I'm am a HUGE Gun advocate.. but is this right?

[-Cp]

Authorities found the receipt for the 9 millimeter handgun in Cho's backpack. They say the bag also contained two knives and additional ammunition for the two guns.

"Legal permanent resident aliens may purchase firearms in the state of Virginia. A resident alien must, however, provide additional identification to prove he or she is a resident of the state."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1

Should aliens of any status be allowed to own guns? Should the 2nd ammendment grant rights to non-citizens?

[Gaffer]

No it shouldn't. They are not citizens so they should not get the benefits of citizens.

[Mr. P]

Authorities found the receipt for the 9 millimeter handgun in Cho's backpack. They say the bag also contained two knives and additional ammunition for the two guns.

"Legal permanent resident aliens may purchase firearms in the state of Virginia. A resident alien must, however, provide additional identification to prove he or she is a resident of the state."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1

Should aliens of any status be allowed to own guns? Should the 2nd ammendment grant rights to non-citizens?

I don't think so.

[Pale Rider]

Authorities found the receipt for the 9 millimeter handgun in Cho's backpack. They say the bag also contained two knives and additional ammunition for the two guns.

"Legal permanent resident aliens may purchase firearms in the state of Virginia. A resident alien must, however, provide additional identification to prove he or she is a resident of the state."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1

Should aliens of any status be allowed to own guns? Should the 2nd ammendment grant rights to non-citizens?

Absolutely, unequivically, NO!

[Gunny]

Authorities found the receipt for the 9 millimeter handgun in Cho's backpack. They say the bag also contained two knives and additional ammunition for the two guns.

"Legal permanent resident aliens may purchase firearms in the state of Virginia. A resident alien must, however, provide additional identification to prove he or she is a resident of the state."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1

Should aliens of any status be allowed to own guns? Should the 2nd ammendment grant rights to non-citizens?

No, and no. If they are not at a minimum a naturalized US citizen, they should not have the right to posess firearms.

[Missileman]

No, and no. If they are not at a minimum a naturalized US citizen, they should not have the right to posess firearms.

I see no reason why law abiding, tax-paying, resident aliens shouldn't be afforded the right to own a firearm for hunting or home protection.

[Gunny]

I see no reason why law abiding, tax-paying, resident aliens shouldn't be afforded the right to own a firearm for hunting or home protection.

I see them not being allowed to own firearms as common sense security measure. Before the US allows you to wield a firearm, you should have to earn the right to it completely.

[Little-Acorn]

It does bring up a tricky question. Maybe non-citizens should have no right to own a gun in this country - let them get their citizenship first. That's a good start as a test for loyalty to U.S. law, though it is by no means complete or thorough, of course.

But maybe due to your shock and grief at the Va Tech mass killing, you folks are forgetting something. The 2nd amendment does NOT grant rights to anyone. It assumes the right to own and carry guns existed long before it (and the rest of the Constitution) was ever written.

Further, it makes no points about some people (citizens, for example) having that right while others (non-citizens, say) don't have it. It simply refers to "the right of the people"... which means everybody, like it or not. And then it says that no one can restrict or take away that right.

You can argue about whether it should say that or not, and that's a legitimate debate whose answer is not clear. But what is clear, is that the amendment DOES say that. Presently, the government CANNOT restrict non-citizens' rights to own and carry a gun in this country. Or citizens either. The 2nd gets violated a lot, but what it says is unequivocal. The 2nd amendment simply and flatly forbids such government action.

SHOULD it say that? Maybe not. But for now, it does say that.

This brings up an even more interesting question. Suppose some guy commits a felony. He is tried and convicted, sentenced, and spends a number of years in jail until his sentence is fully served; and then he is released. Present U.S. law says that he cannot own a gun, even after serving his full sentence.

Does the 2nd amendment forbid the government from banning that convicted felon's gun ownership?

The 2nd does not say "Except by due process of law", as other parts of the Constitution say (see 5th amendment). It says govt can't restrict gun rights, period. Could the Framers possibly have intended for even these convicted felons to keep their guns?

Seems impossible, but keep in mind what the 2nd amendment was for. In the last ditch, it was to make sure that the populace could sufficiently threaten their own government with violent resistance, that the govt would not try to become tyrannical. And if the government became tyrannical anyway, then a lot of government officials would start winding up dead. The 2nd was also there to keep the people able to combat common criminals, but resisting government was its foremost purpose.

