Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
God Bless The ACLU And The 2nd Amendment!  
User currently offlineIlikeyyc From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 20
Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2209 times:

http://aclu-ky.org/

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.


Fighting Absurdity with Absurdity!
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

You should pose this question in this thread.  Smile

http://www.de.airliners.net/discussi...ns/non_aviation/read.main/1805211/


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2140 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.

Is he a member of a well-regulated militia?

Didn't think so.

NEXT.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 2):
Is he a member of a well-regulated militia?

Didn't think so.

And the % of concealed permit holders in the US that are is??

Thought so!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2132 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 3):
And the % of concealed permit holders in the US that are is??

I'm sorry, that sentence doesn't compute. Try again?


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2127 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.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 4):
I'm sorry, that sentence doesn't compute. Try again?

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!
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2115 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?


User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2112 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?
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2103 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"

Not a requirement. Wait until next month when the Supreme Court decides a case before it.


User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2101 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"

Where does it say that? It would seem like a pretty big infringement of the right to be honnest?


User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2090 times:



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 9):
Not a requirement. Wait until next month when the Supreme Court decides a case before it.

How is it not a requirement? This is what I mean. I ask this question and get (whilst well meaning) very vague wishy washy answers.

Quoting Agill (Reply 10):
Where does it say that?

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"

Quoting Agill (Reply 10):
It would seem like a pretty big infringement of the right to be honnest?

Thats what I am trying to get the bottom of!



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2088 times:



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 11):
How is it not a requirement?

It is not a requirement. The Founding Fathers put that in there as a compromise between several of the people framing the Constitution.


User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2079 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?
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2070 times:



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 13):

This is what it boils down to:

"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."


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2066 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 4):



Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 13):

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."


User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2063 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 2):
Is he a member of a well-regulated militia?

Didn't think so.

Define "well regulated militia"

Don't bother. Lawyers with far more education and better credentials than you have been trying for probably 100 years and haven't been successful.

The funny part to me is- the people who wrote the second amendment were at one point British citizens.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3928 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2065 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!
User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

Thanks for that.
However I have no issue with the "militia" part.

Its the "well regulated" part that I cant get my head around



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2045 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  Smile


User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2034 times:



Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 16):
Don't bother.

Hmm might have to give up I think....

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 16):
wrote the second amendment were at one point British citizens.

... and add this to the list of things to blame on the Brits



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

Joe Schmoe certainly isn't a "well regulated militia" in and of himself.

I'm not saying that a average, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen doesn't have the right to defend his or herself; in fact, I support that right.

What I am saying is that said right shouldn't have anything to do with - including supported by - the Second Amendment.

That's just my interpretation of it.


User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1989 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.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1987 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 21):
Joe Schmoe certainly isn't a "well regulated militia" in and of himself.

I don't know about that. I know some people whose arms collections exceeds those of several small nation states.


User currently offlineMdorbust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1971 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
God Bless America During The 7th Inning Stretch posted Sun Oct 19 2003 04:41:07 by Alpha 1
The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 2 posted Wed Jan 16 2008 16:00:35 by Queso
The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1 posted Thu Dec 20 2007 13:23:57 by Queso
God Bless You Tube, God Bless Japan posted Fri Jan 11 2008 17:26:11 by UAL747
Losers Of The Week - The Return posted Tue Dec 18 2007 04:19:55 by Gkirk
From The Left And The Right, Get Your Fists Ready posted Thu Nov 22 2007 16:23:36 by Derico
The Left And The Right Join Forces posted Fri Oct 26 2007 07:20:15 by Cfalk
2nd Amendment Comedy! posted Thu Oct 18 2007 16:35:46 by BHMBAGLOCK
Can The Queen And Monarchy Be Dissolved? posted Fri Oct 5 2007 15:30:37 by Mbj-11
The Rich And Powerful Are Different posted Tue Jul 31 2007 02:39:16 by Halls120