But even those states don't allow private sales to prohibited people. Illegal aliens are fugitives from justice. Thus they are prohibited.
-
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***
Do Illegal Aliens have 2A Rights, SCOTUS to decide
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2009
- Messages
- 6,515
- Likes
- 20,927
Posters who try to be "nuanced" by discussing this topic as framed by acceptance of today's regime of firearms regulations are unwittingly capitulating to the gun=grabbers. None of the laws and regulations limiting firearm ownership are constitutional; all violate the Second Amendment. When you give the commies an inch, they will take a mile every time.
Tartakovsky
NES Member
100% THIS.
You guys talking about 4473s and prohibited persons have already been groomed to accept the blatant infringements on 2A. “Shall not be infringed”. All gun laws are infringements on 2A and therefore, are unconstitutional. Remember, government does NOT grant our rights. The constitution doesnt grant our rights. Our rights are inherent. Constitution is just a contract between the government and the people in America acknowledging those basic human rights are inherent and that the government exists to protect and defend those rights. Slowly over time, government corruption has been slicing away at those rights and in a subtle, nuanced way not to insense Americans to rebel. We‘ve allowed government to chip away bit by bit and now we have a society that just lets them. Its really sad. People blame democrats, but greasy career republicans are just as much to blame. Corruption is clear and obvious on both sides of the aisle. Democrats just tend to be actively destroying the country. Republicans are passively destroying it.
Last edited:
Lol, not every state fully embraces/incorporates the myriad of Federal PP faggotry. The only thing universally consistent is
lautenberg amendment. (and even that is only consistent in the respect that other states will honor the ROs as "orbital" for the purpose of gun confiscation. )
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,653
- Likes
- 33,794
"No rights" in this context "means "a subset of rights granted citizens". These are what I call "rights of the first class" - think the freedom of speech; right to remain silent; right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment", etc. The 2A is currently a "right of the second class" and less rigorously protected. Our side is fighting to get the 2A recognized as a right of the first class. Any acceptance that right is fundamentally different than the other 9 is buying into the concept that the 2A is "not the same type of right".
It is scary that many pro-2A people accept the mindset of the 2A being "less equal" that the 1st, and 3rd through 10th. Once that concept is accepted by both sides, the only issue is where to draw the line ... and you know the opposition will always be working to move that line.
In fighting that battle, ground lost is unlikely to be regained. Just look at Colorado. As a result of the mag ban, some legislators were recalled, and one resigned facing probable loss so a D could be appointed rather than an R elected ..... but there was no legislation to reverse the mag ban.
"Felon in possession" charges only to someone who is a convicted felon.
--------------------
As to the "fugitive from justice" argument. I don't think the term applies to an uncharged person who commits a crime unless they are being specifically sought, but someone who has been charge or indicted who flees, so it would certainly apply to an unlawful resident who has been criminally, but not civilly, charged and skips a scheduled court appearance. If that logic is used, it should be applied only to those illegally resident persons who meet the actual definition of "fugitive from justice"
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,524
- Likes
- 33,459
Oh if they are working, they are contributing. Contributing to avoidance of MASSIVE inflation for most crops grown in CA. Citizens picking food would require a CA minimum wage. Hours off. Vacation. Social Security. Worker's Comp. OSHA. All that gets added to the cost of your melons and strawberries. $10pint for strawberries IN season, maybe?
Contributing to the tax base as well. People think, "Oh that guy is working illegally. He no pay taxes." Sure. He might not pay a 12% tax on his wages. But his boss just declared a higher profit than if he had paid Pedro legitimately. And I can guarantee the boss is not in the 12% bracket. Probably 32%. So we're actually MAKING money, as a country, on an illegal worker.
The real reason that we don't have immigration reform has zero to do with people being legal or illegal or whathaveyou. It's all about the $. The Right wants you outraged at these filthy people (Italians? Pollacks? Micks????) coming to our shores. The Left wants you to care more for them than anyone in the history of the world.
But coming up with a solution will cost both sides a drum to beat on (lol) and they'll have to face a financial reality they don't want to face.
You (the collective you?) are the sheep. Keep baa'ing. That's exactly where they want you. You got played while trying not to get played. WHOA!
Unless things have changed, it's been a while since I had the discussion with anyone with real knowledge:
Illegal aliens aren't 'technically' in the United States in a legal sense. When I encountered someone, they immediately submitted themselves for inspection and admission legally speaking (sometimes preceded by a foot chase and possibly forced detention). So, I can go along with both sides of the argument in the 'real world'. Just understand there are technical issues when dealing with law vs real world.
When I was young, working in construction was a union wage career, not a job. All of those careers are gone, never to return. If you think for one minute they are making less than minimum wage, you are the one with their head in the ground. I've seen the paychecks, I've seen the W4's and I9's. They are 'on the books', but not legal. You can say I'm being anecdotal, but there are networks in place that help them do what they do. No one 'feet dry' here is on their own at this point.
You think they are paying 'taxes'? Ever put 99 dependents on your W4? Maybe Social Security still gets paid, but most of the money goes into their pockets. Now, let's talk about the poor sucker who's SSN is on that I-9 I mentioned. That guy gets jammed for failing to file income. Tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I can give you the number of the SSA Special Agent I was working with trying to track down the 20 other people using a guy's SSN.
Now, let's talk kids jamming up the schools. Kids that don't speak English. Schools have to hire interpreters and other staff to deal with these kids. Let's talk about emergency rooms that are filled with illegals that won't pay a cent. We can talk about if schools should be done the way they are, but that doesn't change how things are today.
Simply put, you're right, we as Americans simply want things done as cheaply as possible and people don't need to work to feed themselves. One of those 2 things have to change and will likely result in the other changing as well. I simply have a different definition of what 'contributing' means.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,653
- Likes
- 33,794
If they are not in the us technically, why did SCOTUS rule that they have a right to free public education if of school age?
