Do Illegal Aliens have 2A Rights, SCOTUS to decide

[BigGreen2000]

Victor Davis Hanson has a great lecture on YouTube about the difference between being a Citizen vs a Resident, and how the benefits of being a Citizen have been eroded in the last few decades. . .

 

[Uzi2]

Wrong. We say that all the time when a Liberal wants to have their 1A, but crush the 2A.

I Agree with the rest of your post.

You're going down another rabbit hole.

As a citizen, I want DEMAND THAT ALL MY RIGHTS BE RESPECTED........and I will do in kind to ALL OTHER CITIZENS.

However, I will not willingly apply or respect rights of illegals who should not even be in my presence.

 

[JonathonEmergency]

All illegals should be deported. All people should have what we refer to as “2a rights”. Possessing a gun should be no different than possessing a screwdriver or hammer.

 

[enbloc]

Oh no, you didn't just go there.
View attachment 560194

Paging @Fishfinder and @SKumar

 

[Mark from MA]

And here we are talking about giving 2a rights to illegals. When in some parts of the country CITIZENS dont even have 2A rights.

ASS backward.

And the whole thing on its face is stupid. Lets give an invader who has never sworn alliegance to the country legal access to firearms. Think anything bad could happen?

I thought the first rule of war would not be to arm your invading forces. But. Hell you bleeding heart motherf***ers must have a different thought process.

There are ways to come here legally. Use them, get in, and ill fight for any Citizens 2a rights.

 

[Mtn_Guy]

​

 

[drgrant]

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

Lol thats now how the BOR works beatrice. It's the same reason why we dont just shoot illegals in the road and pick them up with
forklifts etc. by denying things like BOR protections, you're basically arguing they're not humans.

It's trivially easy to make legal arguments that illegals dont have the right to vote (well, at least at the beginning), "act as a citizen" (eg, obtain a passport, or diplomatic protections or assistance) run for office, etc, get welfare, put their kids in public schools (at least ones not citizens) things like that. You can argue that illegals do not have a right to remain in america. And yes, the application of that in reality is garbage but thats not really the focus of the question here. RKBA is not a product of citizenship or government. That's laughable. (Even if the feds think and keep foisting that BS on the public, doesn't make it right. )

2A as a "Right of the 2nd class" = unmitigated authoritian faggotry. By taking in this "only citizens have RKBA" shit worldview, you're basically endorsing that brand of faggotry, along with every other "cuz guns are DEADLY N SPESHUL!!!" decision a court makes based off the doctrine of "RKBA is a right of the 2nd class". Several of us have discussed this here ad nauseam in the past.

You can't have the cake and eat it simultaneously. It is legally incongruent.

 

[drgrant]

And here we are talking about giving 2a rights to illegals. When in some parts of the country CITIZENS dont even have 2A rights.

It's cute that you tink that government gives you rights.

That's part of the problem in this country and why its falling apart.


ETA:

And the whole thing on its face is stupid. Lets give an invader who has never sworn alliegance to the country legal access to firearms. Think anything bad could happen?

What difference should it make functionally? If them even standing here isnt legal, then they need to be deported or locked up.... for that crime.

Not some malum prohibitum bullshit about a gun.

Hell you could probably argue just fine that illegal entrants are subject to imprisonment and/or deportation and do all kinds of jingo stuff focused around that.

Nobody wants to pay for that, though. Esp not most D and R pols tied up in the illegal labor lobby.

If illegals were handled correctly this entire question would be a nullity, and it wouldnt be in front of the supreme court. But I digress....

 

[Broc]

It's cute that you tink that government gives you rights.

That's part of the problem in this country and why its falling apart.

 

[Alien]

I fear the Supreme Court would give illegals the second amendment rights at the same time stripping citizens Second Amendment rights away!

 

[OnTheRoad]

It's right there in the Preamble:

We the People OF the United States...

not

We the People IN the United States.

 

[June4th]

I don’t know how much legal water this analogy hold:

If I B&E into another person’s house and the homeowner approaches me with a baseball bat, I cannot use self defense to justify shooting the homeowner.

Entering a country illegally is akin to B&E.

Convince me otherwise.

 

[Mark from MA]

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?

Our own country chooses to ignore it in certain democrat run shitholes.

But I certainly can agree its a human right.

Since other countries dont allow it for non citizens why should we be the only ones is my point.

 

[Mark from MA]

It's cute that you tink that government gives you rights.

That's part of the problem in this country and why its falling apart.


ETA:



What difference should it make functionally? If them even standing here isnt legal, then they need to be deported or locked up.... for that crime.

Not some malum prohibitum bullshit about a gun.

Hell you could probably argue just fine that illegal entrants are subject to imprisonment and/or deportation and do all kinds of jingo stuff focused around that.

Nobody wants to pay for that, though. Esp not most D and R pols tied up in the illegal labor lobby.

