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

[Kutnupe14]

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.

That depends. If I show up at the suspect's house, and detain him for questionig, and notice a gun in his car as I walked by, I would certainly need a warrant. If he's been stopped, and it is noticed, I have more leeway.

 

[T.Lex]

... the detainees at Guantanamo (American Soil)...

Gitmo is a bad example. It was selected precisely because it is not American sovereign land. We have a "perpetual lease" for the land. That is specifically why it was chosen. (See? Lawyers can be useful.)

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus, from a practical viewpoint, a different code of laws for non-citizens just gets too clumsy, too quick. Think of all the different legal stuff an LEO needs to think of, then double it to take into account whether the person is a citizen or not. Then, it is a small step to being required to have proof of citizenship on you all the time.

(Oh... wait.....)

 

[bingley]

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.

One problem with this approach is that it's only a thin line between a citizen and a non-citizen during a routine traffic stop. The policeman on patrol is a dictatorship, and you can't win an argument with him on the side of the road. If he should decide that your driver's license doesn't look like you, you look like "you might not be from around here," do you want to lose all the basic protections of the law? (Don't think that if you look Anglo, speak good English, etc., then you are not suspect. What about Canadians? A good number of them don't say "a-boat," you know.)

Imagine the officer from Ohio who threatened to execute the mild-manner gentleman legally carrying. Do you want him to say, "I don't believe you are an American citizen, so now I can actually shoot you"? Then after he kills you for carrying a gun, perhaps he can claim, "What I did was legal because he couldn't prove his American citizenship." Creating a whole class of people without basic legal protection seems to be rather dangerous for the society as a whole. Permitting tyranny against some means permitting tyranny for all.

Now, if we can somehow get around this routine traffic stop situation, we're still faced with the question that Kirk (?) points out: is a German tourist not entitled to a trial by jury, or do we just do summary execution?

Da Bing

PS. Thanks for the correction on who's allowed firearms under current law.

 

[jbombelli]

It sickens me to no end that so many people think our rights, which are universally held by all, somehow should only apply to citizens.

 

[rambone]

Guns are tools, and to treat them separately from other tools is to foster a gun control mentality.

It is not the government's job to tell us which people are "allowed" to own which tools.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Gitmo is a bad example. It was selected precisely because it is not American sovereign land. We have a "perpetual lease" for the land. That is specifically why it was chosen. (See? Lawyers can be useful.)

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus, from a practical viewpoint, a different code of laws for non-citizens just gets too clumsy, too quick. Think of all the different legal stuff an LEO needs to think of, then double it to take into account whether the person is a citizen or not. Then, it is a small step to being required to have proof of citizenship on you all the time.

(Oh... wait.....)

Interesting, is that the only US military installation that isn't considered American soil?

 

[Kutnupe14]

It sickens me to no end that so many people think our rights, which are universally held by all, somehow should only apply to citizens.

Non-Americans do not have the right to vote or the ability the run for public office. My main contention now, is that you follow the Foreign nations should be on equal footing with Americans thinking, you should believe that immigration laws should be done away with.

 

[Errkola]

Only Citizens should have the rights.

 

[T.Lex]

@ KN, re: Gitmo

Interesting, is that the only US military installation that isn't considered American soil?

Probably.

I am not sure. I think most of our foreign bases are subject to some sort of lease or agreement for us to be there. That's why the "host" countries occasionally talk about kicking us out.

You may be thinking of embassies, which are, for diplomatic reasons, typically considered actual territory of the nation they represent.

Gitmo has a truly unique history, that's why I think it is the way it is. It really was ideal for use as a POW prison. It isn't like we have particularly close relations with the host nation, which would have been awkward if we had tried to take them to Japan or something.

Edit:
Also, the proposition of different rules for citizens and non-citizens has a historical ring to it-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

 

[jeremy]

Interesting, is that the only US military installation that isn't considered American soil?

Each base on Foreign Soil depends on how the SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement), Treaties, and Leases are written for each Country.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Kutnupe, you seem to be confusing the "unalienable rights" of all men with "privileges" as it concerns gun control and other rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Voting is a privilege; having a license to drive a motor vehicle is a privilege; the right to self-defense, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to freedom of speech and religion, those are not PRIVILEGES. The idea that the means of self-defense should be restricted, especially in light of the freedoms of the Constitution freely and routinely exercised by everyone in this country, is a little frightening coming from you.

 

[jbombelli]

Non-Americans do not have the right to vote or the ability the run for public office. My main contention now, is that you follow the Foreign nations should be on equal footing with Americans thinking, you should believe that immigration laws should be done away with.

Maybe we should take away ALL their rights. No habeus corpus, no freedom of speech, no protection from unreasonable search/seizure, no right against self-incrimination, maybe non-citizens should have to quarter troops in their homes.

I'm sure you'd be just fine with that.

The fact that you think non-citizens don't have rights means you don't believe in rights. You believe in privileges. You want to know the difference? Rights are held by all men. Privileges are only afforded to some.


Your opinion runs counter to everything this country stands for and makes me ashamed to call you my countryman. You and some others in this thread.

