Do Alien gun laws in Washington State violate the Constitution?

[myfaforumname]

I have a post in another part of the forum about the technicalities of this. Basically, due to the way Washington State has chosen to run its licensing program, legal aliens in Washington State can not possess firearms.

Essentially, WA licenses everything through the state licensing agency responsible most notably for driver's licensing. The feds won't do background checks for non-police entities, so the state will not license firearms to aliens. These include tourists, visa holders and green card holders.

The aliens do get full rights under the Constitution such as Miranda rights, rights of free speech, movement, due process, etc, but they basically don't have the second amendment apply to them. I'm wondering if this is technically a violation of the Constitution and if so what can be done about it? If not, why would this not be a violation.

Any legal opinions would be appreciated. Thank you.

[Vladimir]

State's rights.

I believe things like the miranda rights, due process, and other rights we bestow on non-Citizens are basic human rights. They should be bestowed on everyone, in every country, universally.

Gun ownership is not, it is a uniquely American right (no other country in the world has an identical system, some try, but they fail).

Though it does surprise me, as Washington state actually has surprisingly good gun legislation (awfuly good considering Washington State's position politically).

(Have I backed myself into any corners? No. I believe the US Constitution only protects US Citizens, I think we should bestow certain rights upon non-Citizens because we kick ass, and are so nice. Obviously times of war will effect our ability to be nice.)

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

State's rights.

I believe things like the miranda rights, due process, and other rights we bestow on non-Citizens are basic human rights. They should be bestowed on everyone, in every country, universally.

Gun ownership is not, it is a uniquely American right (no other country in the world has an identical system, some try, but they fail).

Though it does surprise me, as Washington state actually has surprisingly good gun legislation (awfuly good considering Washington State's position politically).

(Have I backed myself into any corners? No. I believe the US Constitution only protects US Citizens, I think we should bestow certain rights upon non-Citizens because we kick ass, and are so nice. Obviously times of war will effect our ability to be nice.)

I disagree. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's not an American right--it's a natural right. The Constitution simply affirmed it. Same as all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

[armedandsafe]

This is a knotty question. It comes back to the question of whether performing a background check and issuing a license for ownership of a gun is any different from do ing the same for a particular style of carrying that same gun.

Interestingly enough, some legal aliens in Washington have been issued CPL. THose haven't come up for renewal, yet, that we have heard, so we don't know what will happen at that point.

The sticker, here is that the FBI told the WA legislature that all they had to do was make the licensing department part of the justice system and all would be fine. WA legislature passed such a law. FBI now says that is not good enough and won't honor their previous statement.

We are working on the problem, but it is not going to get resolved very quickly. As some of you are aware, we have an election coming up and things are not going to get pushed until after that. Most of the legeslators are on the side of fixing the problem, but not very interested in working on such a low profile thing just now.

Gun possession is a natural right, recognised in the Constitution as such, and should be available for legal resident aliens.

Pops

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

I disagree. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's not an American right--it's a natural right. The Constitution simply affirmed it. Same as all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

If I recall correctly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Due Process (part of the Bill of Rights obviously) was in fact only guaranteed to US Citizens. Enforced by the fact that the Bush Administration could legally apprehend suspected terrorists without providing Due Process, however, faulting the Bush Administration specifically for his failure to provide a US Citizen, who had been allegedly captured with an al-Qeada unit, with Due Process.

Obviously I am not saying Legal Aliens are on the same level of al-Qaeda lol. But, I think it is a sticky issue which is not clearly defined by the Constitution, nor precedent, which means when in doubt, it should go into the hands of the states.

What about Voting? Is this a right reserved not only for legal citizens?

EDIT: Note, I am not saying legal residents shouldn't be able to purchase guns. I really don't see any problem with it. I just don't see it as a black and white, constitutionally guaranteed right.

[myfaforumname]

Some interesting points. Thanks for everyone's input.

[45nut]

The US Constitution enumerates the rights to US citizens not any joe blow from any 3rd world country. The thinking that everyone or anyone is entitled to rights guaranteed to US citizens is the same liberal faulty thinking that led to the wrong headed decision of SCOTUS to give Due Process to the mortal enemies of our country.

They are POW's and are entitled to the protection stated under the Geneva Convention at best. Since they are not even another countries military, I'm not sure they qualify for that. And anyone that thinks these murderers deserve anything other than adequate food and shelter from the elements are crazy.

Remember 911 people??

Sorry, I ranted a little off topic. Natural Rights are a good thing, but the Constitution is for US Citizens only.

As far as buying guns, I think it is up to the individual States and if the legal aliens pass a background check, then I don't see a problem with it.

[armedandsafe]

Not many of the resident legal aliens with shom I correspond feel badly about having to pass a background and getting a reasonably priced license to possess guns. A few are upset that the background checks they have already passed for history in this country and their country of origin is not enough.

There are two quick solutions to this problem. Have the issuing office transferred from DOL to CLEO,as with the CPL license. Or, have the background check they passed to become legal resident aliens be sufficient.

Either of those solutions would suffice and solve the problems.

Pops

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

Not many of the resident legal aliens with shom I correspond feel badly about having to pass a background and getting a reasonably priced license to possess guns. A few are upset that the background checks they have already passed for history in this country and their country of origin is not enough.

There were things that upset me in Mexico and Eastern Europe. It happens. Like I said I have no problems with legal aliens getting guns. But, the last thing on my mind is whether immigrants are "upset" but rather trivial things. They best get used to the bueracratic and paperwork nightmare anyway.