District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional

[Picton]

If, as NYSRPA suggests, you have to stop looking at restrictions as of 1868, then the decision is correct. There were no restrictions on non-citizens carrying nor any federal laws restricting immigration until later.

This. We can't have it both ways. If "text and history" is what we're hanging our hat on for RKBA, then we have to take every part of that text and history into consideration.

I'm not a fan of illegal immigration, but I'm even less a fan of government infringing on RKBA. So this ruling is a win. It weakens the government and allows more people to defend themselves; any downside, I think, pales by comparison to those two goals, which are (if I need to remind anyone) the main reasons why 2A was written.

 

[Joeldiaz]

The framers didn't even want the Bill of Rights included in the mix. They only accepted it because they knew that without it, the people of this country (their elected reps) would never have accepted the idea of a central federal government.

Whatever the reason, the Bill of Rights still exists and we are bound by it. You may not like that reality, and according to you neither would the Framers, but it still exists all the same.

 

[HARRYM]

Again, the Judge is saying illegals are not illegals and therefore not criminals. Also the Left believes that illegals have Constitutional rights and also be allowed to vote in Federal elections.

 

[Uzi2]

Whatever the reason, the Bill of Rights still exists and we are bound by it. You may not like that reality, and according to you neither would the Framers, but it still exists all the same.

What a lame answer. ^^^^^^^^

I'm all for the bill of rights. What you don't understand and have drifted away from in this discussion is that the constitution and bill of rights was written and adopted to protect We The People OF the United States (also known as citizens)

They were not written to protect nor favor foreign nationals here illegally.

To give you an idea as to how the framers thought about "outsiders", foreign nationals and others who were the domestic terrorists of their time : After the revolutionary war, WE The people, the citizens of this country, expelled between 80,000 and 100,000 Tories that were still loyal to the British crown, some of whom fought beside British troops against the colonists. Another 100,000 fled to Canada after having been given land by the king. Thousands more fled to the West Indies.

There was a great amount of "protectionism" for lack of a better term, during the times of the adoption of the constitution and that is why controlled immigration was part of it. We The People OF the United States didn't want our country invaded at will by foreign nationals.....AND WE STILL DON'T.

 

[Joeldiaz]

What a lame answer. ^^^^^^^^

I'm all for the bill of rights. What you don't understand and have drifted away from in this discussion is that the constitution and bill of rights was written and adopted to protect We The People OF the United States (also known as citizens)

They were not written to protect nor favor foreign nationals here illegally.

To give you an idea as to how the framers thought about "outsiders", foreign nationals and others who were the domestic terrorists of their time : After the revolutionary war, WE The people, the citizens of this country, expelled between 80,000 and 100,000 Tories that were still loyal to the British crown, some of whom fought beside British troops against the colonists. Another 100,000 fled to Canada after having been given land by the king. Thousands more fled to the West Indies.

There was a great amount of "protectionism" for lack of a better term, during the times of the adoption of the constitution and that is why controlled immigration was part of it. We The People OF the United States didn't want our country invaded at will by foreign nationals.....AND WE STILL DON'T.

I’m fully aware of this history but you’re missing my point. The plain text of the Bill of Rights is what matters here, and SCOTUS has already found that it protects more people than just citizens.

According to SCOTUS, "The people," refers to "a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." (United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990))

At the very least this would encompass legal immigrants who are not citizens. One could argue illegal immigrants might also fit that definition if they’ve been in this country for a substantial period of time and their individual circumstances support the claim. Point is, SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this for either of us to have a clear answer.

 

[Uzi2]

I’m fully aware of this history but you’re missing my point. The plain text of the Bill of Rights is what matters here, and SCOTUS has already found that it protects more people than just citizens.

According to SCOTUS, "The people," refers to "a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." (United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990))

At the very least this would encompass legal immigrants who are not citizens. One could argue illegal immigrants might also fit that definition if they’ve been in this country for a substantial period of time and their individual circumstances support the claim. Point is, SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this for either of us to have a clear answer.

No, it wouldn't. That is the fatal flaw in your twisted logic.

Your gradual back pedaling is insufferable.

 

[pcgod]

I have a couple of issues with this. An illegal is in possession of a gun in Chicago. Where did he get it? He can't buy it through the legal process. Is it a stolen firearm? Also, if I go to Chicago and get caught carrying my pistol what happens to me a citizen? Seems like I would be jammed up and in jail.

 

[Joeldiaz]

No, it wouldn't. That is the fatal flaw in your twisted logic.

Your gradual back pedaling is insufferable.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[Uzi2]

The feeling is mutual.

Be that as it may, I haven't backpedaled one bit.

I've tried to enlighten you by presenting a fuller picture of the entire situation, most of which you are ignorant of.

