Court Rules Legal Immigrants Can Carry Concealed Weapons

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, April 2, 2013

While the debate on restricting guns rages in Congress and state legislatures, firearms advocates are turning to the courts to expand the playing field for carrying concealed weapons—and scoring some victories.

The Second Amendment Foundation won an injunction this week against a New Mexico law that had restricted concealed weapons permits only to citizens, and it went to court in Nebraska to try to halt a similar law there.

{snip}

“There’s an equal protection issue here that people residing in the United States legally should enjoy the same protections that we have as citizens—specifically the right of self-protection,” said Dave Workman, spokesman for the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue, Wash.

In the New Mexico case, a federal court Monday enjoined the state’s law, saying that there is no compelling reason for the state to discriminate against noncitizens in the case of gun ownership.

“The citizenship requirement is overinclusive; it encompasses a large number of noncitizens who, by virtue of their status alone, pose no greater risk of harm to public safety,” Judge M. Christina Armijo wrote.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • I’m ambivalent to leaning against. Mainly because you never know if the criminal justice records from the legal aliens’ home countries are any good, for the purposes of the background check. And also it cheapens the value of citizenship.

    • Veritas_lux_mea

      Agreed, although I don’t really see how the value of citizenship could get much cheaper than it already is in a country where anyone in the entire world can become a citizen simply by having their mother sneak in when she’s 9 months pregnant and pop them out anywhere on our soil, and where the government has granted amnesty citizenship to large groups of law-breaking foreigners 7 times in the last 30 years.

    • I am against. Background checks can not be done on immigrants, as they can on citizens. Again we see the rights of immigrants put before those of citizens. This country hates us.

      • While America’s NCIC isn’t 100% perfect, it is generally trustworthy. Can you trust Belize’s equivalent to NCIC? If it has one at all.

        • Agreed. This is the same with immigrants being able to get credit. There is no international credit reporting agency, so they are automatically good risks.

  • Shattered

    Fascinating. As a law abiding U.S. citizen (where I live), it’s illegal for me to carry one but a foreign born immigrunt stealing an American job can (depending where they live).

  • bigone4u

    Careful, this opens the door to allowing illegals to carrry weapons. Illegals with drivers licenses also puts the camel’s nose in the tent. Once illegals can legally carry weapons and then some of them use those weapons to commit crimes, the libs have another excuse to disarm everyone.

    • The__Bobster

      Just like having a large legal squat monster population opens the door to illegal aliens and their drug cartels..

      • bigone4u

        Are you familiar with the concept of nullification? Legals could be made illegal, right?

    • Daisy

      Oh come on. It’s not the non-whites they’re trying to disarm…

      • bigone4u

        Right you are. The libs mock “”When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” because it’s true. And a whole lot of blacks and browns are outlaws.

  • IstvanIN

    This is another sick decision. We should not only be allowed to, but in fact SHOULD, discriminate between citizens, legal residents, visitors and illegals. Citizenship carries certain responsibilities and should also carry extra privileges and rights. It seems the only thing we white citizens have over immigrants, blacks, hispanics and illegals is the privilege of paying taxes and obeying the law.

    • Bobby

      I hear you brother, although, I swear, calling this decision sick is an understatement. But I sympathize, because it’s hardly possible to know what to call it!!!!The judge should be removed from office immediately, because she is traitor. I notice her name is hispanic, probably Mexican, proving for the milionth time, that, “blood is thicker than water”. Yet still, we allow millions of unassimilated hispanics into the U.S., who are always going to care more about “their own”, than the law. That’s my opinion, formed by several hundred observations.

  • Dave4088

    I’m pro second amendment, but this ruling doesn’t make sense since people living in the U.S. legally, but who are not citizens, should NOT have equal rights. And since about 80% of legal immigrants are from the third world and not that much better than their illegal brethren it can be viewed as working against the collective racial interests of whites.

