Commentary

by James R. Hall

A new restriction took effect on July 12 that we weren’t prepared for, even though we helped make it happen. Beginning on that date, applicants for a Kentucky license to carry a concealed deadly weapon must be a United States citizen. This new provision of our licensing law was included in House Bill 290, the Omnibus Gun Bill of 2006, which KC3 was very much in favor of. A citizen of the United States. It was right there near the bottom of the first page, a seemingly innocuous phrase that just didn’t draw any attention to itself. In fact, it looked rather like it belonged there amongst the more obvious qualifications for obtaining a license.

What difference does it make to the average Kentuckian and why was it included? To be honest, we have yet to find an answer to either question. Preliminary inquiries have led to the suggestion that this provision was required for KY CCDW licenses to qualify as an alternative to a NICS check when purchasing a firearm. We really like this provision, and believe we should have been able to exercise this federal exception all along but an interpretation of the previous statutory language [see page 6] by the Kentucky State Police prevented it. However, the necessity of the citizenship stipulation just does not seem to agree with the facts as we understand them. The NICS exception is explained in the Code of Federal Regulations:

There simply isn't any requirement referred to by this regulation that the license only be issued to U.S. citizens in order to exercise the exception. Previous correspondence between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives and KC3 points to the same conclusion. So that we may verify that this continues to be the case, we have sent another inquiry to the BATF and are awaiting their reply.

There are real people that are significantly affected by this new requirement. We know this because we have received a number of requests from individuals seeking clarification of the new law and the reasoning behind it’s passage. Of course, it is difficult to determine with nothing more than an email contact, but these people don’t seem dangerous. In fact, so far, they have all been rather coherent and well spoken and exhibit what appear to be genuine concerns for the safety of themselves and their loved ones.  This situation begs the question - What could possibly make their lives, or that of their loved ones, less valuable than any other CCDW applicant?

Under current law, legal resident aliens may freely acquire and possess firearms. They may bear them openly. They have the same rights to self-defense as any citizen. Why not allow for them to be TRAINED, have their BACKGROUND CHECKED, and PAY the required APPLICATION FEE to obtain a license? Illegal aliens are PROHIBITED persons just the same as felons and would not benefit from the privilege of applying for a license. These individuals commit a felony by simply possessing or even attempting to possess a firearm. Does anyone truly believe that any person preparing to commit a felony would inform the government of their intentions? And if they ARE willing to do so, WHY stop them?

The KY Constitution protects the right of "all men" to be able to provide for their own protection and that of the state, it does not base this right on citizenship. The federal Constitution similarly protects the right of "the people", and the courts have found repeatedly that the enumerated rights apply to everyone, not just citizens. The lives of those affected by this provision are no less valuable than any other decent person, as such, we should do everything we can to secure the right of self-defense to ALL law-abiding free people. More simply put, if we can't trust them to peaceably carry concealed weapons LEGALLY, why would we allow them to remain within our borders at all?

If a person is here legally, not engaging in criminal behavior and wants to exercise the CCDW option for protection of self and loved ones, what is the big deal? Apparently, there really isn’t any big deal at all! Legal permanent resident aliens CAN carry concealed in the Commonwealth, they just have to go to another state to get a license! To name just a few, Utah and Pennsylvania make non-resident licenses available with no apparent restriction on citizenship or alien status. Florida specifies that an applicant must be a U. S. Citizen or a "lawful permanent resident alien" to get a license. Since Kentucky recognizes ALL VALID state issued licenses to carry concealed weapons, this new ridiculous provision doesn’t stop the practice, it only deters people from learning OUR laws governing firearms and self-defense and gives the licensing revenue to other states.

And that’s not all! We’ve been in contact with one permanent resident alien that recently applied for and received his license. Seems he just got in under the wire, if he had waited till now he wouldn’t be eligible to apply. But wait! The current law states the following:

Our alien friend prepared for the worst and called the Kentucky State Police to see how his case would be handled. It would appear that, at the least, he should have his license suspended until he acquired citizenship. Not at all! He was assured by the CCDW office of the KSP that his license would remain valid until it expires over four years from now!

Obviously this citizenship provision is not a homeland security issue or the existing resident alien licenses would be revoked. Besides, how does it promote homeland security to prevent legal immigrants the means to protect themselves from the same criminal element we are ALL exposed to, including the hordes of criminals that routinely cross our porous borders? It doesn’t appear to be related to the NICS exception either but we’ll have to wait for a response from the BATF to be sure.

Until we find a valid reason for discriminating against a law-abiding,  working, tax-paying, legal resident that can get a driver’s license, a social security number and likely has an American spouse and /or kids he wishes to protect, we can only assume that this citizenship provision is a baseless and arbitrary restriction. Lacking any proper rationale, we find this in direct conflict with Section Two of the Commonwealth’s Constitution: Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority. Or maybe non-citizens are NOT free men. We’d like to think they are but, after taking a hard look at the way we have been governed lately, maybe none of us enjoy that description anymore!

Until some justifiable cause comes to light for denying decent, law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves, we will work toward repeal of the citizenship language. We hope all of our freedom loving friends will see the wisdom of our efforts and join with us to make it possible.