View Full Version : Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis: 2nd Amendment does not apply to Saudi Arabians
Wendell
12-10-2019, 05:43 PM
Gov. Ron DeSantis called for a review of federal laws that allow foreign nationals to possess guns on U.S. soil. “That’s a federal loophole he took advantage of,” the governor said. “I’m a big supporter of the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment applies so that we the American people can keep and bear arms. This does not apply to Saudi Arabians,” DeSantis said. “I always thought that foreign nationals, except for certain law enforcement, just were not allowed to purchase firearms. So, I think they should definitely look at that,” he said.
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/12/10/saudi-aviation-student-legally-bought-gun-used-in-florida-naval-station-attack/
Seven_Sicks_Two
12-10-2019, 06:08 PM
“I’m a big supporter of the Second Amendment, but..."
Anytime someone says this you can bet that what follows is going to prove that they are not, in fact, "a big supporter of the Second Amendment".
Chemsoldier
12-10-2019, 06:16 PM
Someone might want to tell the governor that his ignorance of the law is not folksy or relatable, he is supposed to be embarrassed for not knowing.
Why is it obvious that foreigners should not be able to have firearms? For instance, people come here to hunt all the time. Why should they be unable to do so?
OlongJohnson
12-10-2019, 06:25 PM
Or someone has been a green card holder in this country since coming here before 1950. Grew up here, went to school here, would have served in the military except for not passing the physical, worked here, paid taxes here, raised good citizens here. And happens to still have a gun they bought before the GCA '68.
Or someone has been a green card holder in this country since coming here before 1950. Grew up here, went to school here, would have served in the military except for not passing the physical, worked here, paid taxes here, raised good citizens here. And happens to still have a gun they bought before the GCA '68.
I don't think there's any question about greencard holders, which are legal permanent residents/immigrants and not needing an exception to buy/own a gun like Mr. Arab Conquests down in Florida.
GardoneVT
12-10-2019, 07:01 PM
Gov. Ron DeSantis called for a review of federal laws that allow foreign nationals to possess guns on U.S. soil. “That’s a federal loophole he took advantage of,” the governor said. “I’m a big supporter of the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment applies so that we the American people can keep and bear arms. This does not apply to Saudi Arabians,” DeSantis said. “I always thought that foreign nationals, except for certain law enforcement, just were not allowed to purchase firearms. So, I think they should definitely look at that,” he said.
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/12/10/saudi-aviation-student-legally-bought-gun-used-in-florida-naval-station-attack/
This supposed to be a surprise? The Republicans would ban guns right alongside the Democrats if they had the support.
Nightvisionary
12-10-2019, 09:25 PM
Someone might want to tell the governor that his ignorance of the law is not folksy or relatable, he is supposed to be embarrassed for not knowing.
Why is it obvious that foreigners should not be able to have firearms? For instance, people come here to hunt all the time. Why should they be unable to do so?
So citizens of a foreign country should have a United States Constitutional right to come here to hunt?
willie
12-10-2019, 10:24 PM
When Congress starts changing gun laws, beware. There are at least 100's of 1000's of guns floating around, and many are available with no questions asked. The Saudi passed his nation's screening before coming here. Most likely our nation conducted a security check. A law regardless of wording would not have prevented the shooting.
It’s an odd scenario. A foreign military service member here to attend training, and presumably living on a U.S. military base? I’d suppose that training exceeding 90 days would be some kind of Visa situation, but what was it, an H-3? Presumably it was a nonimmigrant visa, so he’d be a prohibited person under GCA ‘68? Hmph. I’m off the clock, but now I need to know.
Or someone has been a green card holder in this country since coming here before 1950. Grew up here, went to school here, would have served in the military except for not passing the physical, worked here, paid taxes here, raised good citizens here. And happens to still have a gun they bought before the GCA '68.
Green card holders or more properly termed legal permanent residents are treated the same as US citizens for the purposes of purchasing, acquiring, or possessing firearms and ammunition.
