PDA

View Full Version : Court decides illegal immigrants may NOT possess guns


NorCal Mtn Flyer
05-08-2012, 11:24 AM
Decided by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals-

"A federal appeals court says illegal immigrants don't have a right to own firearms under the U.S. Constitution."

"The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Monday that illegal immigrants have only limited protection under the Constitution."

Here is the link to the story (short)-

http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Illegal-Immigrant-Firearms/2012/05/08/id/438385

greg36f
05-08-2012, 11:31 AM
Decided by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals-

"A federal appeals court says illegal immigrants don't have a right to own firearms under the U.S. Constitution."

"The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Monday that illegal immigrants have only limited protection under the Constitution."

Here is the link to the story (short)-

http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Illegal-Immigrant-Firearms/2012/05/08/id/438385



That could be a big deal, with firearms being just a small part.

repubconserv
05-08-2012, 11:33 AM
Those poor illegal immigrants, what wrong did they ever do

compulsivegunbuyer
05-08-2012, 11:33 AM
Obviously the judge is a racist.

alfred1222
05-08-2012, 11:38 AM
That could be a big deal, with firearms being just a small part.

i agree,

Clownpuncher
05-08-2012, 11:43 AM
Good thing it wasn't decided by the 9th circuit. They would have determined that they all rate one for free as they cross the border in order to protect themselves from the drug runners.

On the plus side, this will now mean that there will be no more crime involving illegal imigrants and guns since they can't possess them. :rolleyes:

SilverTauron
05-08-2012, 11:43 AM
".......In a related story, Senator Chuck Schuman and Representative McCarthy are in talks to resolve how a citizenship test can be integrated into the Brady Background Check system"

rysmithjr
05-08-2012, 11:45 AM
I read this issue as "every human has certain natural rights, but the US Constitution only offers protection of those rights to US citizens."

A very misleading headline also, they court didn't say he couldn't have guns, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A), 924(a)(2) said he couldn't. "illegal alien in possession of firearms transported or shipped in interstate commerce" was upheld as being Constitutional, that's all.

Baconator
05-08-2012, 11:48 AM
Interesting to see how this will play out with other protections afforded under the Constitution.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Coded-Dude
05-08-2012, 11:51 AM
inalienable is now alienable. this is interesting news indeed.

chicoredneck
05-08-2012, 11:52 AM
Interesting. Aparently our courts see the right to own and bear arms as a law granted by government, and not a human right. If that is the case the courts see the right to arms as a privilage reserved for americans and not applicable to anyone else. Therfore, our courts don't see it as a right at all.

MA5177
05-08-2012, 11:53 AM
Maybe instead of worrying about the rights of illegal immigrants, they should start rounding them up and sending them home! I forget to put my seatbelt on and I get a fine as the cop drives right by a group of illegals in the home depot parking lot to pull me over . Grow some balls USA!

OleCuss
05-08-2012, 11:57 AM
I think it might be more akin to the idea that we don't give prisoners firearms.

It is a little difficult to say that someone whose very presence within the U.S. is by result of an illegal act is entitled to arm themselves.

This is not the same as saying that someone legally present within the U.S. cannot keep and bear arms. That prohibition I would have significant problems with except under special circumstances.

chicoredneck
05-08-2012, 11:59 AM
I think it might be more akin to the idea that we don't give prisoners firearms.

It is a little difficult to say that someone whose very presence within the U.S. is by result of an illegal act is entitled to arm themselves.

This is not the same as saying that someone legally present within the U.S. cannot keep and bear arms. That prohibition I would have significant problems with except under special circumstances.

Excellent point and I agree. Why do we give them everything else then? I know the answer to the question, but some consitency would be nice.

PanaDP
05-08-2012, 12:04 PM
Maybe instead of worrying about the rights of illegal immigrants, they should start rounding them up and sending them home! I forget to put my seatbelt on and I get a fine as the cop drives right by a group of illegals in the home depot parking lot to pull me over . Grow some balls USA!

I hate to be that cold but it's probably the best course of action. I want immigrants here, but only if they do things legally. Without that, they are availing themselves of a system intended for tax paying citizens.

It's like sneaking into disneyland and disney telling them "aww, that's OK. You can stay." The people that paid $40 or whatever are going to be pissed.

YubaRiver
05-08-2012, 12:06 PM
And we certainly wouldn't want anyone possessing a gun who has committed
a crime for which they haven't been convicted. (Sarcasm) I agree with post #37.

Glock22Fan
05-08-2012, 12:08 PM
Some of you seem to be forgetting that LEGAL immigrants may own and possess firearms.

This is not just for American citizens, it is for anyone who is here LEGALLY. If you are not here legally and you possess a firearm, you are possessing a firearm whilst in the act of committing an illegal act.

What's wrong with that?

As a person who was once a legal immigrant, and who subsequently has become a US Citizen, I have no problem with that.

PanaDP
05-08-2012, 12:08 PM
And we certainly wouldn't want anyone possessing a gun who has committed
a crime for which they haven't been convicted.

Also true. It's hard enough in CA to own guns when you're a law abiding citizen. It shouldn't be easier if you're a willing criminal.

PanaDP
05-08-2012, 12:13 PM
As a person who was once a legal immigrant, and who subsequently has become a US Citizen, I have no problem with that.


