Do Illegal Aliens have 2A Rights, SCOTUS to decide

daekken said:
Do you have a case showing that? All the current cases I'm familiar with reject this notion, whether in 1898, or 2008 (Boumediene v. Bush, which ruled non-citizens were entitled to Habeas Corpus, even in Guantanamo Bay). There might be ones pertaining to slaves or something that have been subsequently overturned.
Click to expand...

I don't have any legal citations, but it has been discussed ad nauseam by many historical and legal experts from both left leaning and right leaning sides. Here is one quote from Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean, Berkeley Law School) and Michael Stokes Paulsen (Chair, U of St. Thomas School of Law).

Importantly, the Preamble declares who is enacting this Constitution—the people of “the United States.” The document is the collective enactment of all U.S. citizens. The Constitution is “owned” (so to speak) by the people, not by the government or any branch thereof. We the People are the stewards of the U.S. Constitution and remain ultimately responsible for its continued existence and its faithful interpretation.

Interpretation: The Preamble | The National Constitution Center
 
BigGreen2000 said:
If illegal aliens are found to have 2A rights, there is not much preventing other courts from finding they have voting rights, Medicare and Medicaid rights, ObamaCare rights, public school education rights, run for elected rights, and so on. What's the point of being a legal citizen if all those rights are granted to illegals anyway?
Click to expand...
The Constitution specifically sets aside voting for Citizens.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Public education as noted above has already been granted to illegals by the courts.
 
one-eyed Jack said:
Well, you rob a bank and get arrested for a crime. You commit a crime by coming into the country illegally and should be arrested also. Jack.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But can we violate all of their rights as well. Beat a confession out of them? Withhold food and water and counsel?

The question before the SC is not whether they should be arrested or not. It's a question of "what rights are actually rights and what rights have we classified as privileges but pretend are rights."

All of this "ship them home" and "they're illegal" is irrelevant. Someone is pushing the envelope HARD. Forget legal immigrants who can't own or possess guns. Let's go full on. Can the "worst" of non-citizens possess weapons??? Hmmmm. Once you get past the knee-jerk "ILLEGALSZZZZZZ!!!!! ZOMMMGGGGGZZ!!!!!" reaction, the question is worth getting answered.
 
ReluctantDecoy said:
I don't have any legal citations, but it has been discussed ad nauseam by many historical and legal experts from both left leaning and right leaning sides. Here is one quote from Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean, Berkeley Law School) and Michael Stokes Paulsen (Chair, U of St. Thomas School of Law).

Importantly, the Preamble declares who is enacting this Constitution—the people of “the United States.” The document is the collective enactment of all U.S. citizens. The Constitution is “owned” (so to speak) by the people, not by the government or any branch thereof. We the People are the stewards of the U.S. Constitution and remain ultimately responsible for its continued existence and its faithful interpretation.

Interpretation: The Preamble | The National Constitution Center
Click to expand...
Right, my point is that all of the legal experts (including SCOTUS) that I am aware of have all found that "the people" does not equal "citizens." The courts have consistently rejected this argument since the 1890s, up to a couple of years ago.

The quote you provided basically says the People and not the government are putting the Constitution in place. It doesn't state "citizens and the people are distinct classes and only citizens get the benefit of the Constitution."

In other words, there's parts of the Constitution that use the term "citizens" and parts that use "People." And in the case of "People" like in Second Amendment, the precedent is that "People" are not strictly defined as Citizens.
 
the united states is the only country on the planet that gives illegals the right to grow a set of gigantic balls. we did it to ourselves and reading some of the comments in the thread so far i thought i was on some woke liberal website. it's just a matter of which side one supports. left wing liberals love the bastards cause they're nurturing another vote and right wing 2a advocates love 'em cause it's another body with a gun for the cause. i guess this means you CAN have it both ways. we have found common ground and it's the illegal resident.
 
robjax said:
This will be interesting....if it is illegal to use or possess a firearm in the commission of a crime then an illegal alien being illegal is already committing a crime and the possession of a firearm while committing that crime should be an additional charge.

Illegals already have more rights than Americans so why not just give this to them as well...
Click to expand...
Yeah the problem we always run into with that thinking is being here illegally is not a felony. It's a civil offense.

I disagree that it's like a speeding ticket, but that is often the mentality. I think it should be a felony.

After all our former AG said Technically being illegal in MA is not illegal

What makes me laugh and shake my head is the federal government has no problem letting states get into "paper please" mode to provide proof a vaccination to employers and many venues asking for "your papers" to get into <whatever>.

If they allowed states to use half that effort to check legality we might make some progress on the situation. They have no problem asking me for license/registration/proof of insurance/my tax dollars/and vaccine info, but lets not offend anyone by asking if they're illegal.
 