The issue at question is found in title 18 United States code section 922(y). It allows an alien admitted to the United States on a non-immigrant visa to possess, purchase, or acquire a firearm as long as they are In legal immigration status and possess a valid US hunting license.
While I can understand provisions for hunters and target shooter’s who are not US persons or US residents to import and possess their own firearms or even to borrow firearms while they are here but the provision allowing them to purchase firearms when they are not even a legal permanent resident has always struck me as a bit odd. I’m guessing it has primarily been intended to accommodate our neighbors from Canada and Mexico but the world has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years.
Even for non-immigrants here on longer term visas such as work or study visas lasting three or four years There is significant potential for mischief.
In general aliens, particularly aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States are prohibited from acquiring purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition under the gun control act of 1968, specifically title 18 United States code section 922(g)(5). However, there is a hunting license exception to this which is what is found in section 922(y).
It’s an odd scenario. A foreign military service member here to attend training, and presumably living on a U.S. military base? I’d suppose that training exceeding 90 days would be some kind of Visa situation, but what was it, an H-3? Presumably it was a nonimmigrant visa, so he’d be a prohibited person under GCA ‘68?
More than likely an A-2 as it was for official government work. It's actually a quite common scenario, not odd at all....we train a ton of military officers from foreign nations, particularly for general leadership courses and highly technical courses that are resource heavy, like pilots. When I was in the marines, I went through training with Saudis, Kuwaitis, Turkish, Colombians, Belizians, Ghanaians, Liberians, Zambian, Filipino, and to a lesser extent South Koreans, Taiwanese, French, and so on.
See prior posts about why he wasn't a prohibited person.
It’s an odd scenario. A foreign military service member here to attend training, and presumably living on a U.S. military base? I’d suppose that training exceeding 90 days would be some kind of Visa situation, but what was it, an H-3? Presumably it was a nonimmigrant visa, so he’d be a prohibited person under GCA ‘68? Hmph. I’m off the clock, but now I need to know.
Foreign military students enter the US as A-2 non- immigrants. An A-2 Is a foreign government official, on official business who is neither a diplomat nor holds diplomatic immunity. They are admitted to the United States for duration of status. That status being determined by their military orders which they are required to present along with their passport and visa.
Most foreign military students have some level of English proficiency but the vast majority begin by attending the English as a second language program at D Defense language Institute in San Antonio Texas. Once their English language skills are considered sufficient for the program they are to attend they are then sent on for their individual military specialty training. This can range from pilot training, aviation maintenance and crew chief training, to Ranger school.
If they flunked out or are kicked out of US military training their orders are revoked and they are required to leave the United States immediately. If they fail to do so they can be arrested and placed in deportation proceedings Since they are lawful immigration status is predicated on their military orders.
The 90 day thing has nothing to do with foreign government officials. There is a visa waiver program for persons from friendly first world countries which lets them come in for trips less than 90 days for tourism or “business.” There are specific definitions for business which include not being paid in the US for work performed In the United States. The legal definition of business for immigration purposes also specifically excludes certain activities which require their own specific visas for national security purposes. These include foreign government officials including military members on official business, journalists, and a few others.
Foreign military students enter the US as A-2 non- immigrants. An A-2 Is a foreign government official, on official business who is neither a diplomat nor holds diplomatic immunity.
Point of order: An A2 is the standard visa issued to any diplomat who is not a principle officer, and diplomatic immunity is granted based on their accreditation to the United States through the State Department.
When Congress starts changing gun laws, beware. There are at least 100's of 1000's of guns floating around, and many are available with no questions asked. The Saudi passed his nation's screening before coming here. Most likely our nation conducted a security check. A law regardless of wording would not have prevented the shooting.
For the purposes of federal gun laws this Saudi was an alien lawfully admitted pursuant to a non-immigrant visa who also acquired a US hunting license. Nothing else is relevant to his vetting.