Nice to hear that opinion from somebody who has gone through the proper citizenship process. In my opinion, you and anybody else who has become a proper citizen is just plan an American. I no longer even really care that they came from somewhere else, you're one of us. Period.

I hear a lot of support for illegal immigrants from people who have become citizens and I don't understand it. As I understand it (and please correct me if I have it all wrong, it has been many generations since anybody in my family was not born American), citizenship takes time and money, and not trivial quantities of either. To me, it's like making an investment and then supporting people who steal it.

repubconserv
05-08-2012, 12:16 PM
Some of you seem to be forgetting that LEGAL immigrants may own and possess firearms.

This is not just for American citizens, it is for anyone who is here LEGALLY. If you are not here legally and you possess a firearm, you are possessing a firearm whilst in the act of committing an illegal act.

What's wrong with that?

As a person who was once a legal immigrant, and who subsequently has become a US Citizen, I have no problem with that.

This. If you are a legal immigrant into the united states, please buy all the guns you want/ can afford. The more legal guns there are in the hands of law abiding people, the better I feel.

Decoligny
05-08-2012, 12:26 PM
Interesting. Aparently our courts see the right to own and bear arms as a law granted by government, and not a human right. If that is the case the courts see the right to arms as a privilage reserved for americans and not applicable to anyone else. Therfore, our courts don't see it as a right at all.

No, I see it as the court making a determination that those who are actively involved in illegal activity do not have the right to possess a firearm while engaged in that illegal activity.

Illegal aliens are here in violation of Federal law. They are in a current and continuing state of criminal activity. As with any other crime committed in the US, when the criminal commits the crime while in possession of a furearm, they also should be slapped with the mandatory 10 year sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime.

frankDmole
05-08-2012, 12:29 PM
I hear a lot of support for illegal immigrants from people who have become citizens and I don't understand it.

That is mostly from 2nd and 3rd generation Immigrants.

Being a 1st gen myself, I know what it takes to get here the Legal way, its not easy nor fun, the whole process takes about 1yr and the first 4-6mo. are spent in a secure building with 2-3 families per room...
Its not as easy as taking a hike across the border.

NoJoke
05-08-2012, 12:42 PM
Those poor illegal immigrants, what wrong did they ever do

Become legal and fight for the right like the rest of us! :D

After applying the thinking cap: shouldn't inalienable apply to everyone?

PanaDP
05-08-2012, 12:45 PM
Become legal and fight for the right like the rest of us! :D

NoJoke, that LTC progress graphic in your signature is pretty cool. Do you know of a larger version somewhere where I could see dates?

NorCal Mtn Flyer
05-08-2012, 12:56 PM
Here’s the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning in Reese explaining why intermediate scrutiny was the proper test:


The initial question we must address is whether intermediate scrutiny is also appropriate for the statute challenged by Reese. To be sure, § 922(g)(8) is arguably more restrictive than § 922(k), the statute at issue in Marzzarella, in that it prohibits the possession of all types of firearms. On the other hand, however, § 922(g)(8) is less restrictive than § 922(k) in that it applies only to a narrow class of persons, rather than to the public at large. And, in that regard, § 922(g)(8) is substantially similar to § 922(g)(9), the statute at issue in Skoien. Specifically, both statutes prohibit the possession of firearms by narrow classes of persons who, based on their past behavior, are more likely to engage in domestic violence. Based upon these characteristics, we conclude that § 922(g)(8), like the statutes at issue in Marzzarella and Skoien, is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

http://volokh.com/2012/05/07/tenth-circuit-upholds-ban-on-gun-possession-by-illegal-aliens/

Chosen_1
05-08-2012, 1:04 PM
Well, that's a bunch of BS. They can be provided for by "the general welfare" clause, but they can't own guns. The Constitution is all or nothing, I side with the latter for illegal aliens.

NorCal Mtn Flyer
05-08-2012, 1:09 PM
Fascinating discussion of Second Amendment in Tenth Circuit's affirmance of alien-in-possession conviction

The Tenth Circuit handed down a really interesting opinion this afternoon in the course of rejecting a set of constitutional attacks on 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits illegal aliens from possessing firearms. As explained at the start of the opinion in US v. Huitron-Guizar, No. 11-8051 (11th Cir. May 7, 2012) (available here), the defendant in this case moved "to dismiss the indictment on grounds that § 922(g)(5) unconstitutionally abridges the right to bear arms as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (which applies to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause)." Here are some of the many interesting passages from the Tenth Circuit 's discussion:


The right to bear arms, however venerable, is qualified by what one might call the “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “why.”...

Our issue concerns the “who.” Section 922(g), a part of the amended Gun Control Act of 1968, forbids gun possession by nine classes of individuals: felons, fugitives, addicts or users of controlled substances, the mentally ill, illegal and non-immigrant aliens, the dishonorably discharged, renouncers of their citizenship, those subject to court orders for harassing, stalking, or threatening intimate partners or their children, and those convicted for misdemeanor domestic violence. No Second Amendment challenge since Heller to any of these provisions has succeeded....

Mr. Huitron-Guizar agrees that those guilty of serious crimes and the mentally ill are sensibly stripped of firearms they might otherwise lawfully keep. Yet he wonders what it is about aliens that permits Congress to impose what he considers a similar disability?...

