Married to and living with a non-citizen would be treated as if you were married to and living with any other ineligible person. I don’t know what they do if you own a gun and your spouse, say, is a restrained person. Can you keep your gun? If you store it where your spouse doesn’t have access to it can you keep it? I don’t know.
All non-citizens would be treated the same. Being Swiss, Christian, and a White gives her no benefits. Although being Swiss she probablY grew up with a gun in the house and is familiar with their operation.
So you would overturn the Constitution in its entirety, including the civil right implicit in the second amendment, rather than modify the rest of the second amendment?
Have you actually thought about this?
And you have not really ever come up with any good reason why a law abiding, legally resident alien should have less right for, or need for, a gun than a person born on US soil. Now our use of guns back then was pretty minimal, but we did take some potshots at garden pests, and also had to shoot a rabid animal in the yard which was threatening our (AMERICAN-BORN!) children, and the question remains why a non-citizen, or for that matter the spouse of a non-citizen, should be deprived of that right, which the constitution rather explicitly guarantees.
I don't know how you stand on the traditional issue of smaller government, but your proposal would, among other things, be enormously statist, requiring a considerable increase in both the administrative size and the intrusiveness of government, as well as being radically federalist, since it would be removing not only the current level of state control over gun laws, but the current level of state consideration of who is to be granted basic civil rights and the emoluments of citizenship. As I believe I pointed out earlier, the US Constitution is pretty consistent in applying the term "the people" to ALL civil rights, and if the right to bear arms is modified to change the meaning of "the people" it follows that that term either is or can be modified with regard to ALL civil rights in both the body of the Constitution and the amendments. Furthermore, by doing so it would usurp the current practice of states to determine who in their jurisdiction enjoys civil rights. In Vermont, for example, where there is no gun registration at all, and no record of gun ownership at all, and where all legal residents of the state are permitted to own and carry a firearm, the Constitution and its subsequent interpretations are also pretty explicit that citizenship, for State purposes, applies to all who are legally resident in the State. In fact, it was only under a degree of pressure that Vermont gave up its practice of allowing resident aliens to vote at the State level.
I will charitably presume that your proposal is the result of insufficient thought rather than xenophobic bias, but I would just add that I think the society you propose would be complicated, messy, hateful and ineffective, and for a rather large number of people, a hell on earth needlessly infected with fear, hatred and bureaucratic stupidity, overturning civil rights to a degree that is, in short, wholly and shamefully unamerican.
