Utah: No More CCH Permits for Foreigners

[Waitone]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/utah_gun_permits/2007/09/26/35818.html

Utah: No More Gun Permits for Foreigners

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:56 PM

Utah has stopped issuing concealed-gun permits to foreigners because of the rising number of applicants and the difficulty of conducting background checks.

"Utah had become the state of choice for people who did not live in the United States but wanted to carry a gun in the country," said Richard Wyss, attorney at the Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigation. State authorities "became alarmed," he told lawmakers Tuesday.

About 1,000 citizens of other countries have permits that allow them to carry a concealed gun in Utah and 30 states that have an agreement with Utah. Most are Canadians; others are from countries including Japan, Switzerland, Aruba, Mongolia, Mexico and the Republic of Congo.

Since 1995, Utah has issued 92,000 permits, 30 percent to non-Utah residents. Applicants typically must show they attended a safety class. Even a blind North Dakota man has one.

Background checks on foreigners were weak because Utah was denied access to records in other countries, but permits were issued if applicants met other requirements, authorities said. Utah now won't renew or issue the permits unless it can do a thorough background check.

© 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Racehorse]

Interesting. My wife is a German citizen with a Utah CC Permit. I'll have to ask her if they did a background check on her in Germany. I know she was required to take a safety class and have a clean record for the time she's been in the U.S.

[Paddy]

The Big Question:  Are non citizens Constitutionally protected?

I say NO.

The 'natural law' libertarian hallelujah chorus will be along shortly.

[Perd Hapley]

Riley, the Framers most certainly observed a distinction between unalienable natural rights and civil rights that stem from citizenship.  I'm pretty sure they put RKBA in the former category.  In other words, they disagree with you.  Those stupid libertarians.   

[Paddy]

Riley, the Framers most certainly observed a distinction between unalienable natural rights and civil rights that stem from citizenship.  I'm pretty sure they put RKBA in the former category.  In other words, they disagree with you.  Those stupid libertarians.   

Gonna need more than your opinion.  Show it in the founder's writings.

[Perd Hapley]

I wasn't giving you my opinion.  I gave you some facts from my memory.  If you don't want to believe them, that's fine.  I don't have all the Framers' writings right here in front of me.  Feel free to look it up. 

[Paddy]

Josh, you're simply wrong. The FF meant America for Americans. They advised against foreign entanglements.
They were not globalists like your pals, Bush, Cheney & Co.   All that was verified, confirmed and restated by
Theodore Roosevelt. 

YOU look it up.
 

[Perd Hapley]

And you're simply changing the subject.  Foreign entanglements?  Globalism?  Way off topic. 

[Euclidean]

Gonna need more than your opinion.  Show it in the founder's writings.

Okay!  I'm bored!  Pay attention the bolding:

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.

People, not "Citizens" or even "Americans".  "People" is the operative word here.  But that's kind of a copout.

Although I believe the best explanation for the intention comes from this quote:

I was extending the right of suffrage (or in other words the rights of a citizen) to all who had a permanent intention of living in the country. Take what circumstance you please as evidence of this, either the having resided a certain time, or having a family, or having property, any or all of them. Whoever intends to live in a country must wish that country well, and has a natural right of assisting in the preservation of it.

So clearly Jefferson had it in mind to extend the guarantee of the RKBA to people like Racehorse's wife despite the fact they're foreigners. 

By the same token, it's clear that he also meant people who receive such protections must have a concrete tie to the United States.

[Paddy]

Great!  Let's kickass and 'democratize' the entire world. Go George! 

Abstract idealism is wonderful, but is isn't reality.  Reality costs blood.

[Edited]

By the same token, it's clear that he also meant people who receive such protections must have a concrete tie to the United States.

heh.  I missed the last sentence.  Exactly.

[Perd Hapley]

If I were Riley, I would find that post quite unconvincing.


Never mind.  Just saw your post, Riles.  We're talking about non-citizens living here in the States, under our laws.  Imperialism and foreign entanglements could hardly apply to this discussion. 

[Paddy]

If I were Riley,

In yer dreams.   