The [Supreme] Court [in a 1990 Fourth Amendment ruling] seemed unwilling to say that illegal aliens, who reside here voluntarily and who accept some social obligations, have no rights the government is bound to respect when, say, they protest a raid or detention. Instead, Verdugo-Urquidez teaches that “People” is a word of broader content than “citizens,” and of narrower content than “persons.”...

How, historically, has this country regulated weapon possession by foreigners? Are we to understand gun ownership as among the private rights not generally denied aliens, like printing newspapers or tending a farm, or one of the rights tied to self-government, like voting and jury service, largely limited to citizens?...

We think we can avoid the constitutional question by assuming, for purposes of this case, that the Second Amendment, as a “right of the people,” could very well include, in the absence of a statute restricting such a right, at least some aliens unlawfully here — and still easily find § 922(g)(5) constitutional.

Among the many joys that come from reading all of the Tenth Circuit's work in this case is to see how quickly the panel dispatches a very original (and very unlikely to succeed) effort to spin a political controversy into an argument for a reduced sentence: "Finally, the argument that a departure or variance was in order based on governmental conduct is meritless. The attempt to connect, in a vague, freewheeling way, the gun possession at issue here with the Fast and Furious Operation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is not persuasive."


http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/05/fascinating-discussion-of-second-amendment-in-tenth-circuits-affirmance-of-alien-in-possession-convi.html

NorCal Mtn Flyer
05-08-2012, 1:20 PM
Tenth Circuit: Courts Defer to Congress to Distinguish Between Citizens and Noncitizens and to Ensure Safety and Order

May 8, 2012 By Zachary Willis Leave a Comment


The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Huitron-Guizar on Monday, May 7, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence. Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession of firearms transported or shipped in interstate commerce and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. Petitioner is to be delivered upon release to an immigration official for deportation. On appeal, he argues that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional and that the district court committed various sentencing errors in applying the Sentencing Guidelines.

The Court disagreed. “[C]ourts must defer to Congress as it lawfully exercises its constitutional power to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, or between lawful and unlawful aliens, and to ensure safety and order. On this record, § 922(g)(5) withstands [Petitioner]’s Second Amendment and Equal Protection challenges.” Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not apply variances to Petitioner’s sentence.

http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2012/05/08/

CessnaDriver
05-08-2012, 1:29 PM
I'm sure the illegal aliens will obey all firearm laws now.

dfletcher
05-08-2012, 1:30 PM
Some of you seem to be forgetting that LEGAL immigrants may own and possess firearms.

This is not just for American citizens, it is for anyone who is here LEGALLY. If you are not here legally and you possess a firearm, you are possessing a firearm whilst in the act of committing an illegal act.

What's wrong with that?

As a person who was once a legal immigrant, and who subsequently has become a US Citizen, I have no problem with that.

Unless I missed an edit I didn't see a comment proposing that legal immigrants ought not possess firearms - everything I've read referenced illegal aliens.

greybeard
05-08-2012, 1:53 PM
Is being here illegally a felony or amisdemeanor?

Mesa Tactical
05-08-2012, 2:06 PM
It is a little difficult to say that someone whose very presence within the U.S. is by result of an illegal act is entitled to arm themselves.

Depends. Is it an inalienable right or a privilege?

Protection of the First Amendment right to free speech is extended to illegal immigrants.

Protection of the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches is extended to illegal immigrants.

Protection of the Fifth Amendment right to due process is extended to illegal immigrants.

Protection of the Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights to trial by jury, speedy trial and access to counsel is extended to illegal immigrants.

Protection from excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishments as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment is extended to illegal immigrants.


But the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms? That's special. That one we treat differently than all the rest; and because the targeted population is an unpopular one, everyone is cool with that.

wildhawker
05-08-2012, 2:57 PM
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL.

BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

-Brandon

corcoraj2002
05-08-2012, 3:40 PM
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

* Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
* Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
* Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

I am a legal alien and I am working towards citizenship and I agree with that they should not be allowed. The Amendment only covers people here legally (IMHO).

vincewarde
05-08-2012, 3:47 PM
".......In a related story, Senator Chuck Schuman and Representative McCarthy are in talks to resolve how a citizenship test can be integrated into the Brady Background Check system"

Why not? These same people were prepared to ban anyone on the terrorist watch list (which is very inaccurate) with no method of appeal.

All kidding aside, one would hope that the ID being presented with the 4473 is checked for validity somehow. We want current gun laws to work, the other side doesn't - because if current laws work, it makes it hard to pass new ones.

BTW, this only affects folks who enter the country illegally - legal resident aliens just need a green card and visiting aliens can buy long guns with a valid tourist VISA and a hunting license.

fighterpilot562
05-08-2012, 3:47 PM
Ya cause they can't buy them off the streets or care,

dantodd
05-08-2012, 3:51 PM
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

* Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
* Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
* Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

I am a legal alien and I am working towards citizenship and I agree with that they should not be allowed. The Amendment only covers people here legally (IMHO).

And if they are CONVICTED of said crime they can have their second amendment rights taken away. Look at the rest of the bill of rights. Does someone suspected of a crime lose their right to be be secure against illegal search and seizure? Can someone not convicted of a crime but suspected of a crime be denied their right against self-incrimination?

Harrison_Bergeron
05-08-2012, 4:37 PM
How does allowing foreign invaders to possess weapons legally Maintain the security of a free state?

MrsRazz
05-08-2012, 4:53 PM
I think it might be more akin to the idea that we don't give prisoners firearms.