 

[Uzi2]

I have a couple of issues with this. An illegal is in possession of a gun in Chicago. Where did he get it? He can't buy it through the legal process. Is it a stolen firearm? Also, if I go to Chicago and get caught carrying my pistol what happens to me a citizen? Seems like I would be jammed up and in jail.

It would depend on who's eyes you're looking through.

Through the eyes of the virtue signaling, hypocrite leftist, that "illegal" is a victim and all manner of effort will be expended to exonerate him/her........but YOU as a U.S. citizen will be punished by the leftists, to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Be that as it may, I haven't backpedaled one bit.

I've tried to enlighten you by presenting a fuller picture of the entire situation, most of which you are ignorant of.

Neither have I, my position has remained the same.

 

[Uzi2]

Neither have I, my position has remained the same.

No it hasn't, you've drifted to and fro, unable to solidify anything.

 

[Joeldiaz]

No it hasn't, you've drifted to and fro, unable to solidify anything.

You can say thst all you want but that doesn’t make it true.

 

[pupchow]

Even if Leftists could tax the wealthy and corporations into oblivion, once there’s nobody left to tax more, we’d be stuck with 10s of millions who would feel deprived of their “rights” to shelter, sustenance, health care, education, etc.

The Catch 22 is, we need low-skilled immigrant labor to do all the jobs that American won’t do (and don’t need to do in a welfare state). But we cannot afford to just up and give them a standard of living that many Americans can’t even afford. My grandparents worked unskilled labor in the mines and mills, so that my parents could work skilled labor jobs in factories and offices, so their kids (me and my 3 siblings) could get professional jobs. A shortcut from unskilled labor to middle-class lifestyle just isn’t there. Not here or in any sustainable society.

Bullshit. Labor is a commodity and should be treated as such.

 

[CMEBoston]

The founding fathers intended the BOR to be used as a guide globally. And they Intended that anyone within the USA at the time was protected from the government infringing on those rights

In the same vein the judge is right, but her opinion is moot.
Shall not be infringed meant god given rights to anyone, in the world, and specifically protected here

This is my opinion I am not a constitutional lawyer.

 

[Uzi2]

The founding fathers intended the BOR to be used as a guide globally. And they Intended that anyone within the USA at the time was protected from the government infringing on those rights

In the same vein the judge is right, but her opinion is moot.
Shall not be infringed meant god given rights to anyone, in the world, and specifically protected here

This is my opinion I am not a constitutional lawyer.

You need to read about the federalists and anti federalists.

The Anti-Federalists and their important role during the Ratification fight | Constitution Center

On this day in 1787, the debate over the newly written Constitution began in the press after an anonymous writer in the New York Journal warned citizens that the document was not all that it seemed.

constitutioncenter.org

The framers of the constitution (aka the federalists) didn't want the Bill of rights at all. They were forced into accepting it as amendments to the constitution to get the entirety of the document acceptable and passed by the needed votes.

 

[CMEBoston]

You need to read about the federalists and anti federalists.

The Anti-Federalists and their important role during the Ratification fight | Constitution Center

On this day in 1787, the debate over the newly written Constitution began in the press after an anonymous writer in the New York Journal warned citizens that the document was not all that it seemed.

constitutioncenter.org

The framers of the constitution (aka the federalists) didn't want the Bill of rights at all. They were forced into accepting it as amendments to the constitution to get the entirety of the document acceptable and passed by the needed votes.

Yes I know that, and again it’s a moot point… we have it … we didn’t protect or secure it,but by the nature of the document we still have our god given rights, wether we want to stand up for them or not is another story

Granted nobody cares about the BOR or the constitution for that matter, and that’s our fault as a society

But it’s my belief anyone should be able to own a gun. If you break the law, the punishment should be extreme enough that you won’t do it again but when you’re done with your sentence you should have all of your rights afforded to you

Extreme I know but in its spirit this was its intention.
Politics have been stripping them away since

 

[Berrymac65]

These people are pathetic

We need a civil war so bad !

 

[Parker Schreiber]

I have a couple of issues with this. An illegal is in possession of a gun in Chicago. Where did he get it? He can't buy it through the legal process. Is it a stolen firearm?

From the 2022 decision, 'According to Defendant, several men attempted to break into the shop. A few minutes later, Defendant joined what he describes as an impromptu neighborhood watch to protect the business. At around 9:53 p.m., Defendant contends that a member of the watch handed Defendant a gun. At approximately 10:33 p.m., a white police van arrived at the street corner outside the shop. Defendant claims, and the government contests, that the police told him, “If you have anything, you should get it, ” which Defendant took to mean that he should arm himself, though he already had.'