Naturally, a government that wanted to gain power to the point of tyranny, would be very interested in disarming its populace. That govt could be trusted to find every excuse under the sun, to take away people's right to own guns. Such a corrupt, unscrupulous government (and there have been many in history) could start making everything a felony, from purse-stealing to spitting on the sidewalk. And then take away people's guns via that mechanism.

Perhaps the Framers felt that the potential threat of a tyrannical government, was worse than any threat of "reformed" felons owning guns (if they're not reformed, then why were they released from jail?). And they wanted to absolutely block out any chance for government to legally disarm its populace. So they wrote the 2nd amendment to be absolute: govt can't restrict or take away firearms rights, even for people who have committed serious crimes in the past and paid for those crimes.

In fact, the Federal law that says past felons can't own guns, is unconstitutional. And there are real reasons why it should be that way, unsavory though they may seem.

And this is true for non-citizens who have been legally permitted to enter and live in this country, owning guns while they're here. If you don't want them to own guns here, you'd better think twice about letting them in in the first place. Because once they're inside this country, the Constitution applies: "The right of the people... shall not be infringed." Period.

Some people think that should be changed. And they have a colorable argument on their side. But I STRONGLY advise against messing with the 2nd amendment. That same potentially-tyrannical government (EVERY government is potentially tyrannical) would dearly love to drive a wedge into the so-far-implacable right of the people.

Don't even think about it.

[Sitarro]

It does bring up a tricky question. Maybe non-citizens should have no right to own a gun in this country - let them get their citizenship first. That's a good start as a test for loyalty to U.S. law, though it is by no means complete or thorough, of course.

I agree, become a citizen that wants to be an Amercan before you participate in the freedoms this Country provides. Other country's citizens should have no more rights than there own country affords them. This asshole who was raised in this country and yet never became a citizen shouldn't have been allowed to be in this country, his allegiance was obviously somewhere else. He had spounged off of this country too long and should have been expelled, he certainly shouldn't been allowed to purchase a gun or ammo. I find it a little strange that he would file down the serial numbers and yet carry the receipt of purchase in his backpack.

[Little-Acorn]

To give the govt authority to restrict the right of a legal resident alien to own a gun, we would have to modify the 2nd amendment. What wording would accomplish this task, WITHOUT leaving the door open to government abuse of its new power to restrict someone's right to keep and bear arms?

[Mr. P]

To give the govt authority to restrict the right of a legal resident alien to own a gun, we would have to modify the 2nd amendment. What wording would accomplish this task, WITHOUT leaving the door open to government abuse of its new power to restrict someone's right to keep and bear arms?

This wording works for me.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the People of the United States" clearly indicates a citizen not a foreign visitor nor a foreign resident.

[5stringJeff]

If you're going to say that a resident (legal) alien's 2nd Amendment rights are limited, then you have to make the argument that their other rights are also limited. So, in effect, legal aliens could not:
- speak freely
- assemble peacefully
- petition the government
- refuse troops to be quartered in their homes
- refuse a search without a warrant
- refuse to testify against one's self
- get a fair and speedy trial by a jury of peers
etc. etc. etc.

That said, I lean towards the abridgement of rights for non-citizens.

[Mr. P]

If you're going to say that a resident (legal) alien's 2nd Amendment rights are limited, then you have to make the argument that their other rights are also limited. So, in effect, legal aliens could not:
- speak freely
- assemble peacefully
- petition the government
- refuse troops to be quartered in their homes
- refuse a search without a warrant
- refuse to testify against one's self
- get a fair and speedy trial by a jury of peers
etc. etc. etc.

That said, I lean towards the abridgement of rights for non-citizens.

Good point, Jeff. But I don't think that extending these rights to aliens is a Constitutional requirement. I need to think about it a bit more. So far I don't find anything that says we must grant rights to aliens.

[5stringJeff]

Good point, Jeff. But I don't think that extending these rights to aliens is a Constitutional requirement. I need to think about it a bit more. So far I don't find anything that says we must grant rights to aliens.

I think we basically agree.

[Nuc]

If you're going to say that a resident (legal) alien's 2nd Amendment rights are limited, then you have to make the argument that their other rights are also limited. So, in effect, legal aliens could not:
- speak freely
- assemble peacefully
- petition the government
- refuse troops to be quartered in their homes
- refuse a search without a warrant
- refuse to testify against one's self
- get a fair and speedy trial by a jury of peers
etc. etc. etc.

That said, I lean towards the abridgement of rights for non-citizens.

Good point, is gun ownership somehow more important or holier than other rights? Rights are in the eye of the beholder. An important right to me might be of lesser importance to you, therefore all rights should have equal measure.