the right to self-defense. I'm saying the right to it should not be on par with an American citizen; which of course, for us, should be universal. I have the unque situation of have dealt with foreign nations (in a past life..lol), and when the possiility of the them doing time for one of their crimes legitimately arises, and they aren't of a certain diplomatic status, they high tail it home. That gives them sizably more leeway, than the average American citizen. From rapes to battery, and thankfully I've never seen a murder, when it comes time to stand in front of a judge, they are "no shows," and very rarely does host nation get to extradite.
     

    lovemachine

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    17   0   0
    Dec 14, 2009
    15,601
    119
    Indiana
    As it currently stands, all people in the United States (for whatever reason) are extended Constitutional protections. I personally believe that foreign nationals should not be entitled to the same privs as American citizens. I vote no. To firearms and almost all other protections, save "cruel and unusual."

    Edit: I am not opposed to another document be generated that explains the rights of foreign nationals, and even allows some the ability to possess firearms, but I 100% disagree with the Constitution being applied to them.

    For example, illeagls that commit crimes should not have a 5th Amendment protection, nor should that have 4th or 6th. They are to be judged by their peers? Well legit Americans aren't their peers. They have a gun in plain view in their car, they're illegal, and they suspected of murder... why is a warrant needed?

    Of course this is dependant on confirming that they are NOT US citizens; first.

    I totally agree with this.
     

    hookedonjeep

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    833
    18
    With the other Sheepdogs
    Definately no. While the RTKABA may indeed be a human right, in this country, that right is guaranteed to the CITIZENS of this great nation via the Constitution. That being said, I do not believe that foreign nationals should have ANY of our Constitutionaly guaranteed rights afforded to them - if they want the rights, become a citizen; simple as that. If you or I were to go to a foreign nation and take up residence without becoming a citizen of that country, would we be afforded all of the rights that THEIR citizens are?:dunno:
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Under current law, as long as they are in the process of becoming a citizen

    Under Indiana law as long as one has a license to carry from a foreign nation that foreign national is permitted to carry a handgun in Indiana.

    If you or I were to go to a foreign nation and take up residence without becoming a citizen of that country, would we be afforded all of the rights that THEIR citizens are?

    Depends on the nation.

    That being said, I do not believe that foreign nationals should have ANY of our Constitutionaly guaranteed rights afforded to them

    No rights if you are not a citizen? So a tourist from Germany who is accused of a crime should not be given a jury trial? Summary execution in the street? Something in between, a grey zone of rights?
     

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    wow. Not exactly the responses I expected on this forum.

    Sounds like there are plenty here who consider the natural right to keep and bear arms to be a mere privilege after all.

    Seems backward to me to hold the protection of the 2A in higher regard than the RKBA which it guards.
     

    Indy_Guy_77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Apr 30, 2008
    16,576
    48
    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.

    Do the above words ring any bells with anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

    Also, the following is just one of myriad unalienable Rights, as specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, that has been bestowed upon men by their Creator. Keep in mind that, according to the above, ALL men are created equal:

    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.
     

    Hoosierdood

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 2, 2010
    5,360
    149
    North of you
    I voted "yes". I believe that everyone should be able to protect themselves regardless of nationality, citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any number of other criteria that we can use to discriminate.

    As it currently stands, all people in the United States (for whatever reason) are extended Constitutional protections. I personally believe that foreign nationals should not be entitled to the same privs as American citizens. I vote no. To firearms and almost all other protections, save "cruel and unusual."

    Edit: I am not opposed to another document be generated that explains the rights of foreign nationals, and even allows some the ability to possess firearms, but I 100% disagree with the Constitution being applied to them.

    For example, illeagls that commit crimes should not have a 5th Amendment protection, nor should that have 4th or 6th. They are to be judged by their peers? Well legit Americans aren't their peers. They have a gun in plain view in their car, they're illegal, and they suspected of murder... why is a warrant needed?

    Of course this is dependant on confirming that they are NOT US citizens; first.

    I have to disagree with you here. It seems to me that you are assuming that foreign citizens are more likely to commit violent crimes than US citizens. Perhaps this comes as a result of your dealings with ILLEGAL immigrants who are already criminals by nature of them simply being here. The OP did not ask about illegal non-citizens, but asked about citizens of foreign countries as a whole. I believe that non-citizens should be held to the same standard as US citizens. Innocent until proven guilty. I must admit, there are US citizens who i have to shake my head at knowing that they can legally own and carry a firearm. But it is still a right. The same goes for foreign citizens. As long as they apply for a LTCH, go through the process, and submit to a background check...I say carry on.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    The thread about the recent IHOP shooting got me thinking: should it be legal for foreign nationals to own and carry guns?