I’m not against foreign nationals coming here to hunt, target shoot, or even the gun tourism you see the Japanese engaging in Guam and Hawaii. But it’s a big world out there and there are plenty of people who mean us harm. Everyone of the 9/11 hijackers enter the US legally with a non-immigrant visa. Unless a foreign national is a match to some sort of national security record, the primary screening for US versus hast to do with whether someone has financial means and whether their financial situation would make them more or less likely to want to stay in the US illegally after entering. The state department hires third country nationals to help do background checks and they try to check local law-enforcement and security records but that is a very arbitrary process.
Do we really want a foreign national we know nothing about to be able to buy a gun and walk out of the store with it? What’s really surprising is that something like Pensacola has not occurred along time ago.
Point of order: An A2 is the standard visa issued to any diplomat who is not a principle officer, and diplomatic immunity is granted based on their accreditation to the United States through the State Department's Office of Foreign Missions.
If they’re not on the blue list they ain’t shit.
.
If they’re not on the blue list they ain’t shit.
.
Blue list?
I'm not familiar with that term. The only people get A1 visas are the Consul Generals, Ambos, ministers or heads of state.
Everyone working at the embassies and consulates under them get A2s, and they absolutely have diplomatic technical or consular immunity if they're accredited to the US, regardless of them holding an A2 visa.
Blue list?
I'm not familiar with that term. The only people get A1 visas are the Consul Generals, Ambos, or heads of state.
Everyone working at the embassies and consulates under them get A2s, and they absolutely have diplomatic technical or consular immunity if they're accredited to the US, regardless of them holding an A2 visa.
The blue list is the list of people the US accredits as actual diplomats.
The blue list is the list of people the US accredits as actual diplomats.
Ah, ok. We don't call it that.
I was just trying to point out that diplomatic immunity is not tied to the visa. An A2 can be a diplomat with immunity, an official without immunity, or even an unaccredited diplomat without immunity.
Thanks, TGS and HCM! My immigration law experience is old, entirely civil, and pretty much not applicable. I appreciate the concise briefing.
I was thinking the scenario was odd in terms of a nonimmigrant visa holder purchasing a firearm with the (Presumed?) expectation of taking it back to Saudi. Or not.
Because of course someone who's planning a mass murder will be stopped in their tracks when they discover they can't legally possess a firearm.
I'm getting really fucking sick of people pushing this 'less guns' button in their thinking, when the ACTUAL problem was defenseless and disarmed sworn military service members.
If we can trust them in a uniform we damn sure should be able to trust them with a gun 24/7/365.
Presently, yes, there are issues with that because culturally our military has forgotten how to be perpetually armed and responsible, because we've allowed them to.
That's why these fuckheads target recruiting offices and military bases instead of police stations.
Easier for a politician to just write more fish-wrap stupid laws than to demand our military actually allow their members to be armed.
I'm getting really fucking sick of people pushing this 'less guns' button in their thinking, when the ACTUAL problem was defenseless and disarmed sworn military service members.
If we can trust them in a uniform we damn sure should be able to trust them with a gun 24/7/365.
Presently, yes, there are issues with that because culturally our military has forgotten how to be perpetually armed and responsible, because we've allowed them to.
That's why these fuckheads target recruiting offices and military bases instead of police stations.
Easier for a politician to just write more fish-wrap stupid laws than to demand our military actually allow their members to be armed.
Maybe stop, look at what is actually at issue here and think. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Arming .MIL vs CONUS green on blue attacks is a separate issue. It’s not an either/or issue.
The American Service members from 49 U.S. states in the flight program at NAS Pensacola can’t legally buy a handgun at an FFL there because they aren’t FL residents and they are on TDY rather than PCS orders to FL yet this foreign fuck can buy a handgun at an FFL because he bought a $20 hunting license ?
jellydonut
12-11-2019, 05:23 AM
As a foreigner: eat shit and die, tyrant.
Hambo
12-11-2019, 06:04 AM
If you don't live in Florida and are ignorant of Florida politics,you need to STFU. Our previous RINO governor, now senator, Rick Scott, is a POS that would sell us down the river in a heartbeat. Republican congressman Brian Mast has advocated for an AWB. DeSantis' Democratic opponent ran on a promise of an AWB.
