Illegal Immigrants Don't Have the Constitutional Right to Own Firearms

short of a capital crime, i would expect to be kicked out.
That is not how it works. Usually, Americans committing gun comes in other countries get shoved into a 3rd world shithole prison while an ineffective lawyer connects a hose to his relative's bank account in the US. This is especially true for countries where the natives ignore the gun laws with impunity (think Mexico).
 
Last edited:
If you believe that you only have the RKBA because the Constitution says so, you've already failed Rights 101.

The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. It's a foundational document that says government can't infringe on your rights, nor on anyone else's rights. There was considerable debate over adoption of the Bill of Rights, because some feared that future generations would believe they only had the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Time has proved that fear to be well warranted.
 
Please explain the constitutional basis for this, and why it is consistent with that document to extend one element of the bill of rights only to a subset of those protected by the other 9.

I am not interested in arguments why something is a good idea, why you want it, etc. but rather what argument you would offer if you had to explain to SCOTUS why the 2nd provides protection to only some of the people protected by #1 and #3-#10.

Because the court was WRONG in their decision to apply those protections to illegals in the first place. The court created the problem in the first place and "We The People"( citizens) get bent over in the process to suffer the costs, the indignities and the losses.

Would you expect the right to a trial, to see the evidence used against you, and to be represented by counsel?

Being held as an illegal in another country, I wouldn't expect anything, not even a decent place to relieve myself.
This is why unless I'm part of a well armed and supplied military unit, I will never set foot outside my own country again.
 
Under federal law, illegal aliens have no RTKB arms.

.

Oh good. Federal law. Like the ones that allowed slaves. Laws are based on hte framework of the constitution and often they are found to be in direct conflict with said document.

I stand by that only citizens have rights.

Citizenship is not a right.

If convicted felons or other people can be considered "prohibited persons" then there should be a default bucket that says if you're here in the country illegally, you're a federally prohibited person. Period. Full stop.

Want the RKBA? Become a citizen.

If someone wants to allow illegal aliens to have guns, then the whole notion of "prohibited people" needs to go away.

I'm sure there are a million reasons why this is wrong. I don't care.

Ya know - if I served my time, why am I a prohibited person? Forget the convenience of "once a crim, always a crim." That's a crappy answer. They served their time. If it was insufficient, they should have been held longer. A criminal who WANTS a gun is gonna GET a gun. The whole PP thing is a band-aid to make the masses feel better.

Very good point, i would expect civilized treatment.......But, I would not go to another country and carry a gun, break their laws and disrespect the system,
but if i did, i would not expect to get the same rights as citizens of another country; short of a capital crime, i would expect to be kicked out.
its hard enough to get fair, for Americans, here in America. I feel First, we need to concentrate on keeping all Americans equal and protect our rights, that is hard enough.

In part, this is what makes America great. We were founded on the principal that there are certain inalienable rights. ALL men have them.

And this is great. Don't apologize for learning and changing your mind and such. F it. Let's all get really stupid, put our feelings and beliefs on the table and not be embarrassed by them or the growth we find in sharing them.
 
1) Oh good. Federal law. Like the ones that allowed slaves. Laws are based on hte framework of the constitution and often they are found to be in direct conflict with said document.

2) In part, this is what makes America great. We were founded on the principal that there are certain inalienable rights. ALL men have them.

3) And this is great. Don't apologize for learning and changing your mind and such. F it. Let's all get really stupid, put our feelings and beliefs on the table and not be embarrassed by them or the growth we find in sharing them.

3) I FEEL like I'm responding to a liberal, but I'll expose my feelings, and stupid beliefs anyway:

1) Equating slavery with illegal aliens is quite a big stretch! So, it's okay for an illegal alien to exercise his/her RKBA? Why stop there? Let them have all the rights that we have so that we can end all this nonsense at the southern border. In fact, why even have an inhumane border?

