-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Article: 7TH CIRCUIT COURT: ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HAVE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TOO
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Hmm, looks like RI has a law to remove: http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/title11/11-47/11-47-7.HTM
Palladin
NES Member
interesting
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
This should open some cans
the_shootist
Banned
As usual, down is up and up is down in our esteemed court system today
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Can they have Glocks in Mass? Haha
The constitution and the rights protected by it are meant for ALL people within it's borders. These rights are not limited based on legal status, nor should they be. These rights and protections also do not extend to Americans located outside the US borders.
You either believe in the applicability of the Constitution or you don't. It's not a buffet. You cannot pick and choose which rights you support, and for whom they apply. If you do, you are as bad as the liberal wing nuts and the wack job right wingers as well.
You either believe in the applicability of the Constitution or you don't. It's not a buffet. You cannot pick and choose which rights you support, and for whom they apply. If you do, you are as bad as the liberal wing nuts and the wack job right wingers as well.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,947
- Likes
- 23,598
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
this.
i do expect this thread to blow up with DEY TOOK ARE GUNS! DEY TAKE ARE JOBS! etc.
Correct... If someone in the country illegally doesn't enjoy the full suite of rights protected by the Constitution, how can they meet the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction of" to have their US born children qualify for birthright citizenship?
The constitution recognizes that ALL people have a right to keep and bear arms. Other countries don't recognize that right. From my perspective (and I think the perspective of the founders) all people are born with the rights enumerated in the constitution. In most of the world that right isn't recognized and the governments violate it.
If you follow the reasoning that RKBA is a natural right derived from the fact that you have a right to your life, and thus the means to protect it; and the McDonalds case that 2A applies to individual states, then state legislatures really shall not enact any laws that 'infringe'.
Illegal aliens have a right to their lives too, and thus RKBA should also apply. Ochmude's solution deals with the situation perfectly.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,613
- Likes
- 33,735
If you accept the conclusion that the 2nd does not apply to illegals, then you must accept one of two logical conclusions:
1. Congress has the authority to regulate what churches illegals may attend; illegals may be compelled to testify against themselves; they are not subject to the protection from warrantless searches; and they may be required to house US troops in their homes in times of peace.
or....
2. The 2nd amendment is "different" from the other 9, and more limited in scope as to whom it applies to.
Nothing in the constitution grants "the people" the right to vote. That's reserved for citizens.
The same way an illegal would exercise his right to remain silent when questioned by the police.
--------------------------
Those arguing that for the conclusion they want, rather than what the constitution requires, and using the same logic that some courts (particularly in MA) use when they ignore the facts and the constitution to obtain the desired results. I don't particularly like my conclusion regarding the applicability of the 2a to illegals, however, that is where logic leads.
Last edited:
Two questions, is illegal entry in to the US a felony? What about illegal entry after deportation?
The first offense for illegal entry is a misdemeanor (8 USC 1325), with subsequent offenses being potential felonies, though felony 1325 charges aren't often pursued other than to encourage a plea deal for the lesser misdemeanor.
Illegal reentry after removal (8 USC 1326) is a felony with a mandatory maximum of 2, 10, or 20 years depending on the circumstances.
The only argument I can see against this is that 2A was created to allow the people the ability to overthrow a tyrannical .gov. Since these people's .gov is not the U.S. .gov, there is no need for them to have 2A protection in this country. I agree that people have the right to protect themselves and should have the means. I don't think that foreigners should have the means to overthrow the government. If enough of them came here and acquired weapons, is that not an invasion - they just didn't bring the weapons with them.
On a side note: everyone was so negative towards eric holder. He was a man ahead of his time apparently.
On a side note: everyone was so negative towards eric holder. He was a man ahead of his time apparently.
I don't think it's an invasion: "An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory."
I don't see how it's a.) military or b.) combatants or c.) that they have this as an objective. I think it's evident they're seeking employment/health care/[insert thing here] and not to establish a new government.
I think self-defense/preservation trumps (no pun intended) the invasion claim, in this case. All that aside, coming into legal possession as an illegal alien might be tricky.
I think Ochmude's solution is probably the best idea.
The founders didn't use "people" and "citizens" as freely interchangeable. There's a conscious choice, there, that this decision would seem to reflect.
Wow.....mean while in Lowell, Massachusetts - tax paying american citizens, and heroes who have served this country, are denied the fundamental right to carry a firearm because of police chief william taylor's narrow-minded and reckless policies.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,613
- Likes
- 33,735
Keep in mind that the actual decision basically says "Illegals have 2A rights, but the government may prohibit them from owning guns as a reasonable regulation of this right".
Yep, I posted in the other thread before I saw this one. It seems like almost everybody is getting what the ruling actually said, wrong.
The actual ruling
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1711362.html
Yes, the court AFFIRMED the previous courts DENIAL of his motion.
All the court said was that while the rights of "the people" in the 2A do apply to illegal immigrants that federal laws prohibiting illegals from doing so are permissive. Illegal immigrants still cannot carry or possess firearms (or ammunition) and be protected against criminal charges by the 2A. Saying otherwise is misleading and incorrect.
Of course the ruling itself is misleading and well, contradictory. If the government can outright prohibit all illegals from possessing firearms how exactly do they have that right? The answer is, they don't. The courts own ruling illustrates this. They, like many courts do, are basically admitting that the federal law is unconstitutional but feel its a good enough idea to accept it anyways.
As usual, the court isn't upholding the constitution, but rather the governments infringement of it.
Dear god. They are usurping the power of legislation from the executive branch? I'd have to check again, but I'm pretty sure the power of legislation is held by the legislative branch.
As usual, the court isn't upholding the constitution, but rather the governments infringement of it.
Dear god. They are usurping the power of legislation from the executive branch? I'd have to check again, but I'm pretty sure the power of legislation is held by the legislative branch.
This seems to be one of those 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't' type of things... :/
Similar threads