DeSantis is far from perfect, but he's put the brakes on an AWB being a ballot issue by having the FL SC review the language. He's the most pro-2A we've had in quite a while.
Here I was thinking that the Bill of Rights simply listed our rights, which were endowed by our creator to all men by virtue of just existing.
-Cory
joshs
12-11-2019, 07:20 AM
The American Service members from 49 U.S. states in the flight program at NAS Pensacola can’t legally buy a handgun at an FFL there because they aren’t FL residents and they are on TDY rather than PCS orders to FL yet this foreign fuck can buy a handgun at an FFL because he bought a $20 hunting license ?
How does 922(b)(3) and the definition of "state of residence" in 27 C.F.R. S 478.11 apply differently to him than a U.S. person (citizens and LPRs)? A hunting license gets him out of the prohibition in 922(g)(5), but it doesn't help him establish a state of residence. He had to present a government issued identification document (or combination of them) that confirmed his identity and listed a Florida address. Any U.S. person doing the same would have been permitted to buy a handgun in Florida (assuming they weren't otherwise prohibited.
joshs
12-11-2019, 07:28 AM
Here I was thinking that the Bill of Rights simply listed our rights, which were endowed by our creator to all men by virtue of just existing.
-Cory
That's true, but in order to get the protection of our laws in a U.S. court, a person has to fall within the scope of the legal right rather than the natural one. Otherwise, how would we limit civil rights for those currently serving a period of incarceration?
This was one of the interesting legal questions when some argued that the 2A should be incorporated via the 14A's PorI clause instead of the due process clause. The PorI clause applies to "citizens" while the due process clause applies to any "persons". However, our courts have often drawn a distinction between U.S. persons, citizens and lawful permanent residents, and non-U.S. persons in the application of certain civil rights.
As a foreigner: eat shit and die, tyrant.
Or you could mind your own fucking business.
Seeing as the perpetrator was here for military aviation training, I'm under the impression that even though most of it might be in a classroom or a simulator he'd have to be in control of an actual aircraft at some point.
How does 922(b)(3) and the definition of "state of residence" in 27 C.F.R. S 478.11 apply differently to him than a U.S. person (citizens and LPRs)? A hunting license gets him out of the prohibition in 922(g)(5), but it doesn't help him establish a state of residence. He had to present a government issued identification document (or combination of them) that confirmed his identity and listed a Florida address. Any U.S. person doing the same would have been permitted to buy a handgun in Florida (assuming they weren't otherwise prohibited.
Foreign military students can live off base, though many don’t because they can’t afford it.
922(g)(5) exists for a reason. I can understand an exception to it to allow foreign hunter to possess their own temporarily imported firearms or use a firearm borrowed from a guide, but why should 922(y) allow non immigrant aliens exception from 922(g)(5) to purchase firearms since they are, by definition, transients here ?
FWIW, student naval aviators at Pensacola can buy guns in Florida. They're on PCS orders.
The American Service members from 49 U.S. states in the flight program at NAS Pensacola can’t legally buy a handgun at an FFL there because they aren’t FL residents and they are on TDY rather than PCS orders to FL yet this foreign fuck can buy a handgun at an FFL because he bought a $20 hunting license ?
I'll admit I'm pretty ignorant of the laws, but there were a couple of military guys in buying guns at one of the local gun stores today. There was a lot of asking questions such as "what address should I list, the one on my drivers license, which is my official residence or where I'm living now in Pensacola?"
I'll admit I'm pretty ignorant of the laws, but there were a couple of military guys in buying guns at one of the local gun stores today. There was a lot of asking questions such as "what address should I list, the one on my drivers license, which is my official residence or where I'm living now in Pensacola?"
See above.
SNAs are PCS'd to Pensacola and are legal state residents.
My basis: I was a student naval aviator that like all of my classmates received PCS orders to Pensacola for flight training.