    • Jon W Hinch

      I am a legal permanent resident here who moved from the UK and I have to pay taxes and obey all laws . I chose to move here for liberty and freedom especially for the right to keep and bear arms . I had my pistols seized by the British government when they banned all pistols and realized it was time to go for the sake of my children . My background was checked before I was considered for residency . I have a permit in WA and am thankful that the SAF got Washington states discriminatory law overturned – in fact I would have moved to another state if they denied my rights . The real issue here is how the immigration system seems to favor the wrong type of immigrants over the right type . ( the 80 % over the 20 %) I intend to eventually become a citizen but it takes many years for us Brits – the residency application took more than 5 to reach permanency . We all agree that only the law abiding obey the law so this ruling only helps the law abiding . Therefore it is only right for all legal residents ,citizens or not , to have the same rights . I am happy that I have no vote until I become a citizen

  • Stentorian_Commentator

    I am in favor of the Second Amendment, and although I do not believe in the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment (it’s a makeweight to make sense out of a pretty nonsensical amendment), I think states should generally not limit handgun ownership. However, no “right” is absolute. To declare there is just shorthand to reflect a longstanding consensus that certain interests, like owning handguns for protection against various enemies, trump others, like what are we letting aliens handle weapons when the gubmint is trying to take away ours? Where there is no consensus, asserting rights as if they are settled is not only assuming one’s conclusion, a basic logical mistake, but just stupid.

    The left is now trying to require that every owner of firearms have liability insurance or face a fine of $10,000, perhaps per uninsured weapon. Another way to limit ownership by the law-abiding. I’m certain it will not be enforced against any of the left’s preferred constituencies.

  • The__Bobster

    “The citizenship requirement is overinclusive; it encompasses a large number of noncitizens who, by virtue of their status alone, pose no greater risk of harm to public safety,” Judge M. Christina Armijo wrote.

    _________

    A large number of legals come from countries where violence is the norm and life is cheap. Of course they pose a greater risk than real Americans.

  • Fed Up

    Whatever happened to those federal gun laws. . . that ONLY American citizens and those who have never been convicted of a felony have the legal right to own weapons?

    • http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-21/national/37915613_1_felons-judge-rules-gun-possession

      A New Orleans judge says a state law forbidding certain felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional in light of an amendment passed last year that makes the right to bear arms a “fundamental right” in Louisiana.

      District Judge Darryl Derbigny’s ruling Thursday sends the issue straight to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which must decide whether the statute infringes on Louisiana citizens’ now-enhanced right to gun possession.

      Can you imagine what is going to happen to this country if SCOTUS would say that Felon-in-Possesion is unconstitutional?

      Have a gander at good old Judge Darryl Derbigny (pronounced Durbin, he must be French).

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaFIOKIcF4M

    • Joseph

      That is not the way that the statutes are written. If you fill out a purchase form i.e. Firearms Transaction Record 4473 it only requires U.S. citizenship -OR- legal resident of U.S. One need not be a birthright nor naturalized citizen to buy or possess firearms under federal law. This is the same as state law where I live.

      The case at hand then only extends the “right to carry” permit process under state law. If a state will not allow citizens to legally carry this does not either. This is a logical, if potentially dangerous extension of the equal protection doctrine.

      It does seem that this would present a conundrum to the race-mixers. How can they be against “equal protection” and still play the friend of those “poor immigrants just trying to make a better life for themselves” who live in crime-ridden swamps of diversity?

  • NYB

    With more Canadians wintering in the Southern U.S., I can see this as an emerging issue. Perhaps a special vetting process for foreign nationals with a compelling reason.

    For temporary farm labor from Mexico, it doesn’t seem like a good idea.

    • Jon W Hinch

      Wintering does not mean legal residency

  • Grim Jim

    If white people had a country of our own, none of this would be happening

    • Jon W Hinch

      I would have moved there instead but it in the USA that the future of the world will be determined . I am pretty sure we would be on the same side !