I can tell you why the sky is blue. Refraction of light through the atmosphere. I can almost talk about why gravity works, depending on which mechanism you're talking about. What I can't talk about is why judges make the decisions they make.
For sure.
The left wants less guns. By any means possible. Even their own cherished illegals can't have guns, as less guns equals more control. And giving the government more control is what the founders didnt want going on which is why the 2A was put in place to attempt to balance that power.
But, here we are with all sorts of people, easily a majority in MA, supporting life time DQ's for getting a DUI.
Think the founders would give a f***ing shit if you got caught riding a horse drunk, or driving a horse drawn wagon drunk? I doubt it. And if they did, they wouldn't be stripping of you of rights for the rest of your life.
This simply wouldn’t be an issue if we enforced the immigration laws.
Oh, you’re an illegal alien. Yes you can have a gun, but we are going to deport your ass so that’s not really an issue. Have a nice day.
Oh, you’re an illegal alien. Yes you can have a gun, but we are going to deport your ass so that’s not really an issue. Have a nice day.
I feel lucky, I saw the reply and thought, 'Great, he's coming after me over gravity.'
KBCraig
NES Member
lolwhut?
No one is a fugitive from justice unless they've been charged with a crime and then fled.
Being a first-time immigration violator isn't even a crime; it's a civil matter. Even if someone is "illegal re-entry" or "found within the United States after having been previously deported", they're not a fugitive unless there's a warrant out for them.
They are federally prohibited persons, but that doesn't make them prohibited under state laws. Most states don't have immigration laws, you know.
NH doesn't even count you as prohibited unless the offense was a felony in New Hampshire at the time of the offense, so all those Mass misdefelonies don't count.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,653
- Likes
- 33,794
They still count from a federal perspective, and will fail a NICS check even if the FLRB has restored the misdafelon's rights.
MaverickNH
NES Member
All humans have certain basic rights - call them God-Given if you want. We can insist other countries acknowledge those rights and enable them if we give them aid. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t. The right to self-defense is on the short-list of basic human rights.
For contrast, read articles on the human right of self-defense from David Kopel and a United Nations author [spoiler - the UN author speaks of collective self-defense as a personal right; Chapter 6E - No general right to possess firearms and other means of self-defense]:
Do I want to see illegal immigrants provided with safety, food, shelter, medical care, education, jobs? Sure - back where they came from. If we give it away here, their home country has no motivation to use our aid to provide for their citizens.
I am not obligated to have my hard-earned money taxed away to give to any of the 7.5+ billion people on Earth who can cross into the US illegally. The 145 million taxpayers in the US cannot save the world.
For contrast, read articles on the human right of self-defense from David Kopel and a United Nations author [spoiler - the UN author speaks of collective self-defense as a personal right; Chapter 6E - No general right to possess firearms and other means of self-defense]:
The Human Right of Self-Defense
Does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said no -
papers.ssrn.com
Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law
Rights of resistance find their roots in the victims’ human rights, interpreted in accordance with the right to personal self-defense as a general principle of
papers.ssrn.com
Do I want to see illegal immigrants provided with safety, food, shelter, medical care, education, jobs? Sure - back where they came from. If we give it away here, their home country has no motivation to use our aid to provide for their citizens.
I am not obligated to have my hard-earned money taxed away to give to any of the 7.5+ billion people on Earth who can cross into the US illegally. The 145 million taxpayers in the US cannot save the world.
Last edited:
Tartakovsky
NES Member
We shouldn’t be giving other countries aid. Maybe if we stopped giving all these countries billions of dollars, especially our frienemies like China, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc, we could afford to support private companies’ efforts to employ more Americans, provide more job opportunities, provide immigrants with a more efficient, less bureaucratic path to immigration and naturalization, while simultaneously enforcing our sovereign borders.All humans have certain basic rights - call them God-Given if you want. We can insist other countries acknowledge those rights and enable them if we give them aid. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t. The right to self-defense is on the short-list of basic human rights.
For contrast, read articles on the human right of self-defense from David Kopel and a United Nations author [spoiler - the UN author speaks of collective self-defense as a personal right; Chapter 6E - No general right to possess firearms and other means of self-defense]:
The Human Right of Self-Defense
Does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said no -papers.ssrn.comHuman Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law
Rights of resistance find their roots in the victims’ human rights, interpreted in accordance with the right to personal self-defense as a general principle ofpapers.ssrn.com
Do I want to see illegal immigrants provided with safety, food, shelter, medical care, education, jobs? Sure - back where they came from. If we give it away here, their home country has no motivation to use our aid to provide for their citizens.
I am not obligated to have my hard-earned money taxed away to give to any of the 7.5+ billion people on Earth who can cross into the US illegally. The 145 million taxpayers in the US cannot save the world.
Rockrivr1
NES Member
Agreed. I’d also question why we are giving tax breaks to oil companies. Exxon made $36 billion dollars in pure profit last quarter. That is just in one quarter. As a taxpayer I’m at a loss as to why we subsidize them. As a shareholder I’m happy to see how this affects the stock price. Double edge sword.
None of them. I didn't read the whole thread, but the short answer is that that's why states run schools, not the federal government. And once a state establishes that, it's applicable to all residents under the 14th Amendment.
I certainly don't need any convincing. I was just answering the question.
The Federal DoE truly does nothing useful. Nothing at all. Everyone in education knows this. The Federal government's role in schools deals with enforcement of civil rights, mostly, and that's not even the DoE.
KBCraig
NES Member
Of course. But that's not relevant to the point, which is that all people have the RKBA.
Tartakovsky
NES Member
Except Dr. Jill