    Under current law, as long as they are in the process of becoming a citizen (have a green card, will naturalize in five years), establish residency in a state, pass the background check, they can buy guns. It doesn't look like there is a clause that excludes them from Indiana LTCH if they meet the criteria above.

    It seems to me there are many ways to look at it. Let me suggest a few:

    - The principle of self-protection. Foreigners living in the US deserve to be able to protect themselves as much as Americans do, as long as they abide by the law. So green card holders obviously should be allowed to buy and carry firearms. What's more, foreign students and others on temporary visas need to protect themselves against criminals also, so let's expand the current law to include most foreign nationals on US soil, again, as long as they abide by the law.

    - The principle of citizenship. Gun ownership is a privilege of US citizens. Foreign nationals shouldn't have this privilege, because they are not covered under 2A. Sorry, green card holders, go buy life insurance instead.

    - Status quo. The logic is that is you are on track to become a citizen, then you can exercise the privileges of citizenship. We like the law as it is.

    What do you think? Please vote and state your reasons! Thanks.

    Da Bing

    A better question might be, "Should it be unlawful for any free person to keep and bear arms?"

    Yes. The right to keep and bear arms is not a mere privilege of U.S. citizens, it is a natural right.
    The fact that others are not protected from the infringement of that right via the 2A is no reason to condone infringement or consider that we are somehow "granted" the right by our citizenship.

    And this is exactly why I asked the alternative question above.

    As it currently stands, all people in the United States (for whatever reason) are extended Constitutional protections. I personally believe that foreign nationals should not be entitled to the same privs as American citizens. I vote no. To firearms and almost all other protections, save "cruel and unusual."

    Edit: I am not opposed to another document be generated that explains the rights of foreign nationals, and even allows some the ability to possess firearms, but I 100% disagree with the Constitution being applied to them.

    For example, illeagls that commit crimes should not have a 5th Amendment protection, nor should that have 4th or 6th. They are to be judged by their peers? Well legit Americans aren't their peers. They have a gun in plain view in their car, they're illegal, and they suspected of murder... why is a warrant needed?

    Of course this is dependant on confirming that they are NOT US citizens; first.

    Actually, IIRC, being "illegal" has no bearing on your scenario: If a gun is in plain view, whether in a car or even a home, and the person is suspected of murder, a warrant is not needed according to our current law.

    The protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the right of protection from (among other things) self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury? You would make privileges of these? This attitude frightens me from you, more specifically because IIRC, you are a LEO. No sir... As was quoted above, "...all men are created equal..." We have a very special country here... an experiment in freedom, but we as human beings are no more deserving of rights than any other human beings that did not have the fortune of being born within our borders. Let me say that again, slightly differently: America is special and wonderful. It is the first country this world has seen that has taken individual freedom to this level insofar as the respect it is due. It is the first to begin on the path to true liberty. However, individual American people are no better nor worse than any other individual people of other countries: We are all children of our Creator.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    America is an example to the world. Foreign nationals - either our guests, if they are here temporarily, or part of "us" as Permanent Residents - are rightfully entitled to (nearly) all the benefits of our laws, because that is who WE are.

    What is unique to the US is that there really is no "us" or "them." All of "us" are us.

    Think of it this way, foreign nationals are subject to the same penalties - or often even worse, if you count deportation. It is only fair that they receive the same rights.

    IMHO.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    To all those using the "God Give Right" or natural right exemption, you must apply it universally. I would like to point out that holding the strict view of natural rights, basically eliminates the ideal or borders or illegal immigration. So if you are anti-immigration (illegal or otherwise), you cannot use "natural rights" when it suits your purposes.

    Continuing, if you hold that "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness," as cited from the "Declaration," extends to the Constitution, and thus extends to non-citizens, you have no leg to stand on when opposes the immigration (legal or otherwise), of those who seek more life, more liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness as they see fit.

    You should also note, that the Declaration of Independence has no, and should have no bearing on the Constitution. A document that precedes another can't be looked back on for clarification.

    But let's continue with this line of thinking. If foreign nationals are to be extended the same privs as citizens then, for instance the detainees at Guantanamo (American Soil), are being held, and waterboarded in direct violation of the Constitution and should be released... not confirmed enemy combatants, mind you, but the scores upon score of "suspects," (a number of which have already been proven innocent).

    Other questions to consider: Should foreign nationals be able to buy property? Should foreign nationals be able to contribute campaign funds. There are tons of other questions that many are overlooking, but it seems most believe that as long as they don't vote or hold office, then they should have free reign just like every other citizen. The USSC agrees, but I do not.
     
    Top Bottom