 

[Uzi2]

Yes I know that, and again it’s a moot point… we have it … we didn’t protect or secure it,but by the nature of the document we still have our god given rights, wether we want to stand up for them or not is another story

Granted nobody cares about the BOR or the constitution for that matter, and that’s our fault as a society

But it’s my belief anyone should be able to own a gun. If you break the law, the punishment should be extreme enough that you won’t do it again but when you’re done with your sentence you should have all of your rights afforded to you

Extreme I know but in its spirit this was its intention.
Politics have been stripping them away since

This discussion is about "ILLEGAL ALIENS" owning guns......not duly convicted criminals who have served their sentences.

 

[Picton]

What a lame answer. ^^^^^^^^

I'm all for the bill of rights. What you don't understand and have drifted away from in this discussion is that the constitution and bill of rights was written and adopted to protect We The People OF the United States (also known as citizens)

They were not written to protect nor favor foreign nationals here illegally.

To give you an idea as to how the framers thought about "outsiders", foreign nationals and others who were the domestic terrorists of their time : After the revolutionary war, WE The people, the citizens of this country, expelled between 80,000 and 100,000 Tories that were still loyal to the British crown, some of whom fought beside British troops against the colonists. Another 100,000 fled to Canada after having been given land by the king. Thousands more fled to the West Indies.

There was a great amount of "protectionism" for lack of a better term, during the times of the adoption of the constitution and that is why controlled immigration was part of it. We The People OF the United States didn't want our country invaded at will by foreign nationals.....AND WE STILL DON'T.

Most of that happened under the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. That matters. It wasn't the Federal government pushing those people out; it was Canadian land grants pulling them north.

Besides., the 88,000-odd Tories who went to Canada probably only represented about 15% of the Loyalists in the US after the Revolution. Jasanoff estimates at least 90% of them stayed right where they were into the Federal era, and enjoyed full citizenship under the Constitution.

Like it or not, there are not separate legal systems in the US for "people who are citizens" and "people who aren't." If you break US law, no matter whether you're a citizen or not, you pay in the US legal system under the Constitution. The flipside of that? If you're here, no matter whether you're a citizen or not, you get the benefits of the US legal system under that same Constitution.

 

[CMEBoston]

This discussion is about "ILLEGAL ALIENS" owning guns......not duly convicted criminals who have served their sentences.

Denying based on immigration status is an infringement
How many immigrants they came here over the past 250 years were “legal” and how many were able to buy guns?

My point is any text of who can and can’t own a gun while in the USA is an infringement

 

[Maninblue1861]

Didn't they already commit a crime/felony coming here illegally?

 

[CMEBoston]

Didn't they already commit a crime/felony coming here illegally?

Why are you applying logic to this?
If you can’t see that the government both hates and fears us, and is creating another class of citizen then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[fred6052000]

Time out please!!
How can an illegal immigrant buy a gun legally? If they don't have a valid driver's license or Social Security number, how would that even work?

 

[CMEBoston]

Time out please!!
How can an illegal immigrant buy a gun legally? If they don't have a valid driver's license or Social Security number, how would that even work?

Technically she said OWNERSHIP
not purchase…..
do the math on how an unlicensed person can get a gun

And then realize all gun laws are infringements

 

[tbk5]

Nothing is illeagal unless your name is Donald J Trump.

 

[Picton]

Didn't they already commit a crime/felony coming here illegally?

They did. But if they have an asylum claim, regardless of whether or not you or I think it's spurious, then they're not "felons" until a court says they are. Hell, even if they're not claiming asylum, they're still entitled to due process under the Constitution, just like you or I.

Convictions in court matter in terms of ganking peoples' RKBA. Short of that, the right is absolute in accordance with 2A.

 

[GM-GUY]

We've all said it's an invasion and they are all military age men. Now they can be armed (without following any of the laws that effect citizens), all they need is comms to be an effective fighting force - it's a good thing the government issued cell phones to them as they crossed the border.

 

[Uzi2]

In restraining the government, which is what the constitution and bill of rights does, that automatically is a benefit to the people. What is at question here is, WHICH PEOPLE?????

It is written as "We The People "OF" The United States..........NOT We The People "IN" The United States. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

When you illegally enter this country, you are not just simply entitled to everything that citizens of this country sacrificed their life's saving in blood and treasure, and fought and died for to become an independent nation.

That's like walking into a bank and saying that you are entitled to all of the money in the bank just because you walked in the front door.

The constitution which formed the federal government and dictates how it is to be administered, along with the restraints upon it and the powers granted to it, was meant to protect the CITIZENS of this country, either naturally born ones or those who have sought and received naturalization through due process.
It was not NOT meant to extend to every foreign national alien that washed up on our shores or jumped a border wall or just walked across open ground to stand on our soil. That is why naturalization was included in the writing of it.

The Supreme Court was absolutely WRONG in declaring that the protections of it apply to illegal aliens.

The constitution is NOT a suicide pact, whereby a court can diminish, curtail, or eliminate its protections of citizens to the point of effectively dissolving the country's very foundations.