2) Principals have nothing to do with inalienable rights. Well, at least the principals at my schools had nothing to do with them. The principle that "ALL men have them" (inalienable rights) existed long before this country was founded. The illegal alien can practice his/her inalienable rights in their own country. When they are in my country illegally, they have no inalienable rights until their asses are back in their own country because we are a nation of laws and not an oligarchy or a monarchy. Conversely, go to their country and see how long you can enjoy your inalienable rights.
 
Illegals have the right to welfare, EBT cards, food stamps, free health care, education, driving w/o a license or ins., the right to shit on the sidewalk, the right to vote (democrat), so they might as well have the RKBA. Jack.
 
Ya know - if I served my time, why am I a prohibited person? Forget the convenience of "once a crim, always a crim." That's a crappy answer. They served their time. If it was insufficient, they should have been held longer. A criminal who WANTS a gun is gonna GET a gun. The whole PP thing is a band-aid to make the masses feel better.

I don't disagree. If you're "rehabilitated" enough to walk the streets a free man, then you should have ALL your civil rights restored. If you're not safe enough to be trusted with a gun, why are you out at all?

But as long as "prohibited persons" exist and we deny their civil rights, then "illegal aliens" ought to be thrown in that bucket. Again -- jmnsho. Yours may vary and that's OK.
 
The Constitution is an all or nothing. You don't get to pick and choose. So if they don't have 2nd amendment rights, then they consequently don't have ANY rights. So thanks for establishing that case law. Now we can just immediately deport them all post haste. No more waiting for an asylum hearing, due process BS. Get them gone and be done with it.
 
The Constitution is an all or nothing. You don't get to pick and choose. So if they don't have 2nd amendment rights, then they consequently don't have ANY rights. So thanks for establishing that case law. Now we can just immediately deport them all post haste. No more waiting for an asylum hearing, due process BS. Get them gone and be done with it.
They are a large part of the democrat voting base, so they will never get thrown out. Jack.
 
The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. It's a foundational document that says government can't infringe on your rights, nor on anyone else's rights. There was considerable debate over adoption of the Bill of Rights, because some feared that future generations would believe they only had the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Time has proved that fear to be well warranted.
That is a distinction without a difference. There are thing you can do that the government will use unlimited for to prevent you from doing, and things that the govt allows that will not motivate it use force against you.
 
Based on this thread, everyone has the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Therefore, no more complaining about illegals, open the borders, let them all in. It is their right.

Right?
 
If the Constitution defines the Rights of FOREIGN NATIONALS at all, what difference would it make whether the FOREIGN NATIONALS are within our borders or not ?

Clearly the Founders did not intend ANY law or right defined in US Code to apply to some Goat Herder IN Afghanistan.

OR - a Goat Herder from Afghanistan in our country ILLEGALLY.
 
It's bad enough that illegals cause so many mv accident's with loss of life to US citizens only to be deported to and never have to pay a dime, give them rights to have a gun no effin way.
 
Last edited:
If the Constitution defines the Rights of FOREIGN NATIONALS at all, what difference would it make whether the FOREIGN NATIONALS are within our borders or not ?

Clearly the Founders did not intend ANY law or right defined in US Code to apply to some Goat Herder IN Afghanistan.

OR - a Goat Herder from Afghanistan in our country ILLEGALLY.
I dont think the concept of ILLEGAL immigrant existed back then. If the Goat Herder moved to one of the colonies, he could have purchased a musket.

But I agree on not giving illegals guns.
 
I dont think the concept of ILLEGAL immigrant existed back then. If the Goat Herder moved to one of the colonies, he could have purchased a musket.

But I agree on not giving illegals guns.

Ya, it did. The founders were WELL AWARE of immigration and sought to be quite selective in who was permitted to enter this country and be naturalized. Thats why they wrote it into the constitution, Article 1 Section 8.
 
