Should a non-citizen have the right to purchase firearms?

[forestal]

It appears that Cho Seung-Hui was a permanent resident of the United States, and was able to legally buy the firearms he used to kill 32 students.

<img src="http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070417/capt.e9ffbf83c1be4e679d158b48ace46c9a.virginia_tech_shooting_wx102.jpg?x=320&y=345&sig=56uQvtPk_Fj.2cXkrEnVTw--"?/>

Not even the most hard core 2nd Amendment proponents would say that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms to non-U.S. citizens.

Good god almighty, why should we allow folks who can't be drafted to fight for freedom the right to keep an bare arms???

We need a new law that denies non-citizens the right to purchase firearms.

 

[mrweb]

It appears that Cho Seung-Hui was a permanent resident of the United States, and was able to legally buy the firearms he used to kill 32 students.

Not even the most hard core 2nd Amendment proponents would say that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms to non-U.S. citizens.

Good god almighty, why should we allow folks who can't be drafted to fight for freedom the right to keep an bare arms???

We need a new law that denies non-citizens the right to purchase firearms.

Did I miss the part in the news that said he legally purchased them. The serial numbers were filed off, I don't know where you can legally purchase handguns with filed off serial numbers? Please fill us in on where it said he legally purchased and owned them.

 

[forestal]

Does it matter if he purchased them legally? He still has the right to purchase them as a citizen of Virginia.

The question here is whether or not non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to own firearms.

He probably filed the serial numbers off, banking on that if he escaped, and ditched the firearms, the firearms couldn't be traced back to his legal purchase.

Why the hell would he have a purchase receipt if the guns weren't legally purchased? Who the hell keeps receipts on illegally purchased guns?



Buying a handgun or rifle is relatively easy in Virginia, where a gunman slaughtered at least 30 people at a university Monday, but the state's gun control laws are not the most lenient in the United States.

Virginia laws allow any state resident over 18 to buy a firearm, including assault weapons, if they pass a check of any possible criminal background against state and federal databases.

...
In one controversial loophole, people can buy weapons at second hand gun shows without waiting periods or background checks. Critics of the laws say it allows people to pay cash and take the gun away with no way to track them.

Did I miss the part in the news that said he legally purchased them. The serial numbers were filed off, I don't know where you can legally purchase handguns with filed off serial numbers? Please fill us in on where it said he legally purchased and owned them.

 

[This_person]

It appears that Cho Seung-Hui was a permanent resident of the United States, and was able to legally buy the firearms he used to kill 32 students.

<img src="http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070417/capt.e9ffbf83c1be4e679d158b48ace46c9a.virginia_tech_shooting_wx102.jpg?x=320&y=345&sig=56uQvtPk_Fj.2cXkrEnVTw--"?/>

Not even the most hard core 2nd Amendment proponents would say that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms to non-U.S. citizens.

Good god almighty, why should we allow folks who can't be drafted to fight for freedom the right to keep an bare arms???

We need a new law that denies non-citizens the right to purchase firearms.

By your logic here, non-citizens should not be afforded the rights of the Constitution. Meaning, Elian Gonzales (sp?) should have had his illigal alien butt sent back with no fight. Meaning all of the Gitmo Detainees do NOT have the right to a lawyer nor due process. Meaning all of the illegal immigrants should be completely unprotected and dealt with however a citizen chooses. No one not born here has any rights - I like your logic!

Since you chose not to answer this in the other thread, I'll repost here for your response......

 

[forestal]

Here ya go Bunko, completely legal purchase..

Gun bought legally.

Receipts found in the gunman's backpack allowed authorities to trace one of the two handguns used in the shootings, though the serial numbers for both weapons were wiped clean, CBS News reports. Cho carried a 9 mm handgun and a 22 mm handgun during the shootings, police said.

One of the guns used in the massacre, the 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19, was purchased brand new at a Roanoke, Va. gun shop, Roanoke Firearms, 36 days ago, CBS News has learned.

According to store owner John Markell, Cho paid roughly $570 on his credit card for the gun and a box of 50 rounds of ammunition used primarily for target practice.

Did I miss the part in the news that said he legally purchased them. The serial numbers were filed off, I don't know where you can legally purchase handguns with filed off serial numbers? Please fill us in on where it said he legally purchased and owned them.

 

[mrweb]

Here ya go Bunko, completely legal purchase..