It is a little difficult to say that someone whose very presence within the U.S. is by result of an illegal act is entitled to arm themselves.

This is not the same as saying that someone legally present within the U.S. cannot keep and bear arms. That prohibition I would have significant problems with except under special circumstances.

Somewhat along the lines of what I was thinking. Since CA doesn't allow illegal immigrants to have a driver's license or register a car, it would make sense that they can't meet the requirements (ie: background check) to buy a firearm.

Mesa Tactical
05-08-2012, 5:07 PM
BTW, this only affects folks who enter the country illegally -

You mean who are in the country illegally. About half of illegal immigrants entered the country legally.

Sorta makes you wonder about that big expensive fence they are building down south.

stix213
05-08-2012, 5:36 PM
Not a fan of illegal aliens, and not a fan of taking gun rights away from those who haven't proved themselves too violent or incompetent with them....... so I don't know what to feel about this one.

GaryV
05-08-2012, 5:40 PM
Some of you seem to be forgetting that LEGAL immigrants may own and possess firearms.

This is not just for American citizens, it is for anyone who is here LEGALLY. If you are not here legally and you possess a firearm, you are possessing a firearm whilst in the act of committing an illegal act.

What's wrong with that?

As a person who was once a legal immigrant, and who subsequently has become a US Citizen, I have no problem with that.

The problem is that being here illegally is not a felony. It's not even a crime. It's just a civil infraction, like a traffic ticket. So saying they are not protected by the Constitution means that the government can remove someone's rights for even a civil infraction.

Connor P Price
05-08-2012, 5:49 PM
Is the RKBA a civil right? Or is it more accurately described as a human right?

Make that determination without being biased by the illegal immigration issue and I think a few of you may begin to question yourselves. Keep in mind that the right to keep and bear arms stems from the unquestionably human right of self defense.

SilverTauron
05-08-2012, 6:04 PM
Here's the practical reason I believe the court ruled the way it did. One "advantage" of being an illegal alien in America is that you save more of your $$ than an ordinary citizen does. When you don't have to pay state, local, FICA,or Medicare your income goes a lot farther. When evaluated in an economic sense, there is a real benefit to people NOT bothering to become legal citizens. That means they gotta pay taxes and get mandatory health insurance like the rest of us, and who of material motivation would willingly deal with a bureaucracy as bad as the U.S. State Department with higher taxes as a reward?

If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms were applied to illegal aliens, then lawyers for criminals who migrate north and commit violent crimes have one more tool to use in getting their client off. Regular illegal aliens wouldn't see a point in becoming a legal citizen either-why jump through the citizenship hoops, when you can go directly to white picket fence .giant lawn ,and shotgun over the mantleplace tax free?

bwiese
05-08-2012, 6:07 PM
Is the RKBA a civil right? Or is it more accurately described as a human right?

Make that determination without being biased by the illegal immigration issue and I think a few of you may begin to question yourselves. Keep in mind that the right to keep and bear arms stems from the unquestionably human right of self defense.


... but has some contours given an individual would be armed while a continuing crime or some sort of illegal status is in progress.


This is one instance where the it may be difficult to 100% equate 2A to 1A. I don't think fighting on this particular aspect will be that useful/have that favorable of an outcome.

Connor P Price
05-08-2012, 6:19 PM
... but has some contours given an individual would be armed while a continuing crime or some sort of illegal status is in progress.


This is one instance where the it may be difficult to 100% equate 2A to 1A. I don't think fighting on this particular aspect will be that useful/have that favorable of an outcome.

To be honest, I question myself on this issue. My comment was more to encourage further discourse than to give my own opinion.

I would hope that no 2A organization begins fighting for the rights of illegal aliens. We have far to much ground to cover for law abiding citizens to distract ourselves with criminal trespassers on our land. From an academic standpoint, its still a very interesting issue.

jorgyusa
05-08-2012, 6:29 PM
I agree with the sentiment that aliens who are living in the US illegally should be dealt with (i.e. deported). However unless they are here to commit (or are committing) another much more serious crime, I don't think it is good that their fundamental human rights should be summarily taken away. The court said Congress could identify a group and take their rights away as was done in the 1968 gun law. Could they also identify other groups for example a group of all individuals who have been caught going 10 miles/hr over the speed limit? This reasoning says that they could. This is a bad precedent for us and will hopefully be appealed and overturned.

bobomb
05-08-2012, 6:33 PM
well on one hand it takes away rights from those here unlawfully on the other it makes it harder for them to kill each other

i just dont know which side to stand on

Decoligny
05-08-2012, 6:37 PM
Depends. Is it an inalienable right or a privilege?

Protection of the First Amendment right to free speech is extended to illegal immigrants.

Protection of the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches is extended to illegal immigrants.

Protection of the Fifth Amendment right to due process is extended to illegal immigrants.

Protection of the Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights to trial by jury, speedy trial and access to counsel is extended to illegal immigrants.

Protection from excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishments as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment is extended to illegal immigrants.


But the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms? That's special. That one we treat differently than all the rest; and because the targeted population is an unpopular one, everyone is cool with that.

You could replace "felon" for "illegal alien" and be 100% accurate still. However they can't legally posess firearms. Illegals are by the very fact of their being here, criminals, engaged in an ongoing crime. As long as they are in the country they are in the act of committing a crime.

