The ACLU-haters are gonna love this. ;)

[NineseveN]

http://www.courierpress.com/news/200...citizens-guns/

Judge issues injunction over non-citizens carrying guns
By The Associated Press
Sunday, March 16, 2008

A federal judge has stopped enforcement of a Kentucky law barring non-citizens from carrying concealed deadly weapons.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Russell says the law is written too broadly and violates the rights of attorney Alexander M. Say, a British national who has lived in Kentucky for 15 years.

Russell issued the decision Friday.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and Kentucky State Police on behalf of Say. The ACLU challenged the citizenship requirement, saying Kentucky lawmakers should not have passed the law. The sheriff's department and state police would have to approve Say's license application.

Say argues that no federal law requires U.S. citizenship for people to be licensed to purchase, carry, transport or carry a concealed deadly weapon, and neither should state law.

[knight0334]

Wow.. ACLU fought and won for gun rights?? I'm shocked.

on a side note: I normally disagree with the ACLU, but in this case I do agree to an extent. Permits or licenses shouldn't be needed for any means of carry, possession, or purchase by those in the USA - citizen or not.

[billamj]

That's great, but I can't find anywhere that they fought it on Second Amendment grounds.

[rev214]

That's great, but I can't find anywhere that they fought it on Second Amendment grounds.

BINGO!
Went the citizenship route...

and the ACLU still sucks...

[NineseveN]

That's great, but I can't find anywhere that they fought it on Second Amendment grounds.

And that matters why, exactly? They took a case to defend a gun owner against wrongful government action and law, a case that has carrying a concealed weapon as the crux of the matter, and yet, what, because they used the best legal avenue available to them, which in this case would not have been the 2A, it somehow invalidates the fact that they fought for a gun owner to change a law that kept a gun owner from carrying a concealed weapon? Oh yeah, they're so virulently anti-gun at their core, let me tell you. Some of you people are impossible to please.

How many cases has the NRA taken on and won on 2A grounds (or any grounds for that matter) this year? How about last year?

Bill, I respect you, but I feel like you're letting your personal feelings on other issues cloud your judgment here.

[billamj]

It makes a difference my friend because they have NEVER fought in favor of the second. The NRA doesn't take cases per se, they line up attorneys to fight on behalf of others and they file amicus briefs but they don't actually take on cases so that is an apples and oranges comparison.

[LittleRedToyota]

while this case does not show that the ACLU is pro-gun. it does show they are not anti-gun.

and once the supreme court clearly declares that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, and not a collective right, i bet dollars to donuts the ACLU starts defending gun cases purely on the basis the 2nd amendment.

the ACLU really does base their decisions about taking cases on one criteria: have the person's rights been violated?

up until now, in the eyes of the ACLU (and others), the answer to that question was not clearly yes in individual 2nd amendment cases because there was a question among the legal community over whether or not the 2nd protected an individual right.

once it is clearly (and officially) established that the 2nd does indeed protect an invidual right, the answer to the question of "have a person's rights been violated?" in at least some individual 2nd amendment cases will also clearly be yes. and i would be surprised if the ACLU did not defend those cases.

you have to understand that the ACLU does not care if you agree with the people they defend. the ACLU does not care if the ACLU agrees with the people they defend. all they care about is defending individual rights...period. and, frankly, that is what makes them such a great defender of the ideals upon which america was founded.

once it is legally established that the 2nd protects and individual right, the ACLU will go to bat for that right--even if the individual lawyers involved don't like guns. just like those same ACLU lawyers already routinely defend people they disagree with (which, in my book, makes them great americans).

btw, that is what is so great about lawyers. many of them (prolly most of them) have great respect for rule of law, civil liberties, and democracy...and they typically are not afraid to fight for those things. many people like to bash lawyers, but without them we would be living under tyranny. and that is true not only in the USA, but in many countries throughout the world.

[NineseveN]

It makes a difference my friend because they have NEVER fought in favor of the second.

So wait, in this case, the ACLU supported an entirely pro-gun position, and all that seems to matter to you is on what legal grounds they supported it? Would you have felt better about the ACLU here if they fought on Second Amendment grounds and lost?

[billamj]

I would just point out that it was the ACLU that found a way to bring about the existence of a right that is not blatantly stated in the constitution, the right to an abortion, yet they continue to question the validity of an expressly identified right in the 2nd. I don't hate the ACLU, at least at the local level, I question those who blindly support them when they do NOT, IMHO, support all constitutional rights.

[billamj]

So wait, in this case, the ACLU supported an entirely pro-gun position, and all that seems to matter to you is on what legal grounds they supported it? Would you have felt better about the ACLU here if they fought on Second Amendment grounds and lost?

Yes 10 characters