You did miss something

Receipts found in the gunman's backpack allowed authorities to trace one of the two handguns used in the shootings, though the serial numbers for both weapons were wiped clean, CBS News reports. Cho carried a 9 mm handgun and a 22 mm handgun during the shootings, police said.

One of the guns used in the massacre, the 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19, was purchased brand new at a Roanoke, Va. gun shop, Roanoke Firearms, 36 days ago, CBS News has learned.

According to store owner John Markell, Cho paid roughly $570 on his credit card for the gun and a box of 50 rounds of ammunition used primarily for target practice.

I just saw that, I stand corrected.

 

[forestal]

There are many rights non-citizens don't have: they cant' vote, they can be spied upon without warrant, they can be deported without trial....Did you just wake up and realize this bunko?

By your logic here, non-citizens should not be afforded the rights of the Constitution. Meaning, Elian Gonzales (sp?) should have had his illigal alien butt sent back with no fight. Meaning all of the Gitmo Detainees do NOT have the right to a lawyer nor due process. Meaning all of the illegal immigrants should be completely unprotected and dealt with however a citizen chooses. No one not born here has any rights - I like your logic!

Since you chose not to answer this in the other thread, I'll repost here for your response......

 

[forestal]

And I'll admit I didn't see it until after you asked about it. It was an educated assumption.

I just saw that, I stand corrected.

 

[forestal]

You are either ignorant or stupid (maybe both)

Cho is a permanent resident, one step away from being a citizen. He can't vote, but he can still legal purchase firearms in Virginia, Bunko...

Read it and weep

Markell told CBS News that all documentation related to the gun, including the firearms transaction record, was picked up yesterday by three agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

In order to buy the gun, Cho had to show three forms of identification, including – as a legal alien – his green card. By law he was also subject to a state police background check. Markell says while his store has surveillance video, there is no video record of the transaction because the tapes are recycled every 30 days.

Markell said his store sells about 2,500 guns a year and that buying a Glock takes very little time for anyone. "You can be in and out in 20 minutes," he said.

According to ATF records, 32 guns involved in crimes between 1999-2003, including 27 handguns, were traced back to purchases from Roanoke Firearms.

As stated previously, numerous time, there already is laws PROHIBITING Non-Resident aliens purchasing firearms.

If what John Markell is stating is true, John Markell (as well as Cho) broke the law.

How would new laws, that do nothing the existing laws dont already address have prevented this?

 

[MMDad]

As stated previously, numerous time, there already is laws PROHIBITING Non-Resident aliens purchasing firearms.

If what John Markell is stating is true, John Markell (as well as Cho) broke the law.

How would new laws, that do nothing the existing laws dont already address have prevented this?

Pay attention. He was a resident alien. His purchase was legal.

 

[This_person]

There are many rights non-citizens don't have: they cant' vote, they can be spied upon without warrant, they can be deported without trial....Did you just wake up and realize this bunko?

Can't vote? Tell that to Arizona, Calfornia, Texas................
We can all be spied on, the results just can't necessarily be used in a court of law against us.
Uh, deported? Don't think there's a right NOT to be deported. Where are you going to deport a citizen back to?

So, it IS your assertion, then, that non-citizens should not be afforded the RIGHTS of the Constituion?

 

[Toxick]

We need a new law that denies non-citizens the right to purchase firearms.

I can agree with this.



In fact, I'll do you one better.

We need a law that explicitly states that any non US citizen is denied the rights which are Constitutionally guarateed to her citizens. Furthermore, federal and state assistance is also denied to non-citizens, along with the right to vote.

 

[This_person]

I can agree with this.



In fact, I'll do you one better.

We need a law that explicitly states that any non US citizen is denied the rights which are Constitutionally guarateed to her citizens. Furthermore, federal and state assistance is also denied to non-citizens, along with the right to vote.

So, we can stop saying all these detainees in Gitmo should get lawyers, and trials. We can stop saying that these illegal immigrants should have the right, priviledge to send their kids to schools. I'm not being sarcastic here, I actually like this idea/concept. "We, the People of the United States of America....." shouldn't mean "and anyone else that happens to get a dry foot here, too.

 

[forestal]

This should be a big 'duh' moment for you.

I assert that non-US citizens cannot own a firearm. I also assert that their are other Constitutional rights that non-US citizens should not have:

They should expect to spied upon without warrant.
They should not be able to vote.
They should not be able to run for office

I think most of the rest they should have.