NoJoke
05-08-2012, 6:39 PM
Is the RKBA a civil right? Or is it more accurately described as a human right?

Make that determination without being biased by the illegal immigration issue and I think a few of you may begin to question yourselves. Keep in mind that the right to keep and bear arms stems from the unquestionably human right of self defense.

Thank you!
It's an ideal case for the anti's to chip away at what I believe to be an inalienable right.

...especially with today's vocal outcry against illegal immigration. This does not mean that I am pro-illegal immigration and I am definitely PRO inalienable right to self defense.

But packaging it up w/ illegal immigration makes it an easy sell.

We're being played.

huntercf
05-08-2012, 8:01 PM
I think it might be more akin to the idea that we don't give prisoners firearms.

It is a little difficult to say that someone whose very presence within the U.S. is by result of an illegal act is entitled to arm themselves.

This is not the same as saying that someone legally present within the U.S. cannot keep and bear arms. That prohibition I would have significant problems with except under special circumstances.

+1 on that, when we buy a gun we have to answer questions and one of them asks if you are a fugitive from justice...illegal aliens are fugitives from justice hence they cannot buy or own a firearm.

rimfire78
05-08-2012, 8:17 PM
How would an illegal buy a gun legally anyway???
You need to give your Alien registration number, a copy of your green card, a copy of your state ID, a finger print, proof of residence for 3 consecutive months (and your social security number if you so choose) IF YOU ARE A LEGAL immigrant. I'm guessing you have to do a pretty good job of identifying yourself as a citizen as well?
So how would an illegal walk into a gun store and leave with a firearm anyway? I don't get it.

RobG
05-08-2012, 8:37 PM
The difference between the 2nd and the others is in order to exercise your 2a rights, one must acquire a firearm to do so. And there are laws in place that regulate that process. If you are an illegal alien and are in possession of a firearm, you have comitted a crime acquiring said firearm. Why should an illegal alien be given more leniency than a legal citizen that has to follow the laws to acquire a firearm?

kcbrown
05-08-2012, 8:38 PM
Here's the bottom line: due process is the only thing protecting you and everyone you know from having your rights stripped from you unilaterally by fiat.

Hence, while someone who is in the country illegally might not possess a Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms, that can only be determined by a court of law.

Until that determination is made by a court of law, the person in question has the right to keep and bear arms, period, full stop.

If you don't like it, then feel free to move to one of any number of countries where there is no due process protecting your rights.


I agree with bwiese that this fight is not the one we want to be fighting right now, but the very nature of this particular issue may be such that we have no real choice but to fight it now or soon, because if we do not then we may not be able to later on, and we may lose the right for good (for if the government can legitimately strip the right to keep and bear arms from someone for an infraction, then the right is dead and buried).

dantodd
05-08-2012, 8:51 PM
How would an illegal buy a gun legally anyway???
You need to give your Alien registration number, a copy of your green card, a copy of your state ID, a finger print, proof of residence for 3 consecutive months (and your social security number if you so choose) IF YOU ARE A LEGAL immigrant. I'm guessing you have to do a pretty good job of identifying yourself as a citizen as well?
So how would an illegal walk into a gun store and leave with a firearm anyway? I don't get it.

They legally acquire a firearm and then their immigration status changes.

kcbrown
05-08-2012, 9:00 PM
Oh, and another thing:

A right isn't a right unless someone you don't like gets to exercise it.

You may not like illegal aliens. I don't like it that they're here illegally, either. But a right is a right, and the only legitimate reason to strip it is when there is no other reasonable choice on the table!!

If you don't like it, then tough ****. Either deal with it, or admit that you don't really support rights at all, but rather privileges that are reserved only for people you like.

interstellar
05-08-2012, 9:03 PM
What a great thread for our documentary...

scarville
05-08-2012, 9:03 PM
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." A.J. Liebling

I suppose the same can be said of the right to keep and bear arms -- it is only guaranteed those who own arms.

G-Man WC
05-08-2012, 9:05 PM
Just shocking! I would expect our commander-in-chief to weigh in on this matter.
After all, it's and election year and he needs all the illegal votes he can get this time.
-g

Sealawyer
05-08-2012, 9:10 PM
The problem is that being here illegally is not a felony. It's not even a crime. It's just a civil infraction, like a traffic ticket. So saying they are not protected by the Constitution means that the government can remove someone's rights for even a civil infraction.

Untrue. Although hardly prosecuted in the days of Obama, illegal entry is a real crime under the US Code. And the larger argument goes is that the Bill of Rights applies to "We the People" --meaning citizens-- not those outside the tent, visitors, and trespassers-- that's why the RKBA should not extend to illegals on our soil.

rimfire78
05-08-2012, 9:20 PM
Untrue. Although hardly prosecuted in the days of Obama, illegal entry is a real crime under the US Code. And the larger argument goes is that the Bill of Rights applies to "We the People" --meaning citizens-- not those outside the tent, visitors, and trespassers-- that's why the RKBA should not extend to illegals on our soil.

It doesn't say "meaning citizens" anywhere. It says this....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights........."

dawgcasa
05-08-2012, 9:22 PM
They legally acquire a firearm and then their immigration status changes.