[Paddy]

Never mind.  Just saw your post, Riles.  We're talking about non-citizens living here in the States, under our laws.  Imperialism and foreign entanglements could hardly apply to this discussion.

Agreed.  Anybody on our soil gets treated equally.

[Racehorse]

So, just as an update, I talked to my wife and there was no background check or anything. They took her fingerprints and passport information, but that was it. Given the difficulties in doing background checks with foreign countries, I'm thinking this is a good move.

[Euclidean]

I dunno if this is really good, I am inclined to support any effort to bolster the RKBA, especially subversive ones.

[Hawkmoon]

Josh, you're simply wrong. The FF meant America for Americans.

So you're saying that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do NOT intend that foreigners should:

(a) Have freedom of speech;
(b) Be free from unreasonable search and seizure;
(c) Not be required to domicile troops in their homes;
(d) Not be required to bear witness against themselves;
(e) Be protected against the Government taking their property without compensation;
(f) ... etc.

I think you're off base, Riley. There are many times when I have felt that I wished such-and-such a provision of the Bill of Rights only applied to citizens ... but I don't believe that. I believe that the FF intended for the rights enumerated in the BOR to apply to ALL "the People," not just those who are officially citizens.

[Matt King]

The Big Question:  Are non citizens Constitutionally protected?

I say NO.

The 'natural law' libertarian hallelujah chorus will be along shortly.

In my opinion, the RKBA is a human right. Denying it to others just because they aren't citizens is hypocritical.

[ilbob]

Amendment II
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.

IMO, a good argument can be made the the phrase "the people" is not the same thing as all persons. It would make little sense in context. It seems likely to me that "the people" meant a specific group of people, most likely the citizens of the various states, especially since the same phrase appears in the tenth amendment. Otherwise, the founders would have said all persons have the right to keep and bear arms.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It would be beyond the scope of any reasonable use of the phrase "the people" to think it included anyone not a citizen of one of the states, when applied to the tenth amendment. In fact, one could easily argue that "the people" deliberately excludes certain persons.

Note that amendment 4 uses the phrase "the people". Logically this infers that only citizens are covered by that right, but that amendment 5 uses the phrase "no person", implying that all persons are entitled to the protection of that amendment, including non-citizens.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

.

Note the use of "the people" in amendment 9. Again, it would not be logical to infer that "the people" in that context was the sum total of all humanity.

[Perd Hapley]

Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was not intended as an exhaustive declaration of rights.  In other words, none of your interpretations militate against non-citizens also having those rights. 

[ilbob]

Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was not intended as an exhaustive declaration of rights.  In other words, none of your interpretations militate against non-citizens also having those rights. 

Read the 9th and 10th amendment closely. If the writers meant "all persons" they could have said that, as opposed to "the people". By your interpretation, non-citizens would have the right to vote. Are you in favor of that?

[Perd Hapley]

ilbob, it's not a question of the wordage in those amendments.  We know from the debates, correspondence and other literature of the time that a declaration of rights was understood to be only a partial list.  In fact, many argued against any Bill of Rights on the grounds that it would result in exactly your argument.  That is, "If a right is not listed, then it doesn't exist." 

[ilbob]

ilbob, it's not a question of the wordage in those amendments.  We know from the debates, correspondence and other literature of the time that a declaration of rights was understood to be only a partial list.  In fact, many argued against any Bill of Rights on the grounds that it would result in exactly your argument.  That is, "If a right is not listed, then it doesn't exist." 

It would seem to me that they wrote some limitations into the BOR that you do not like. Once again I ask the obvious question - if all rights apply to anyone who is here, do they have the right to vote? you chose to ignore that question.

[Perd Hapley]

you chose to ignore that question.

So sue me.  I never said that all rights apply to everybody.  As I said earlier in the thread, the Framers believed that some rights were unalienable and inherent in every person.  These were called natural rights.  Civil rights, such as voting, were not inherent, but came with citizenship. 

Or something like that.  I'm no expert on the ideology of the revolution or the Bill of Rights.  I'm still in the early stages of getting there.