  • Jefferson rolling in his grave

    I’d bet no poster yet owns a copy of the constitution or declaration of independence and has possibly never read either.
    The premise of America’s founders was that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL (not including farm equipment) and given by the creator God certain rights. This is the important bit. The whole point was that prior to this, God gave more rights to Kings and assorted royalty , and people who were not born of the right family had no rights but only priveledges granted by those of “higher” blood or breeding.
    Now given that all free men have these rights given them by God, we must consider, does God give these rights only to people born in America? Only people who agree to be a UNITED STATES “citizen”? I for one am not a UNITED STATES citizen, because I wasn’t born in Puerto Rico, DC, or a US territory, I’m a citizen of the state of Florida. I would encourage folks to take a look at thier own citizenship status. We have far more power (and options) in the future if we put a bit more emphasis on state citizenship and state sovereignty.
    Of course from here one can argue that the MILITIA is all able bodied men, who are not nuts or criminals, between certain ages, plus any man who has served in the regular armed forces who has been discharged honorably regardless of age. This is not merely a right, but a duty. The militia may be needed to repel invasion, suppress insurrection (against the constitution), or depose a usurper. With this in mind, a man who is a foreign national may or may not have any reason to be in the militia, but I would still defend their God given right to keep and bear arms to the utmost.

    This is the same logic as saying that “terrorists” have no right to due process. What happens when Christians are declared “terrorists”? The precident is incredibly dangerous, since once we establish a method of depriving someone of their God given rights by decree or word games (without due process), we are ALL voulnerable to having our rights removed by a stroke of a pen or decree from on high.
    I’ll take freedom over the false sense of security of some judge saying that immigrants can’t own guns, though I suspect there’s an alterior motive to this ruling, kudos to this judge. In fact I’ll go as far as to say that “registration”, “background checks”, etc. are all infringements of this most basic right of free men. My rights come from God and unless a jury of my peers sees fit, after due process, to deprive me of those rights, I’m defending them to the last.
    God help us if you sheep are ready to throw away your God given rights for the sake of fear of a few brown people.

    • Jon W Hinch

      I have a copy and that’s why I am here . Brought tears to my eyes – wonderful !

  • nobody

    My girlfriend moved here from an Eastern European country when she was a about 13. She holds a green card. She has lived here for at least fifteen years. Let’s say I am a work some night, someone attempts to break into my house, and she uses one of my firearms to shoot the intruder. Can she be charged for this? I am unsure of the laws pertaining to this matter. I do not want her to be defenseless, but I do not want to see her go to Bantu University either. Can anyone possibly clarify this for me? I realize that this is not a forum for legal advice but this has been weighing heavily on my mind.

    • The Wrong Guy

      I’m a 20 year veteran police officer from the State to your north. Short answer, no. Florida has good gun laws similar to my state (I think yall call it the “stand your ground doctrine”). I’m presuming she shoots to stop a threat which a reasonable person would believe likely to cause death or serious injury to herself or a third party.

    • Joseph

      This unfortunately, depends upon the state and possibly the city she lives in.

      N.Y.C. -she is probably going to be charged with some kind of serious “gun crime” because it has happened before many times.

      Wahoo Nebraska – she is within her rights as a legal resident of the state, even if not a “US citizen” to use deadly force in a home invasion and she could do it with a gun she bought herself at the gun store or from a garage sale -assuming she is not a convict, drug-addict, nor adjudicated mentally incompetent.

      Other states – mostly like Nebraska.

  • The Celt

    This is how they increase legaly owned firearm crime statistics,they are trying to fill the law abiding gun owner camp with people more likely to commit gun crimes and then use those statistics against you,this adds a new dimension to what they are doing,the seeds are being planted.

  • Bobby

    Again, we have NOTHING but worthless TRAITORS in high offices including the courts. How many cops have been executetd by illegal alien criminals? I remember one in Denver, one in Arizona, California, and many many more citizens, all because this corrupt government allows millions of people, whom they know nothing about to cross the borders illegally into the U.S. For D.C. American life is cheap.