But how do they legally acquire a firearm? They have no legal status, no ID unless the ID is forged and thats illegal. Same as not being able to get a drivers license because they can't prove they are legal resident aliens. So if they are walking around with a gun, the only means for them to do so is if they acquired it through illegal means. In the country illegally and in possession of a gun illegally. Regardless of whether you think they have a natural right to a gun, they cannot possess one without breaking the law in the process of acquiring one.

GaryV
05-08-2012, 9:41 PM
You could replace "felon" for "illegal alien" and be 100% accurate still. However they can't legally posess firearms. Illegals are by the very fact of their being here, criminals, engaged in an ongoing crime. As long as they are in the country they are in the act of committing a crime.

Except that, again, being in the country illegally is not a felony, not a misdemeanor, and not even a crime. It is a civil infraction, which is not a crime, so they are not involved in an on-going crime of any kind, and not committing any crime by remaining here. That argument would legally be the same as saying that you could be denied your right to own a gun at any time during which you're illegally parked. If the government wants to use this logic, then they need to upgrade the status from infraction to crime, rather than just arbitrarily choose which acts allow them to deny constitutional rights.

Connor P Price
05-08-2012, 9:53 PM
But how do they legally acquire a firearm? They have no legal status, no ID unless the ID is forged and thats illegal. Same as not being able to get a drivers license because they can't prove they are legal resident aliens. So if they are walking around with a gun, the only means for them to do so is if they acquired it through illegal means. In the country illegally and in possession of a gun illegally. Regardless of whether you think they have a natural right to a gun, they cannot possess one without breaking the law in the process of acquiring one.

What about people who come here on work or travel visas? They are here legally and may legally acquire firearms. As soon as their date is up would you say they no longer have a right to defend themselves?

Harrison_Bergeron
05-08-2012, 10:34 PM
What other amendment clearly states its purpose? I don't see how anyone can read;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To mean that foreigners here without permission should be allowed to arm themselves.

---

Just because they may have been here legally at one time does not mean that they should be exempted either, felons and the mentally unstable are not allowed to keep the guns that they owned before they were caught, why should people who break any other law?
---

Just because someone has not been caught yet does not mean that they have not broken the law. Banning illegals from possessing guns is no different than the law that says gang members are not allowed to have loaded mags on their way to committing a crime, it is just another add-on at the trial.

dustoff31
05-08-2012, 10:47 PM
What about people who come here on work or travel visas? They are here legally and may legally acquire firearms. As soon as their date is up would you say they no longer have a right to defend themselves?

They have a right to defend themselves, just not with a gun. When their visa is up they are supposed to go home. If they overstay their visa, they are then here illegally.

InGrAM
05-08-2012, 10:50 PM
Except that, again, being in the country illegally is not a felony, not a misdemeanor, and not even a crime. It is a civil infraction, which is not a crime, so they are not involved in an on-going crime of any kind, and not committing any crime by remaining here. That argument would legally be the same as saying that you could be denied your right to own a gun at any time during which you're illegally parked. If the government wants to use this logic, then they need to upgrade the status from infraction to crime, rather than just arbitrarily choose which acts allow them to deny constitutional rights.


Big flaw in your argument, One is a US citizen the other is not. It makes a difference.

PanaDP
05-08-2012, 10:59 PM
My understanding of the bill of rights is that it outlays the rights of its citizens that will be protected in the course of government. It does claim that they are inalienable but the promise not to infringe upon those rights only applies to the governed, which is the citizenship. Government cannot possibly infringe on those it does not govern and therefore reading it to include non-citizens makes no sense.

PanaDP
05-09-2012, 12:03 AM
It doesn't say "meaning citizens" anywhere. It says this....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights........."

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution begins, "We the People of the United States of America..." stating both who is issuing the work and to whom it applies.

sharxbyte
05-09-2012, 12:48 AM
Those poor illegal immigrants, what wrong did they ever do

Not sure if that was sarcasm, but for one, they invaded the country... Other countries shoot you for that... People act like they havent broken any laws, when they have.. After all it is ILLEGAL immigration. Those arguing for people on work visas are also out of line, because they aren't illegals until they overstay. If Illegals are allowed firearms, then foreign terrorists would be allowed to buy guns not only on the street, but legally.

Connor P Price
05-09-2012, 1:20 AM
They have a right to defend themselves, just not with a gun. When their visa is up they are supposed to go home. If they overstay their visa, they are then here illegally.

That sounds a lot like a right to build houses with a ban on screws and nails, or a right to to live but with a mandate not to drink water. A gun is necessary for proper self defense in today's world where criminals have guns.

There may be validity to the idea that illegal immigrants shouldn't have firearms, but lets not kid ourselves. Denying someone the right to a functional firearm is denying them the right to defend themselves. Don't pretend that refusing to allow someone to possess firearms doesn't severely limit or even remove their ability to defend themselves from violent attackers.

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 2:25 AM
They have a right to defend themselves, just not with a gun.

What are they supposed to use to defend themselves with, then, harsh language?

The 2nd Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms, not just firearms. If illegal aliens can be stripped of their right to firearms for their mere presence here, they can be stripped of their right to any weapons on the same basis.

Colt-45
05-09-2012, 2:42 AM
Why is it that illegals and advocacy groups that support illegal immigration think illegals have civil and constitutional rights? can someone elaborate please?

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 2:49 AM
Why is it that illegals and advocacy groups that support illegal immigration think illegals have civil and constitutional rights? can someone elaborate please?

What, you think they don't?

