Quote:
Lawsuit Challenges Kentucky Authority
Thursday, 19 July 2007
ACLU of Kentucky Sues to Protect Lawful Permanent Resident's Right to Carry Concealed Deadly Weapons
LOUISVILLE -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit yesterday challenging a Kentucky statute that prohibits lawful permanent residents from obtaining permits to carry concealed deadly weapons.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Alexander M. Say, a British national who has lived legally in Kentucky for 15 years. During that time, Say has bought several firearms and, according to the lawsuit, never had any problems with an FBI background check or approval process.
Before 2006, Kentucky law would have permitted Say to obtain a concealed carry license. But Kentucky's legislature amended the statutory requirements in 2006, adding that license applicants must be United States citizens. Say's lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the Western District, challenges Kentucky's authority to impose that citizenship requirement.
"The federal government controls whether foreign citizens may live in the United States and on what terms," said Jack Harrison, an ACLU cooperating attorney handling Say's case. Because there are no federal laws that require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for an application for or the issuance of a license to purchase, carry, transport, or carry a concealed deadly weapon, "Kentucky's law discriminates against people who are lawful permanent residents," Harrison said.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring the Kentucky State Police and Jefferson County Sheriff --- the two entities that process and can approve Say's license application --- from enforcing the state's citizenship requirement.
While this story isn't all that recent, it is presumably still ongoing. The story is still on the front page of the Kentucky ACLU web page. I have sent an email to this chapter for the official status of this suit. Feel free to post any updates to this if you have the information.
I will watch this one closely for several reasons, most importantly because I have a good friend here in Kentucky who is an outstanding person, a foreigner who owns several guns, but can not get his concealed carry permit simply because he is not an American citizen. I hope for his sake, and the sake of all lawful permanent residents in this state, that the ACLU prevails with this suit.
Flynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1492 times:
Quoting Ilikeyyc (Thread starter): I will watch this one closely for several reasons, most importantly because I have a good friend here in Kentucky who is an outstanding person, a foreigner who owns several guns, but can not get his concealed carry permit simply because he is not an American citizen. I hope for his sake, and the sake of all lawful permanent residents in this state, that the ACLU prevails with this suit.
Miamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
If you are a lawful permanent resident, I do not see why you shouldn't be allowed to obtain a CWP. You deserve the rights afforded to you, that should be one of them.
What I find ironic is the ACLU defending his right, while they oppose guns. But, that is what America is about.
Perhaps it doesn't but as your point seemed to be that this, non citizen legal resident, was somehow not eligible for a concealed weapons permit because he was not a member of a "well regulated militia", my counterpoint was.. what percentage of those citizens of the USA with a concealed weapons permit are members of a so called "well regulated militia"
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Agill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1467 times:
Quoting Flynavy (Reply 2):
Is he a member of a well-regulated militia?
Well your says that "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.", it doesn't say that you can only have guns if you are in a militia does it?
CupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 831 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1464 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 6): Perhaps it doesn't but as your point seemed to be that this, non citizen legal resident, was somehow not eligible for a concealed weapons permit because he was not a member of a "well regulated militia", my counterpoint was.. what percentage of those citizens of the USA with a concealed weapons permit are members of a so called "well regulated militia"
Cheers
The constitutional right to "bear arms" requires the holder of the "arm" to be a member of a "well regulated militia"
I have posted this question a number of times, but have never received in my mind a satisfactory answer.
How has the term "well regulated" been interpreted (some would say mis-) to arrive at the current state of affairs?
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
CupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 831 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 12): It is not a requirement. The Founding Fathers put that in there as a compromise between several of the people framing the Constitution.
I can accept that "militia" is the entire population
But the "well regulated" part is just ignored????
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788, page 169.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe - 1788.
The Framers intended to safeguard the right of the people to keep and bear arms, possibly even as an end in itself.
But they did not see the militia as an end in itself. They saw it merely as a means to another end: the "security of a free State."
The militia clause is there to remind us that the arms protected by the Second Amendment are "the arms of the militiaman or soldier" It is there to remind us that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security."
A point made by a reader:
"...there is a difference between "giving citizens the right to own guns because it's necessary to be able to form a militia" and "requiring that citizens belong to a militia to own guns." As you know, the Second Amendment states the former and not the latter."
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3537 posts, RR: 28 Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 12): It is not a requirement. The Founding Fathers put that in there as a compromise between several of the people framing the Constitution.
I don't get it - when are you supposed to legislate on what the writers of the Constitution wrote and when are you supposed to legislate based on what you think they (or some of them - what is wrong in a compromise?) wanted to say?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
Agill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1397 times:
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 15): A point made by a reader:
"...there is a difference between "giving citizens the right to own guns because it's necessary to be able to form a militia" and "requiring that citizens belong to a militia to own guns." As you know, the Second Amendment states the former and not the latter."
I can't even understand how it can be read as the second statement, I mean it doesn't say that that you have to be in a militia to have guns, and thinking about the times when the constitution was written it's hard to imagine that the founding fathers meant that all people should be disarmed, especially considering how many of the population that were hunting back then. Of course english isn't my native tounge, so for you english speakers it might not be so strange
Agill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1341 times:
Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 11):
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states
"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"
It does? Where in that statement does it say that it "requires the holder of the 'arm' to be a member of a 'well regulated militia'"?
It only says that a militia is important for a free state, and that the right of the people to bear arms shal not be infringed. Not that to bear arms you have to be in a militia.
Mdorbust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1323 times:
Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 8): The constitutional right to "bear arms" requires the holder of the "arm" to be a member of a "well regulated militia"
I have posted this question a number of times, but have never received in my mind a satisfactory answer.
There is an ongoing thread about the 2A. Your question has been answered there. In short, all American citizens are members of the Constitutional militia by default.
Good for the ACLU.. now if only they would support the right of American citizens to own guns for once...
25 Falcon84: That's what the ACLU is about-protecting Constitutional rights. That's their job. Unfortunately, far too many of our friends, especially on the right
26 Diamond: The gun community may hate the ACLU for a number of their other positions. But they aren't the enemy when it comes to gun issues that many might expec
27 Pyrex: I agree on a point that may or may not be different from yours. Constitutions are just laws a bit more difficult to change than normal laws. They are
28 MDorBust: Yes they are. The ACLU is absolutely the enemy of people who are Pro 2A. Read the part of the statement you didn't underline. Can anyone find me a de
29 Falcon84: Then does that mean those who are Pro 2A are enemies of the rest of the Bill of Rights? Because that's what the ACLU defends-the Bill of Rights. Inte
30 MDorBust: No it does not Falcon. It just means we can not support an organization that is openly hostile to our exercising a right that has been affirmed many
31 Falcon84: I might argue you're only interpreting the 2A to fit what you want it to mean, so you're picking and choosing just like you claim the ACLU does. I do
32 D L X: It shouldn't surprise you. The ACLU is all about pushing government out of interfering with the given liberties detailed by the Constitution. They ar
33 PPVRA: I don't interpret that as a requirement. It's two different things. It does say "right of the people" not "right of the militia" nor the "right of th
34 CupraIbiza: No it hasnt. You made no mention in your answer in regards to "well regulated" Woo Hoo thank you PPVRA. You actually mentioned "well regulated" in yo
35 PPVRA: That probably has something to do with a military, and isn't very specific because there are different ways you can have a military. You can have a p
36 D L X: This is getting further and further off topic, but this has to be addressed. Miamiair, what you are quoting is NOT from the Constitutional Convention
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5427 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 993 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3537 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
