TexasCHLforum.com

Bullwhip wrote:"Wet foot" is the right policy, not just for Cubans but Mexicans and central/south americans too. If you're on American soil you get American protections. period.

I disagree. If an illegal alien makes it across the border, they shouldn't be allowed to stay just because the law didn't catch him in the act of crossing the border. Think about this. If a drunk driver kills a 9 year old girl and flees the scene, he shouldn't be immune to prosecution and civil liability just because the law didn't catch him in the act of killing her.

The Wet-Foot Dry-Foot Policy is bad policy, and so is the nightmare DREAM ACT.

AndyC wrote:I believe that the question is more a matter of should they restrict the right-to-carry to citizens only - having previously granted it to legal residents as well?

That's a valid question, but I believe it's a question that is properly addressed through the legislative process, not through judicial activism. To put it another way, the court's legitimate authority is whether SD has the legal and constitutional authority to license the right, not what this judge's personal beliefs say they should do.

I don't need a license or a background check to buy a Koran or a Book of Mormon. I don't need a license to carry one in public, and I can legally carry it out in the open or concealed in my backpack. So can resident aliens, tourists, and my classmates on student visas.

If the Second Amendment protects a right that's not limited to citizens, then following the first, fourth and fifth amendments examples, neither citizens nor resident aliens nor tourists need a license or any other government approval to exercise those rights.

On the flip side, if SD has the authority to license the right, I don't see how the ACLU or anyone else can make a good argument that SD can't limit SD licenses to SD residents who are US citizens.