If they don't, then that means they can legitimately be turned into slaves. Someone who has no rights has no legitimate defense against any wrong that may be done against them.

What's with you people and rights, anyway? Why is the concept so difficult for you to grasp?

Yes, I get that illegal immigrants are in violation of the immigration laws. But violation of a law does not automatically eliminate all your rights! If it did, none of us would have any rights at all, because I guarantee that every single one of us is guilty of having violated some law somewhere.

And the right to keep and bear arms is perhaps the most sacrosanct, for without it, we don't have a real right to life!


So either get with the program and support real rights and liberty, with all the inconveniences it entails, or quit pretending that you support rights at all, when what you really support is privileges.


“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -- Thomas Jefferson

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 2:55 AM
Make no mistake. I am strongly against the presence of illegal aliens. They should all be deported, and all services that we get as a result of being law abiding should be denied to them. That means no police, no firefighters (except to protect the property that does belong to those who are legally here), no non-emergency healthcare, no employment, nothing. Any person who insists on coming here illegally should be entirely on their own, with zero support from U.S. society. They should be outcast in that way.

But they still retain their rights, including that of due process. For it to be any other way is to go down a very very dark path that can only end in either fire or enslavement.


By sacrificing the rights of others, you inevitably sacrifice your own. It has always been that way, and will always be that way.

scarville
05-09-2012, 4:26 AM
Untrue. Although hardly prosecuted in the days of Obama, illegal entry is a real crime under the US Code. And the larger argument goes is that the Bill of Rights applies to "We the People" --meaning citizens-- not those outside the tent, visitors, and trespassers-- that's why the RKBA should not extend to illegals on our soil.

Doesn't appear to even come up to the level of a misdemeanor.

US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.


Not that I advocate permitting gun ownership to swarthy people who sneak into this country and steal our vital bodily fluids. :TFH:

QQQ
05-09-2012, 6:41 AM
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you guys have trouble understanding? Last time I checked, it wasn't "shall not be infringed as long as you have the approved documentation, such as a U.S. birth certificate, green card, or Social Security card"

jwkincal
05-09-2012, 6:56 AM
But they still retain their rights, including that of due process. For it to be any other way is to go down a very very dark path that can only end in either fire or enslavement.

By sacrificing the rights of others, you inevitably sacrifice your own. It has always been that way, and will always be that way.

kc's a head case, but he's often right... like now.

DannyInSoCal
05-09-2012, 7:02 AM
Obviously common sense and politics mix in Colorado -

Not so much here...

dawgcasa
05-09-2012, 7:03 AM
Make no mistake. I am strongly against the presence of illegal aliens. They should all be deported, and all services that we get as a result of being law abiding should be denied to them. That means no police, no firefighters (except to protect the property that does belong to those who are legally here), no non-emergency healthcare, no employment, nothing. Any person who insists on coming here illegally should be entirely on their own, with zero support from U.S. society. They should be outcast in that way.

But they still retain their rights, including that of due process. For it to be any other way is to go down a very very dark path that can only end in either fire or enslavement.


By sacrificing the rights of others, you inevitably sacrifice your own. It has always been that way, and will always be that way.

KC, I'll give you that civil/human rights go beyond citizenship or if not it creates a whole other set of powers we don't want entrusted to the government. But the problem we face is that our Liberal elements of government and the lobbying organizations for Latino immigration have successfully cast many, many of the 'services' and true privileges you mention as 'rights', e.g., the Dream Act, free medical care, access to government housing subsidy programs, drivers licenses, etc. In some cases giving illegal immigrants access to things that even citizens don't (e.g. In state tuition at colleges for illegal immigrants that an out of state citizen who migrates to a state cannot get) as 'rights'. We have a politically motivated left that wants to grow this demographic as a future voting base, so they cast these true privileges as rights. So I'm ok with real civil rights, but we have to find a way to remove access and political gamesmanship over these services/privileges that are being mis-cast as rights by the political left for the purpose of pandering to what they hope will become a future power base that will perpetuate their position of power in government.

QQQ
05-09-2012, 7:06 AM
... So I'm ok with real civil rights, but we have to find a way to remove access and political gamesmanship over these services/privileges that are being mis-cast as rights by the political left for the purpose of pandering to what they hope will become a future power base that will perpetuate their position of power in government.Here here! It is the social spending, rather than the undocumented immigrants, that we should be doing away with.

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2012, 7:13 AM
If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms were applied to illegal aliens, then lawyers for criminals who migrate north and commit violent crimes have one more tool to use in getting their client off. Regular illegal aliens wouldn't see a point in becoming a legal citizen either-why jump through the citizenship hoops, when you can go directly to white picket fence .giant lawn ,and shotgun over the mantleplace tax free?

You still aren't making a case for why of all the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms should be withheld from a certain segment of our society, people who remain, like all of us, innocent until proven guilty through due process of law.

And you need to get a better understanding of how immigration to the US works. It's not Ellis Island, with a chest x-ray and a train ticket anymore. Almost all illegal aliens would do what was necessary to become legal residents if there was some legal path for them to do so. But there isn't one. Aside from the lottery, and certain H visas, there is no legal way for a foreigner to become a permament resident unless he already has family members who are permanent residents.

It's not a lot of fun living in the shadows.

But how do they legally acquire a firearm?

They go to a gun show and buy one.

