The Constitution may not protect immigrants' right to buy guns (they can't vote, either) but neither do I see any reason to think that banning permanent residents from buying guns will make us any safer.

Should we allow them to become permanent residents if we do not believe they will behave at least as well as the average citizen? If a person passes that hurdle, and otherwise has no criminal or mental health disabilities, I see no reason to deny them things we allow to similarly qualified citizens.

If such permanent residents want to vote or hold political office, there is another step to take, of course.

I'd vote for letting them buy guns. If you've ever been through the greencard process, you'll go through at least as much vetting and screening to get a greencard as you do to change from greencard-holder to citizen. Of course, validating a greencard for gun purchases, etc opens up another can of worms that would be nice to address, but I'll ignore that one for now.

Speaking as a resident alien, yes, we do have the same needs. But if the right were to extend only to citizens, I'd understand the logic of it and accept that.

Lets not forget a few names from history we were plenty happy to allow guns- Marquis de Lafeyette comes to mind.

I would say 'no'.

Not because I'm uncomfortable with non-citizens owning and carrying weapons, but because I'm worried that the line between citizen and alien is blurred beyond recognition. There seems to be an idea out there that everyone should be afforded the rights of a US citizen, even if they aren't one. Should 'enemy combatants' like Jose Padilla (a US citizen) be handled the same way as other, non-citizen enemy combatants? Should illegals be allowed to vote? Get drivers licenses? Receive health-care? Should they have to pay taxes?

We need to figure out what it truly means to be a US citizen, and why it should actually mean something.

I'm not adequately familiar with immigration laws, but that passage seems to include not only U.S. citizens, but aliens "who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States."

No. No more than should they vote.

I had suggested in the comments to the previous post that resident aliens might be prevented from owning guns for a period of one year in order to make foreign-initiated terrorist plots more difficult (but obviously not impossible). There is also the issue of the length of time that it takes for homeland security to process citizenship applications. If it is taking three years to determine whether or not the U.S. wants them to be citizens, should we be arming them in the interim? A less restrictive approach might be to fix the immigration system.

Just which other constitutional rights would be conditional for legal resident aliens?? - Miranda rights, habeas corpus, free speech, freedom of religion, trial by jury, innocent until proven otherwise, etc. Who gets to choose??

Lou, false question premise. As I understand it, the right to possess of firearms is based on this particular clause in the constitution. That clause is absolutely specific in naming citizens, whereas the clauses setting out other rights are not.

Hence the distinction. There is no slippery slope here.

Of course, the constitution does not prohibit gun ownership by non-citizens, and legislatures can happily pass laws giving them whatever access is deemed appropriate.

The difference is that if the legislature decides to go the other way and restrict the rights of resident aliens like myself to own guns... the US constitution won't help me in the same way it would if they decided to prosecute me for, say, taking an active role in a domestic political campaign (which would get me in real trouble... if I lived in Mexico and was not a citizen).

First, I must say that I am not opposed to gun ownership; for hunting, for self-defense, or even "cuz it's cool".

However, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not ensure the right of the individual to own a gun. US v. Miller and all that . I am sure most people here are familliar.

To get a better understanding of original intent, I would refer you to the Virginia Declaration of Rights . Specifically the 13th enumerated right.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

Does that sound familliar?

I personally appeal to the Nineth Amendment

Try to remember the whole "Well regulated" part of both the 2nd Amendement of the US Constitution and the 13th enumerated right in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

As I understand it, permanent resident aliens and even non-permanent resident aliens (under certain circumstances) may serve and do serve in the armed forces of the United States.

Permanent resident aliens who declare their intention to become citizens belong to the unorganized militia per this federal statute. I suspect that in some states one doesn't even need to declare an intention to become a citizen in order to belong to the state militia.

So the Second Amendment might prevent barring gun ownership by permanent residents who declared an intent to become citizens and even those who didn't.

Moreover, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause bars discrimination against resident aliens absent a showing that it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest. This may be very hard to do, given that we permit aliens to serve in the armed forces and law enforcement and many other occupations. Why would it be any more dangerous or less useful to allow resident aliens to own guns versus citizens.