IIRC, any training over 6 months gets PCS orders. I might be wrong on the number of months, but 6 months rings a bell.
I'll admit I'm pretty ignorant of the laws, but there were a couple of military guys in buying guns at one of the local gun stores today. There was a lot of asking questions such as "what address should I list, the one on my drivers license, which is my official residence or where I'm living now in Pensacola?"
Military members can buy guns in their permanent state of residence Or in the state where they are permanently assigned by the military or their “Permenant Station.”
Normally an assignment of one year or more will result in permanent change of station orders or PCS. Anything less than one year is considered temporary duty or TDY.
For various administrative and financial reasons I’ve see people sent on temporary duty somewhere for 364 days, Set home and then return for another 364 days.
For clarity, as TGS mentioned, the flight students can buy guns when in flight school at NAS Pensacola.
See above.
SNAs are PCS'd to Pensacola and are legal state residents.
My basis: I was a student naval aviator that like all of my classmates received PCS orders to Pensacola for flight training.
IIRC, any training over 6 months gets PCS orders. I might be wrong on the number of months, but 6 months rings a bell.
Nomally military orders need to be one year or more to be considered PCS for firearms purchase purposes.
One of our local gun shops here regularly has to decline firearm sales to service members in a military medical program based hear that lasts eight or nine months.
Drifting Fate
12-11-2019, 04:28 PM
Here I was thinking that the Bill of Rights simply listed our rights, which were endowed by our creator to all men by virtue of just existing.
-Cory
This is exactly the case.
If were are to argue that the Rights enumerated in the first ten amendments are inalienable, then they apply to every human being, regardless of race or incidental location on the globe. Why would you wish to restrict anyone from having a weapon? The good people far outnumber the bad people and all of the bad things which can be done with a weapon are already illegal - kind of reveals the foolishness of the argument against someone being denied a right due to accident of birth.
Rights work both ways and not just when you like the way they play out. It's why the very idea of "hate speech" is so evil.
Rights are not ignored for those in jail, they have been removed through due process based on the willful denial of rights of another entity. That is why convicts don't have their full bundle of rights.
Chemsoldier
12-11-2019, 07:46 PM
So citizens of a foreign country should have a United States Constitutional right to come here to hunt?
I didnt say anything about constitutional rights one way or the other. I simply listed a mundane activity that citizens of foreign countries uncontroversially do in the United States that the Governor's statement would theoretically preclude. That is so people (hopefully the governor) could look at this possible policy and say, "OK, it sounds neato to come up with something that might have kept this particular guy from legally buying the gun...do I really want to do this considering the other effects of that policy and the fact that he may have simply obtained his firearms in another manner?"
Any mouth breather can react to stimuli ("Fire bad!"), but I expect my elected officials to at least think about the second and third order consequences of laws before they run off at the mouth.
I would also posit that if, in the minds of many gun owners, its OK to ban an entire category of people from possessing firearms simply because they MIGHT do something nefarious, that does not bode well for the future of the 2A.
whomever
12-11-2019, 08:03 PM
In this particular case, he was going to eventually end up strapped into a jet. Crashing that into a well chosen building would have probably caused a lot more casualties than a shooting spree.
(as an aside, what's with the buddies filming? I'm guessing that when we're done with them they will face the tender mercies of Saudi justice. I doubt that will go any easier because they only filmed instead of getting their own gun and shooting.)
Nightvisionary
12-11-2019, 08:14 PM
I didnt say anything about constitutional rights one way or the other. I simply listed a mundane activity that citizens of foreign countries uncontroversially do in the United States that the Governor's statement would theoretically preclude. That is so people (hopefully the governor) could look at this possible policy and say, "OK, it sounds neato to come up with something that might have kept this particular guy from legally buying the gun...do I really want to do this considering the other effects of that policy and the fact that he may have simply obtained his firearms in another manner?"
Any mouth breather can react to stimuli ("Fire bad!"), but I expect my elected officials to at least think about the second and third order consequences of laws before they run off at the mouth.