Last edited:
daekken said:
Right, my point is that all of the legal experts (including SCOTUS) that I am aware of have all found that "the people" does not equal "citizens." The courts have consistently rejected this argument since the 1890s, up to a couple of years ago.

The quote you provided basically says the People and not the government are putting the Constitution in place. It doesn't state "citizens and the people are distinct classes and only citizens get the benefit of the Constitution."

In other words, there's parts of the Constitution that use the term "citizens" and parts that use "People." And in the case of "People" like in Second Amendment, the precedent is that "People" are not strictly defined as Citizens.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it, as I'm not too keen on actual legal precedents or follow law that often. However, I would still argue that this line is not ambiguous. It just doesn't carry any weight other than opinion.

Importantly, the Preamble declares who is enacting this Constitution—the people of “the United States.” The document is the collective enactment of all U.S. citizens.
 
BigGreen2000 said:
If illegal aliens are found to have 2A rights, there is not much preventing other courts from finding they have voting rights, Medicare and Medicaid rights, ObamaCare rights, public school education rights, run for elected rights, and so on. What's the point of being a legal citizen if all those rights are granted to illegals anyway?
Click to expand...
I don't believe that those you listed are argued as being God-given rights endowed by our Creator and natural human rights. Most of those privileges you mentioned are already afforded to illegals, they already receive public education benefits as mentioned below, and @daekken already discussed voting. As if voting actually matters anymore, but that's another story. The Citizens have been losing the illegal battle for over 40 years and neither party gives a shit. The reality is that a productive one isn't getting deported and a violent one only might get deported. I see this as an expansion of the 2A rights case and not an illegal case. If an illegal wants to defend themselves, welcome aboard. If an illegal wants to commit crimes, or further crimes, with a gun, they were going to do it anyway.
 
JRT said:
I don't think its been picked up and most experts think it will not be. I'm with you, I'm generally going to side with expanding 2A rights.
Click to expand...
How would it work?

If someone is here ILLEGALLY, how could the 2A get expanded to that person?

In a State that requires a gun license, they probably can't get one.

In a constitutional carry State, they would need a drivers license. In this case, if the DL is legal they could go buy from an FFL, but will it pass the Federal background check? How does an illegal get a license? - just because the Stste issues one doesn't mean the Federal govt agrees.

I guess that person could buy a gun through a private transaction. Something thst they can already do today in those States.

Could this backfire on constitutional carry States to start requiring a license again?

Or

Could this backfire and demand Federal background checks on all private transactions?

I dont know, I need to think about it a little more, I am not sure how this can help the 2A.
 
Dennis in MA said:
I don't disagree. But can we violate all of their rights as well. Beat a confession out of them? Withhold food and water and counsel?

The question before the SC is not whether they should be arrested or not. It's a question of "what rights are actually rights and what rights have we classified as privileges but pretend are rights."

All of this "ship them home" and "they're illegal" is irrelevant. Someone is pushing the envelope HARD. Forget legal immigrants who can't own or possess guns. Let's go full on. Can the "worst" of non-citizens possess weapons??? Hmmmm. Once you get past the knee-jerk "ILLEGALSZZZZZZ!!!!! ZOMMMGGGGGZZ!!!!!" reaction, the question is worth getting answered.
Click to expand...
Jack is fully correct here. Fxcking Cut and Dry as it can be.

Here's where it starts and ends. If they are illegal and deported as it should be, there would be no case, or waste of time, and taxpayer money on these issues.

If you believe in the rule of law you can't have it both ways. You can't cherry pick based on emotions. We are talking about people that broke the law at square 1 by coming here illegally, and now we are trying to further accomodate them?? The suggestion is nonsense.

Any accomodation other than deportation is essentially saying that it is OK to break the law. Well then......why have laws? Why have citizenship? Why pay taxes??

For if its OK for one party to break the law, why must any others follow any laws? Oh...because they are poor and downtrodden and from a shithole. Feel bad emotions make it OK to circumvent laws?
 
mu2bdriver said:
That's an extreme example but ignored the vast shades of grey that have to be accounted for, including LEO/DA discretion. Dreams of mass deporations are dreams.
Click to expand...
This is unfortunately what will destroy the country eventually. The attitude that we cannot control our borders and shouldn't. The attitude that's its too big of a job.

We can import them and fly them by night everywhere......we can export them just as fast, but we won't....and eventually it will destroy the rule of law.
 
Mark from MA said:
Lovely........in what Utopia?

Go try that in England or in most places in Europe, Canada, Australia as a non citizen with a gun....see what happens.

And while your rotting in jail.....find a good reason why we should give that freedom to illegals in the USA.
Click to expand...
That other sh*thole countries choose to ignore it, does not mean it is not a natural human right.