Can't vote? Tell that to Arizona, Calfornia, Texas................
We can all be spied on, the results just can't necessarily be used in a court of law against us.
Uh, deported? Don't think there's a right NOT to be deported. Where are you going to deport a citizen back to?

So, it IS your assertion, then, that non-citizens should not be afforded the RIGHTS of the Constituion?

 

[forestal]

Still waiting on your reply where you admit you shot your mouth off before knowing the facts...

As stated previously, numerous time, there already is laws PROHIBITING Non-Resident aliens purchasing firearms.

If what John Markell is stating is true, John Markell (as well as Cho) broke the law.

How would new laws, that do nothing the existing laws dont already address have prevented this?

 

[This_person]

This should be a big 'duh' moment for you.

I assert that non-US citizens cannot own a firearm. I also assert that their are other Constitutional rights that non-US citizens should not have:

They should expect to spied upon without warrant.
They should not be able to vote.
They should not be able to run for office

I think most of the rest they should have.

Perhaps this is where we actually disagree then. If they don't get the rights, they don't get ANY of 'em. Beggars can't be choosers. No food stamps, no Social Security, no nothing but tourist status, and get the hell out after a couple of weeks (max). No property ownership, no freedoms if authorities don't want you to have 'em. Maybe we'll stop "encouraging" people to illegally enter our country. Maybe we'll stop having so many people here out to screw us.

 

[This_person]

This should be a big 'duh' moment for you.

By the way, what's a big "duh" moment? I really don't think I've ever had one.

 

[mrweb]

Can't vote? Tell that to Arizona, Calfornia, Texas................
We can all be spied on, the results just can't necessarily be used in a court of law against us.
Uh, deported? Don't think there's a right NOT to be deported. Where are you going to deport a citizen back to?

So, it IS your assertion, then, that non-citizens should not be afforded the RIGHTS of the Constituion?

Negative:

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states, in part,

Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information <SUP class=reference id=_ref-fisa1801_1>[5]</SUP>; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) <SUP class=reference id=_ref-foreignpower_0>[6]</SUP> or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-warrantless_0>[7]</SUP>

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court<SUP class=reference id=_ref-reportfiscunderseal_0>[8]</SUP>, and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-reportcongresscompliance_0>[9]</SUP>

Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-excludeddefinitions_0>[10]</SUP> Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties <SUP class=reference id=_ref-criminal_0>[11]</SUP> and civil liabilities. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-civil_0>[12]</SUP>



With a court order

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-warrant_0>[13]</SUP> Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to US persons<SUP class=reference id=_ref-minimization_0>[14</SUP>

 

[This_person]

Negative:

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states, in part,

Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information <SUP class=reference id=_ref-fisa1801_1>[5]</SUP>; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) <SUP class=reference id=_ref-foreignpower_0>[6]</SUP> or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-warrantless_0>[7]</SUP>

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court<SUP class=reference id=_ref-reportfiscunderseal_0>[8]</SUP>, and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-reportcongresscompliance_0>[9]</SUP>

Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-excludeddefinitions_0>[10]</SUP> Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties <SUP class=reference id=_ref-criminal_0>[11]</SUP> and civil liabilities. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-civil_0>[12]</SUP>



With a court order

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-warrant_0>[13]</SUP> Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to US persons<SUP class=reference id=_ref-minimization_0>[14</SUP>

You're missing two points:
1. Wikipedia is not a source. Ever. If I can go in and change what you just referenced, it can't be a source.
2. I'm not saying there's a legal way for the govn't to spy, or other citizens to spy, I'm saying it happens. Cameras are set up all over the place, ostensibly to monitor traffic, weather, etc. That's a form of spying. My paycheck is monitored by the IRS - spying on my private records. Bank transactions are monitored if above a certain amount of money. My age is monitored by the Selective Service and Social Security offices. These are all spying, warrentless searches. In the case of the IRS, often, it's warrentless seizure, as well.

 

[Toxick]

I think most of the rest they should have.

Explain this. How would you decide what rights aliens have and which ones they are denied?

Don't just say, ":shrug: common sense", because there are a lot of things regarding common sense that you and I would disagree upon.

There has to be a quantifiable line drawn that indicates, Aliens can do THESE things, but they cannot do THOSE things... Where do you think this line should be drawn, and why?