I would also posit that if, in the minds of many gun owners, its OK to ban an entire category of people from possessing firearms simply because they MIGHT do something nefarious, that does not bode well for the future of the 2A.
We already do, it's called Felon In Possession Of A Firearm. The Second Amendment was never created with sporting purpose in mind. It was created as the citizen's hedge against a tyrannical government. Saudi Arabians visiting the U.S. have no dog in that fight thus I have no problem with applying the 2A solely to U.S. citizens and restricting a foreign citizens ability to possess firearms. It has no more deleterious affect to our rights or the Constitution than prohibiting foreign nationals from voting in our elections.
Hey, I have a great idea we on pistol forums.com should all be familiar with. Reciprocity! How about we give foreign nationals visiting our country the same exact rights and privileges in our country that U.S. citizen would enjoy while visiting their country.
MistWolf
12-11-2019, 10:49 PM
We already do, it's called Felon In Possession Of A Firearm.
Felons are prohibited from possessing firearms for something they've already done.
In this particular case, he was going to eventually end up strapped into a jet. Crashing that into a well chosen building would have probably caused a lot more casualties than a shooting spree.
That's what I was trying to hint at earlier in my post. I think the governor of Florida and the people entertaining his idea are picking the wrong battle here.
If were are to argue that the Rights enumerated in the first ten amendments are inalienable, then they apply to every human being, regardless of race or incidental location on the globe. Why would you wish to restrict anyone from having a weapon?
Pursuit of happiness is also written down in that Rights paper as an inalienable, actually placed before all the numbered rights. These people south of border, most of them want to come here to live happy. Should we just go along with AOC and let them cross the border at will?
Point is, there are actual laws that are in place to both reflect the spirit and meaning of Constitution and also provide a legal framework for country to function. In this particular case, a law that's specifically intended to allow visitors to hunt when visiting here [which is completely different than exercising 2A rights] was used to buy a G45, and commit a heinous crime. That's the problem that should be discussed, not whether there were other avenues for the pos to buy a gun or inflict damage by other means.
BehindBlueI's
12-12-2019, 01:37 PM
Everyone of the 9/11 hijackers enter the US legally with a non-immigrant visa....Do we really want a foreign national we know nothing about to be able to buy a gun and walk out of the store with it?
Isn't a bit odd to use the most successful terrorist attack on US soil by foreigners, which was accomplished without guns, as a reason to ban gun ownership for foreigners?
The usual argument when it's US citizens is that people will just find some other way to kill people. They'll use pressure cooker IEDs, drive rental trucks through crowds, fire bomb crowded commercial locations, etc. The argument is it's the person not the tools.
Why is it now the tools? This guy apparently had, or would have, access to a plane. We're probably pretty damned lucky he decided a handgun was the way to go.
Are we going to let non-immigrant visa holders rent large trucks? Why or why not?
MistWolf
12-12-2019, 06:45 PM
Pursuit of happiness is also written down in that Rights paper as an inalienable, actually placed before all the numbered rights. These people south of border, most of them want to come here to live happy. Should we just go along with AOC and let them cross the border at will?
It's not our laws that deny our neighbors to the south their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's their own tyrannical and corrupt government.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kob.com/articles/fbi-unm-student-from-saudi-arabia-had-kill-list-5578468.html
FBI: UNM student from Saudi Arabia had kill list
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.- A UNM student from Saudi Arabia is charged with unlawfully carrying a firearm.
According to a criminal complaint, filed in federal court, Hassan Alqahtani, 28, was arrested after the FBI received a tip that Alqahtani had a 'list of people who he wants to kill before he leaves the U.S.'
The complaint says the list includes professors from UNM.
The FBI searched Alqahtani's residence and reportedly found a .380 firearm and ammunition.
Alqahtani's girlfriend claimed the firearms was hers, according to the complaint.
However, the FBI believes she was possibly conspiring with Alqahtani to conceal his possession of the firearm.
blues
12-15-2019, 08:54 AM
Don't they have enough people they want to murder in their own flea bitten country?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.