Now, does it extend to allowing that illegal to purchase a gun and using it?
 
I'm a bit different than most. I think EVERYONE should have access to firearms regardless of status.
Only death disqualifies you from gun ownership. No licensing.

When someone goes off the Reservation, they are subject to street Justice.

People would be a lot more amenable to a polite society if everyone was armed.

The first few years might be a little "rough" though... [rofl]

1641329716703.png
 
BigGreen2000 said:
If illegal aliens are found to have 2A rights, there is not much preventing other courts from finding they have voting rights, Medicare and Medicaid rights, ObamaCare rights, public school education rights, run for elected rights, and so on. What's the point of being a legal citizen if all those rights are granted to illegals anyway?
Click to expand...
Isn't thst what we always say about the bill of rights; "can't pick and choose which rights you like and which ones you dont".
 
Here's a link via archive with the paywall removed:

web.archive.org

Illegal immigrants test limits of Second Amendment in case now pending at Supreme Court

Even as the Biden administration moves toward leniency toward illegal immigrants on so many fronts, there’s a line the government hasn’t crossed: possessing a firearm is still a serious offense.
web.archive.org web.archive.org

Here's the link to the case:

www.courtlistener.com

Parties for United States v. Alva, 1:20-mj-00114 - CourtListener.com

Parties for United States v. Alva, 1:20-mj-00114 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
www.courtlistener.com www.courtlistener.com

Here's the relevant law that he was convicted of:

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

The law in question seems to be focused on interstate commerce not on actual possession of a firearm. So it appears to me that the state is trying to 're-invent' this law by expanding it's scope and looking for the courts to okay it.

From what I understand this is a great case for scotus since Alva was convicted of only one single crime, being in the US illegally while possessing a firearm. If you ask me putting someone in jail for 10 years for mere possession of a firearm is a travesty. This is another example of a non-violent crime with ridiculous prison terms.

I take a different stand than others here. I want to see nationwide universal constitutional carry within my lifetime. If we let our elected (and unelected) leaders to continually chip away at our civil rights then we'll be left with nothing. If they can put Alva in prison for 10 years then they can expand that law to include home defense. Hand a gun to your spouse and she's found in possession Too bad, 10 years in prison. F that.

I'd rather see people work out there differences than having over paid hall monitors who need the authoritah respected that we have today.

By the way the support of the conviction and imprisonment of this guy is being considered valid by the ATF who worked to prosecute this guy under title 18.

This case to me seems like one of those perfect death by a thousand cuts action.
 
Lol are they sucking for a softball case so they can justify keep punting on ones that are a lot more important? Shocker.
 
If it turns out that an illegal alien can purchase a gun legally, would that mean I can cross into another State and be allowed to purchase whatever handgun I want and not have it shipped to a MA FFL?
 
whatluck said:
lol agreed until this
Click to expand...

Difficult to measure IMHO, I think it depends on things like nationality and the locale where the illegals are hanging out.

You're going to have different levels of what I would call "positive" participation in the local economy in different locales.
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
Isn't thst what we always say about the bill of rights; "can't pick and choose which rights you like and which ones you dont".
Click to expand...

No, but you most certainly can dictate WHO those rights apply to..... and they apply to CITIZENS.

There is some context missing here.

Someone who just waltzed over the border or washed up onto our shoreline bears no allegiance to this country and has no legal authority to be here. Therefore, how or why should they be afforded and protected by the laws which all other CITIZENS are?

The constitution clearly states the requirements and criteria for becoming a citizen........swearing allegiance to this country and serving in the armed forces is one such method, there are others.
 
BigGreen2000 said:
If illegal aliens are found to have 2A rights, there is not much preventing other courts from finding they have voting rights, Medicare and Medicaid rights, ObamaCare rights, public school education rights, run for elected rights, and so on. What's the point of being a legal citizen if all those rights are granted to illegals anyway?
Click to expand...

Lol except none of those things are actually "human rights" as it were. Not even voting. (Remember if were going all originalist here, Women didnt even have the right to
vote, that was something that was done later by amending the constitution, lol)

It's trivially easy to argue 2A extends to free people of all kinds, regardless of some kind of badge or citizenship status.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll
Help me decide
2 3
Replies
73
Views
1K
Supermoto
Supermoto
Maine gets close to implementing 3 Day Wait Period and makes it illegal to do Paramilitary Training in the State
4 5 6
Replies
150
Views
4K
Woodsloafer
W
NEW 2A group comes out SWINGING
Replies
0
Views
225
Gidge
Gidge
Does anyone have
2
Replies
30
Views
919
appraiser
appraiser
What not to do with your new gun.
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Coyote33
Coyote33
Back
Top Bottom