 

[Bill of Rights]

AGREED, it is a GOD given RIGHT....and we must do away with "diplomatic immunity"

And what about our diplomats in their countries? Should they also lose their immunity from prosecution under whatever laws that country has?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not against immigration. I'm against all the bloody handouts that those who are here illegally get by virtue (seemingly) of being here illegally. If they pay in, I have no problem with them taking out (but I'd much prefer none of us pay in to a system instead of taking care of our own needs or seeking private charity.)
As for campaign funds, that's a different issue altogether. Voting and other matters determining the leadership of our country is a privilege of citizenship, not a right of all men.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bingley]

Non-Americans do not have the right to vote or the ability the run for public office. My main contention now, is that you follow the Foreign nations should be on equal footing with Americans thinking, you should believe that immigration laws should be done away with.

1. Rights are not unbounded or unqualified. "Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, otherwise why are we incarcerating criminals, and in some states, even executing them? If you argue the statement that foreign nationals should enjoy the same basic legal rights as American citizens implies immigration laws should be done away with, then you might as well argue that the statement implies all laws should be done away with. In fact, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice" implies that there ought to be no laws at all, including the constitution. All these rights rest upon a social contract where we all agree to abide by the law. Once someone breaks the law, we can consider depriving them of something THROUGH A LEGAL PROCESS.

2. Again, I think the biggest benefactor of indiscriminating application of basic legal rights to all regardless of nationality is the American citizen. Many Americans don't realize how hard it is to prove your citizenship once the authorities (or even people in general) decide to begin doubting your documentation. Try and convince a customs official who is doubting that your passport is genuine. In fact, even if you're the president of the United States, you still may have trouble proving that you were born in the US after you leave your birth certificates, both the short and the long form.

Those who don't believe that foreign nationals on US soil should be afforded the same protection of law, let me ask you: what legal procedure do you propose for, say, a foreign tourist accused of stealing a car? Does he get a phone call? Can he hire an attorney? Does he get a trial? It seems that creating a totally difference legal procedure when there is already one in place, is just asking for trouble and expenses.

Da Bing

 

[The Bubba Effect]

If people are going to be armed, they need to be able to vote. If people are going to be able to vote, they need to be armed.


An unarmed voting public will inevitably come to be ruled through force. An armed voting public can demand compliance with the electoral process.

An armed population which cannot vote is left without the electoral process to seek justice. Denied that civil mechanism, they will be courted more and more to employ their arms in their pursuit of justice.


Or, think of it this way:


If 50,000 armed American citizens gathered in Illinois for three months of camping and hiking, they would be within their rights even if the the government or the general populace got freaked out about it.

If 50,000 armed Chinese nationals gathered in Illinois for three months of camping and hiking, the citizens of The United States would be within their rights to disallow this if they wanted to.

Guests do not enjoy the same rights as Hosts.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

And what about our diplomats in their countries? Should they also lose their immunity from prosecution under whatever laws that country has?

Blessings,
Bill

I would say so. A person who peacefully and voluntarily enters a country should be willing to be bound by the laws of that country.

I understand that diplomatic immunity is an institution that helps diffuse the tensions of espionage and helps with the necessary "grey world" of diplomacy, but I do not care for the institution.

 

[jbombelli]

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Either you believe it, or you don't. It's as simple as that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

If people are going to be armed, they need to be able to vote. If people are going to be able to vote, they need to be armed.


An unarmed voting public will inevitably come to be ruled through force. An armed voting public can demand compliance with the electoral process.

An armed population which cannot vote is left without the electoral process to seek justice. Denied that civil mechanism, they will be courted more and more to employ their arms in their pursuit of justice.


Or, think of it this way:


If 50,000 armed American citizens gathered in Illinois for three months of camping and hiking, they would be within their rights even if the the government or the general populace got freaked out about it.

If 50,000 armed Chinese nationals gathered in Illinois for three months of camping and hiking, the citizens of The United States would be within their rights to disallow this if they wanted to.

Guests do not enjoy the same rights as Hosts.

Unalienable rights are inconvenient, aren't they? But you either believe in them, or you don't. In your latter example, 50K armed Chinese nationals would be surrounded by 15M armed Americans. As long as they behaved themselves in accordance with US laws, there wouldn't be any need to worry about them, would there? And if they did misbehave, how would that be different from an equivalent number of US citizens doing the same? Both groups would have to be brought to account, presumably, for your purposes by use of force.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe, you seem to be confusing the "unalienable rights" of all men with "privileges" as it concerns gun control and other rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Voting is a privilege; having a license to drive a motor vehicle is a privilege; the right to self-defense, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to freedom of speech and religion, those are not PRIVILEGES. The idea that the means of self-defense should be restricted, especially in light of the freedoms of the Constitution freely and routinely exercised by everyone in this country, is a little frightening coming from you.

First off, there is no such thing as an "unalienable right," nor is there such a thing as "natural law," both are social constructs based on religion and/or morality. Meaning, there is no diference between rights and privileges. They both are dependent on who decides what you are capable of doing. It just so happens, that he founders created a document which grants you certain rights which they say they'll protect.

Had the Constitution not been written, those natural rights would be extended to you on the whim of a more powerful person. No where in history has the concept of "unalienable rights," or "natural law" been realized... ever. Even within nature (where this whole natural right mumbo jumbo comes from), there is no parity among species. The strongest, fastest, and most intelligent regularly exert their will upon members of their same species.

Take it for what it is. Rights are given by those with the strength to protect them. Natural rights apply to all correct? And yet there are millions upon millions throughout our history that those rights did not apply. Why was there a hitch in the system? The same people that spoke of natural rights regularly denied them to others.

With that said, all the "rights" you hold dear, are simple "privileges" given to you by the "powers that be," nothing more. It's sobering, but very correct.