If illegals were handled correctly this entire question would be a nullity, and it wouldnt be in front of the supreme court. But I digress....

The government doesnt give you rights. We all follow laws.

Let me know when its ok not to, ill be the first to start right after you.

 

[Uzi2]

Lol thats now how the BOR works beatrice. It's the same reason why we dont just shoot illegals in the road and pick them up with
forklifts etc. by denying things like BOR protections, you're basically arguing they're not humans.

It's trivially easy to make legal arguments that illegals dont have the right to vote (well, at least at the beginning), "act as a citizen" (eg, obtain a passport, or diplomatic protections or assistance) run for office, etc, get welfare, put their kids in public schools (at least ones not citizens) things like that. You can argue that illegals do not have a right to remain in america. And yes, the application of that in reality is garbage but thats not really the focus of the question here. RKBA is not a product of citizenship or government. That's laughable. (Even if the feds think and keep foisting that BS on the public, doesn't make it right. )

2A as a "Right of the 2nd class" = unmitigated authoritian faggotry. By taking in this "only citizens have RKBA" shit worldview, you're basically endorsing that brand of faggotry, along with every other "cuz guns are DEADLY N SPESHUL!!!" decision a court makes based off the doctrine of "RKBA is a right of the 2nd class". Several of us have discussed this here ad nauseam in the past.

You can't have the cake and eat it simultaneously. It is legally incongruent.

BaaaaaaLoneey ^^^^^

I'm not arguing that they are not humans......not in the least.

I'm arguing that they have no right to be here, creating an issue.

 

[Lank]

Doesn't the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof come in to play?

 

[Mark from MA]

It's cute that you tink that government gives you rights.

That's part of the problem in this country and why its falling apart.


ETA:




Hell you could probably argue just fine that illegal entrants are subject to imprisonment and/or deportation and do all kinds of jingo stuff focused around that.

Nobody wants to pay for that, though. Esp not most D and R pols tied up in the illegal labor lobby.

Here lies the problem. The Rs and the D’s both want it and their media has brainwashed you into thinking its ok

 

[Mark from MA]

View attachment 560208

Perfect example. She tried to trample on our rights with some statement.

Meanwhile….I follow the law.

 

[drgrant]

.

The government doesnt give you rights. We all follow laws.

Let me know when its ok not to, ill be the first to start right after you.

Lol, so you're now pivoting to "because the guy with the gun says its the law, we must follow it"

Lol lots of people don't follow shit laws, thats not exactly new. I'm sure you stop for the full 3 seconds at every stop sign, in the middle of the night, or always stay at least 1mph below the speed limit. Ir

 

[mu2bdriver]

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.

You are correct and I don't disagree with you. Prior to Trump, nobody seriously wanted to defend our borders from further assault and politicians, employers, and overwhelming numbers of people were willing to live with those who were already here.

 

[snd1t]

Lol thats now how the BOR works beatrice. It's the same reason why we dont just shoot illegals in the road and pick them up with
forklifts etc. by denying things like BOR protections, you're basically arguing they're not humans.

It's trivially easy to make legal arguments that illegals dont have the right to vote (well, at least at the beginning), "act as a citizen" (eg, obtain a passport, or diplomatic protections or assistance) run for office, etc, get welfare, put their kids in public schools (at least ones not citizens) things like that. You can argue that illegals do not have a right to remain in america. And yes, the application of that in reality is garbage but thats not really the focus of the question here. RKBA is not a product of citizenship or government. That's laughable. (Even if the feds think and keep foisting that BS on the public, doesn't make it right. )

2A as a "Right of the 2nd class" = unmitigated authoritian faggotry. By taking in this "only citizens have RKBA" shit worldview, you're basically endorsing that brand of faggotry, along with every other "cuz guns are DEADLY N SPESHUL!!!" decision a court makes based off the doctrine of "RKBA is a right of the 2nd class". Several of us have discussed this here ad nauseam in the past.

You can't have the cake and eat it simultaneously. It is legally incongruent.

Here's why your argument doesnt work in THIS case

RKBA as it pertains to a person who is not in the country legally is fundamental different

Its not like right to a trial (speedy or otherwise) which applies regardless of legal precense

RKBA pertains to the several state boundaries.....if a person is present illegally then how can one possibly assert a right that is predicated on them legally being in the US

Its not fundamentally different than trying to assert you have a RKBA on your neighbors property who has posted no trespassing/no guns signs

 

[Uzi2]

Here lies the problem. The Rs and the D’s both want it and their media has brainwashed you into thinking its ok

Agree,

It is the federal government's job by law TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE..........NOT PROVIDE THE GENERAL WELFARE.

Politicians are stealing from the public coffers (moneies paid by citizens) to dole it out to people who will naturally vote for the one who gives them the best spot at the public feeding trough.