I think a law limiting gun ownership to citizens would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.

chew2, I think there is a compelling difference between arming a nonresident alien in a civilian versus military setting. A military setting is a highly secured environment, while the very threat of terrorism stems from making the civilian population of a free society fearful. Second, a precautionary waiting period for nonresident aliens would be redundant in a military setting where there will be more extensive opportunities for the government to observe and control.

There was a big grey elephant sitting on the 500 acre Virginia Tech campus; mental illness. It is irrelevant whether or not non-citizens of the United States living legally in this country be allowed to purchase arms.

Cho was evaluated by a trained psychiatrist (M.D.)as someone who had a severe psychiatric illness and diagnosed as a patient at risk of being of harm to himself and others.

Cho should have been immediately suspended from Virginia Tech months ago. The 32 murders were 100% preventable.

LLeo, in fact you are misrepresenting U.S. v. Miller, which does not hold that the right is not an individual's. In fact, if there were no individual right, Miller would make no sense since it assumes such an individual right and only uses the question of militia arms as it analyses whether or not the firearm in question is within the scope of such right.

More importantly there is a lot of scholarship that demonstrates that the language used in the Second Amendment preamble is a justification for the right, not a limitation. Prof Eugene Volokh for instance:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/amazing.htm

Shaw,

Can you show that the risk of misusing a firearm (of which "terrorism" is only a very very minor subset) is any greater for a permanent resident alien versus a citizen. I doubt it.

Volohk, a conservative legal analyst has a post about this issue. He also a brief legal analysis and discusses the equal protection issues.

"It seems to me that resident aliens, at least, and perhaps legal but nonresident aliens, are just as morally entitled to try to defend their lives against crime as citizens; their ability to do so is just as valuable to society as citizens' ability to do so; and they seem no more likely than citizens to use the guns to cause harm. Moreover, in a nation with over 200 million firearms in private hands, it seems highly unlikely that the rare noncitizen with mass murder on his mind will indeed be stymied by laws banning gun possession by noncitizens, and will be stopped from getting a gun on the black market. That unlikely possibility of social benefit is substantially outweighted by the cost of denying millions of law-abiding noncitizens of their ability to effectively defend themselves."

http://volokh.com/posts/1176839943.shtml

Richard Clark, the former terrorism czar, wrote a story that sought to identify the types of homeland security threats the country might face. In this section of the story, he relates a plot by an Iraqi / Saudi group:

The 4.2-million-square-foot mall, located in Minnesota, was globally recognized as the largest entertainment and retail complex in America, welcoming more than 42 million visitors each year, or 117,000 a day. On this day neither the 160 security cameras surveying the mall nor the 150 safety officers guarding it were able to detect, deter, or defend against the terrorists. Four men, disguised as private mall-security officers and armed with TEC-9 submachine guns, street-sweeper 12-gauge shotguns, and dynamite, entered the mall at two points and began executing shoppers at will.

It had not been hard for the terrorists to buy all their guns legally, in six different states across the Midwest. A year earlier Congress had failed to reauthorize the assault-weapons ban....

The panic and confusion brought on by the terrorists' opening volleys led many shoppers to run away from one pair of murderers and into the path of the other, leading to more carnage. Two off-duty police officers were cited for bravery after they took down one pair of terrorists with their personal weapons, before the local SWAT team could get to the scene. Meanwhile, one of the other terrorists used his cell phone to remotely detonate the rental van he had driven to the mall; this resulted in even more chaos in the parking garages. Once the SWAT team arrived, it made short work of the two remaining terrorists. By the time the smoke had cleared, more than 300 people were dead and 400 lay wounded. In the confusion of the firefight the SWAT team had killed six mall guards and wounded two police officers.

Ten Years Later

The SCOTUS has appproved of a citizenship requirement for "peace officers."

Cabell v. Chavez-Salido

Richard Clarke really wrote that? Wow, he's even more worthless than I thought. For the last time (sigh, I wish): the AWB did not ban any full-auto firearms, and it's sunsetting thus did not affect their availability by one iota.