Second Amendment Foundation sues to overturn citizenship requirement for NC Concealed Handgun Permits

It’s about damn time.

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in North Carolina on behalf of an Australian citizen who legally resides in the state, but cannot obtain a concealed carry permit under a state law that only allows citizens to get such permits.

I’ve been nagging the NCGA to get this changed for a while now. GRNC tried to get it worked into a bill, but the Reps and Senators don’t want to do much for gun rights this session. Now they’re going to be forced to change it.

For those who have never seen this before, the lawsuit is a slam dunk. It is unconstitutional to deny ordinary rights to non-citizens based solely on the fact that they are not citizens. You can’t tell them they can’t freely speak. You can’t tell them they can’t peaceably assemble. And you can’t tell them they can’t have a concealed handgun permit.

NCGA, you brought this on yourself. You could have changed the law, but you didn’t. Now enjoy your lawsuit.

9 responses to “Second Amendment Foundation sues to overturn citizenship requirement for NC Concealed Handgun Permits

  1. While your thesis is valid as stated (“It is unconstitutional to deny ordinary rights to non-citizens based solely on the fact that they are not citizens.”) it is phrased in the negative and bound geo-politically.

    Self-defense is an unalienable right of every human. The choice of tools for that purpose (firearm, blade, etc) and the manner of transport (worn open, concealed, carried by a servant, etc) are derived or corollary rights.

    One cannot establish conditions upon the corollary rights without infringing the primary human right. Any man has the natural right to choose and carry weapons of his choice for self defense so long as he does so in a peaceful manner.

    … NC, NY, DC, London … anywhere in the world …

    … without permission or precondition.

    One merely has to claim that right and be willing to defend it against aggression by the state and its’ agents.

  2. Kevin Harris

    Excellent theory Hans, and I agree 100%’ but get caught carrying or possessing as a felon and prepare to do time. Apparently felons, even those who clean up their act, no longer possess that natural right in the eyes of the law. For example, say I was one of the aforementioned felons who corrected his ways. I am at home with my wife and daughter and an intruder kicks in my door armed with a handgun. Somehow I manage to disarm him and he attacks my with a knife and approaches my daughter with malice. If I shoot him to protect my daughter I go to the Federal Pen for ten. Your premise is spot on for what the Constitution and you own ideas convey, but reality is a bitch sometimes.


  3. Yes, Kevin, reality is a bitch.

    I am constantly challenged as I attempt to live in Rightful Liberty (Jefferson) according to common-law and the principles I believe in.

    But as my friends are fond of saying: “You get the behaviors (from the state) you are willing to tolerate.”

  4. Both of you are discussing a theoretical point. Sean was summarizing actual US Constitutional law.

  5. Ummm … SPQR … if you actually read the article, the problem is with NCGA Statutes, not the US Constitution:

    “…a state law that only allows citizens to get such permits…”

    And the discussion is only theoretical for those who never intend to claim and exercise their unalienable Rights.

  6. Pingback: Episode 248 – Ben Branham and John Cardillo | The Polite Society Podcast

  7. No, Hans, you are clearly missing the point. US Constitutional law – applying the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment – is very clear that rights and privileges cannot be denied to a legal resident of the US based on his/her lack of full citizenship. There are very few and very narrow exceptions to that principle. Mainly in the area of employment, for roles that are the actual exercise of government powers like police officers.

    A discussion:

  8. There are plenty of good theories about what the Constitution says. Some are lots better than what we currently labor under. But we don’t need to argue any of them. Current Supreme Court precedence says quite explicitly that denying non-citizen residents of a state the rights afforded to citizen residents of that same state is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional.

    This is a slam dunk case without even discussing the Second Amendment. In fact, it’s not even a Second Amendment case. It’s a 14th Amendment case. SAF might as well start doing their end zone dance now. The only real question is “how much money will the State of North Carolina be paying to the SAF lawyers in attorney’s fees?”