Ya, it did. The founders were WELL AWARE of immigration and sought to be quite selective in who was permitted to enter this country and be naturalized. Thats why they wrote it into the constitution, Article 1 Section 8.
You mean the part that says absolutely nothing about immigration?

A "uniform rule of naturalization" means that Congress sets the rules for who is or isn't a citizen of the United States. Naturalization isn't immigration.

There is no authority within the text of the Constitution that allows the federal government to limit immigration. If you go back to the Declaration of Independence, one of the complaints was that the king interfered with immigration.

The Founders fought a war to allow freedom of immigration.
 
You mean the part that says absolutely nothing about immigration?

A "uniform rule of naturalization" means that Congress sets the rules for who is or isn't a citizen of the United States. Naturalization isn't immigration.

There is no authority within the text of the Constitution that allows the federal government to limit immigration. If you go back to the Declaration of Independence, one of the complaints was that the king interfered with immigration.

The Founders fought a war to allow freedom of immigration.

You're confused. Look up EMMIGRATION then look up IMMIGRATION.

The king of England was trying to stop the colonists from breaking away, he was trying to stop them from " emmigrating" from England (leaving the country) and getting out from under his rule.. He demanded taxes from them, imposed his rule on them etc........"the long train of abuses".
The war that was fought was for their own ( the colonists) benefit so THEY could LEAVE ENGLAND and establish their own (our) country, and when they did so by virtue of the constitution, they wrote into that constitution who would control what and the duties of each branch.

The term " naturalization" as used by the founders means that congress was given the authority to be the "gate keeper" so that no one state in the union could independently flood the union (the land) with people without the concent of the other states and congress most certainly had (and still has)the authority to dictate who does and who doesn't come into this country and how many and what the parameters are for entry.

This country was never meant to be some "FREE FOR ALL" flop house for every person that ever cast a shadow on our shores gets to stay permanently!

We've had clearly defined and regulated (legally anyway)borders right from the very start and the only thing that has changed over time is the level of disrespect for those borders by people who think that they can just walk right in unregulated and tap the resources of our American society for free. Thats not how it works.

The control of or complete banning of certain immigrants into this country for various reasons is not new, it has been done several times in the past.
 
Last edited:
If this IS the case... then why do illegals get 1,4,5,6,7a?

Does not seem like they should be able to pick and choose. Either BOR applies or it does not.
 
If this IS the case... then why do illegals get 1,4,5,6,7a?

Does not seem like they should be able to pick and choose. Either BOR applies or it does not.

They should not be afforded the same rights as citizens( either naturalized or birthright). That was never the intent of the founders. The founders clearly stated....." FOR OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY". It was understood that that statement meant people who were citizens of this country at the time of adoption, and shortly after that, those who were naturalized by law.

The supreme court was absolutely wrong in their decisions to afford every foreigner (especially illegals) that stands on American soil the same rights as legally naturalized citizens or people born here( who's parents were here legally before the birth of their children).
 
If this IS the case... then why do illegals get 1,4,5,6,7a?

Does not seem like they should be able to pick and choose. Either BOR applies or it does not.
Because the 2nd is a "Right of the second class" afforded lesser protection.

But the National Anti-Quartering Association has been reasonably successful in protecting the 3rd for both legals and illegals.
 
As far as I’m concerned the BOR does not apply to illegal aliens.
Millions of fence jumpers come to this country and buy firearms?
To me that’s called an invading army.

Even more scary is Chinese birth tourism. I’m not sure of the exact
number but I bet it’s close to 1 million since it started decades ago.
Chinese women come here, have babies and the kids are US citizens.
All these babies are now in their teens and 20s and 30s. Likely all have
been in the Chinese army for most of their lives. At any time China
can send them here no questions asked because they’re US
citizens. They can take up residence in a free state, buy whatever
Firearms they want, buy as much ammunition as they want, and now
China has a standing army within the borders of the United States.
If that doesn’t scare the pants off you I don’t know what will.
Birth tourism - Wikipedia
 
Back
Top Bottom