In the past, people who were "down and out" relied on the charity of society at large to maintain some modicum of livable standard of life. Politicians capitalized on this and used the power of government to TAKE from one and GIVE to another........creating a situation where one group loses and two groups gain (those two groups being the one receiving money from government and the government in power at the time.

It only works as long as OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY is able to be doled out.

 

[clancy dogg]

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.

It does? Where?

 

[daekken]

And the whole thing on its face is stupid. Lets give an invader who has never sworn alliegance to the country legal access to firearms. Think anything bad could happen?

There are ways to come here legally. Use them, get in, and ill fight for any Citizens 2a rights.

What's your stance on green card holders?

They are not citizens, they have not taken any oath of allegiance to the United States. Do they get the right to protect themselves?

I'm not going to address the "think anything bad can happen" part, because others have already pointed out how flawed that argument is.

 

[drgrant]

Here's why your argument doesnt work in THIS case

RKBA as it pertains to a person who is not in the country legally is fundamental different

Its not like right to a trial (speedy or otherwise) which applies regardless of legal precense

Lol, again you're just sucking for the jingoservative retard land "right of a 2nd class" nonsense thats been foisted on us for decades.

RKBA pertains to the several state boundaries.....if a person is present illegally then how can one possibly assert a right that is predicated on them legally being in the US

Lol where the f*** does it say that?

Its not fundamentally different than trying to assert you have a RKBA on your neighbors property who has posted no trespassing/no guns signs

Lol please, thats a terrible trope, you're not really going to trot out that turd are you? That's trespassing, and has nothing to do with
guns. Even in that case the person is being prosecuted for trespassing not for the "crime" of posessing a gun.

The idea of a crime of "possessing a gun" is total f***ing nonsense.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

And here we are talking about giving 2a rights to illegals. When in some parts of the country CITIZENS dont even have 2A rights.

ASS backward.

And the whole thing on its face is stupid. Lets give an invader who has never sworn alliegance to the country legal access to firearms. Think anything bad could happen?

I thought the first rule of war would not be to arm your invading forces. But. Hell you bleeding heart motherf***ers must have a different thought process.

There are ways to come here legally. Use them, get in, and ill fight for any Citizens 2a rights.

The question before the court isn't arming up our enemies, it's whether or not a person in the country illegally can defend themselves with a firearm without the fear of going to prison. Simple possession of a firearm should not be a felony in Massachusetts or anywhere else. I want people to come here legally, get armed and stay safe because it secures our 2A rights. But there will always be illegal immigrant regardless of the laws we pass tomorrow. Therefore this case is relevant.

 

[snd1t]

Lol, again you're just sucking for the jingoservative retard land "right of a 2nd class" nonsense thats been foisted on us for decades.




Lol where the f*** does it say that?




Lol please, thats a terrible trope, you're not really going to trot out that turd are you? That's trespassing, and has nothing to do with
guns. Even in that case the person is being prosecuted for trespassing not for the "crime" of posessing a gun.

The idea of a crime of "possessing a gun" is total f***ing nonsense.

Illegal is illegal and its a far cry from simple trespass in most every state

Simply put, if you dont have a right to be in a particular place, you sure as shit dont have a right to other shit while you're squatting there

 

[JRT]

… 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.

I’m a bit of a constitution nerd and I’m fairly certain this is not in the constitution. You may want to read section 1 of the 14th amendment.

 

[daekken]

Lol, again you're just sucking for the jingoservative retard land "right of a 2nd class" nonsense thats been foisted on us for decades.




Lol where the f*** does it say that?




Lol please, thats a terrible trope, you're not really going to trot out that turd are you? That's trespassing, and has nothing to do with
guns. Even in that case the person is being prosecuted for trespassing not for the "crime" of posessing a gun.

The idea of a crime of "possessing a gun" is total f***ing nonsense.

I wonder if Kyle Rittenhouse's name was Ricardo Montocasa and the literal only different thing about the case was that he was an illegal immigrant, how many on here would have argued he had no right to defend himself or possess a firearm and should be handled as a murderer.

 

[drgrant]

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. Anything that expands the 2A rights to more people is a good thing. We can't argue God-given rights on one hand and then Citizens on the other. If anything, I can see the decision denying rights based on the expansion of the administrative state. And out of all the 2A cases SCOTUS could hear, they chose this one? I guess it's better than nothing.

I am thinking SCOTUS picked this because it causes a political issue of dividing by zero. The libtards can't shit on it, because if SCOTUS says "illegals have RKBA in a basic sense" (blah blah blah limitations, they're still illegal, blah blah, so wah lah) then the left can't bitch about the decision because the auto-narrative is "THE LEFT IS NOW SHITTING ON ILLEGALS" and they're not going to do that. They're going to shut the f*** up and ignore it, like moonbats do when some civil rights thing isnt convenient to their agenda.