Reminder: most people in the US do not live in California.

My understanding of the bill of rights is that it outlays the rights of its citizens that will be protected in the course of government. It does claim that they are inalienable but the promise not to infringe upon those rights only applies to the governed, which is the citizenship. Government cannot possibly infringe on those it does not govern and therefore reading it to include non-citizens makes no sense.

The word "citizen" does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

dawgcasa
05-09-2012, 7:13 AM
Here here! It is the social spending, rather than the undocumented immigrants, that we should be doing away with.

If you did away with the access to social spending, earnestly clamped down on enforcement of jobs only if you can prove you are in the country legally ... And defined being borne as a citizen on US soil to being only if your parents are legal residents ( I.e., citizens and legal alien residents), then there would be no illegal immigration.

DannyInSoCal
05-09-2012, 7:14 AM
What, you think they don't?

If they don't, then that means they can legitimately be turned into slaves. Someone who has no rights has no legitimate defense against any wrong that may be done against them.

What's with you people and rights, anyway? Why is the concept so difficult for you to grasp?

Yes, I get that illegal immigrants are in violation of the immigration laws. But violation of a law does not automatically eliminate all your rights! If it did, none of us would have any rights at all, because I guarantee that every single one of us is guilty of having violated some law somewhere.


And the right to keep and bear arms is perhaps the most sacrosanct, for without it, we don't have a real right to life!


So either get with the program and support real rights and liberty, with all the inconveniences it entails, or quit pretending that you support rights at all, when what you really support is privileges.


“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -- Thomas Jefferson


Just because you have an opinion - Doesn't make it a fact.

Until the are legal - They are no different than petty criminals. And deserve no better or worse treatment.

Someone in my country illegally - Taking entitlements from my tax dollars - While sending their own tax free money out of my country - Is NOT my equal.

You want to be my equal...? Simple. Be in this country legally and pay your taxes.

And again - Just my opinion - So don't get your panties in a bunch...

There is actually a way to solve this - Simple and effective:

Impose a 50% tax on all money transfers out of the US.
Deport illegals to the Middle East.
Reward legal immigrants with a $5,000 check after they are sworn in.

QQQ
05-09-2012, 7:16 AM
Just because you have an opinion - Doesn't make it a fact.

Until the are legal - They are no different than petty criminals. And deserve no better or worse treatment.

Someone in my country illegally - Taking entitlements from my tax dollars - While sending their own tax free money out of my country - Is NOT my equal.

You want to be my equal...? Simple. Be in this country legally and pay your taxes...

So if you pay no federal taxes then you have no rights? That's interesting. I wonder, then, how people could have had rights before the income tax was established.If you did away with the access to social spending, earnestly clamped down on enforcement of jobs only if you can prove you are in the country legally ... And defined being borne as a citizen on US soil to being only if your parents are legal residents ( I.e., citizens and legal alien residents), then there would be no illegal immigration.Sorry, I didn't know that it was the way of doing things in a free society that you had to show government documentation in order to work. :rolleyes:

NoJoke
05-09-2012, 7:22 AM
Oh, and another thing:

A right isn't a right unless someone you don't like gets to exercise it.

You may not like illegal aliens. I don't like it that they're here illegally, either. But a right is a right, and the only legitimate reason to strip it is when there is no other reasonable choice on the table!!

If you don't like it, then tough ****. Either deal with it, or admit that you don't really support rights at all, but rather privileges that are reserved only for people you like.

How is it that a simpleton, like myself - with no legal training other than the "teens and the law" class I took once in high school in SLC, 29 years ago - gets this? ...and a court does not?

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2012, 7:25 AM
So if you pay no federal taxes then you have no rights? That's interesting.

Illegal aliens pay both federal and state payroll taxes as well as sales taxes. Since many (most? all?) of them do not file tax returns, they often pay more taxes than legal residents in the same income bracket.

How is it that a simpleton, like myself - with no legal training other than the "teens and the law" class I took once in high school in SLC, 29 years ago - gets this? ...and a court does not?

I am pretty sure this isn't the first time a US court has disagreed with sentiments expressed on this forum.

ptoguy2002
05-09-2012, 7:25 AM
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you guys have trouble understanding?
This.
My initial reaction to this thread was along the lines of what bwiese stated above, combined with the question: "Can an illegal immigrant serve in the militia?"

But kcbrowns big bold point is true.
20 years ago I would have stated that I believe in "reasonable restrictions" like a background check and a waiting period, and no guns for illegals. But then I've seen law after law passed with more and more restrictions and obstacles, to the point where today I believe there should be no restrictions, because once you make the first one, then its easier to make the second, and even easier to make the third, fourth, fifth, etc.
Illegals with guns is like gay marriage and abortion, I don't like it, but accept it because we live in a free country. The eventual result that will come from restricting other people's freedoms is the restriction of mine.

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2012, 7:32 AM
I don't like it, but accept it because we live in a free country. The eventual result that will come from restricting other people's freedoms is the restriction of mine.

A lot of members here have the quote, "Freedom is not free" in their sig lines. I wonder how many of them really understand what that means.


This is an interesting thread. I am guilty of helping it veer off into a discussion of illegal immigration, but it's more important, I think, to understand why the courts and many Calguns members (as well as the rest of US society) feel the right to keep and bear arms should be protected differently from all the rest of the enumerated rights - not just in this case but in many other cases.

I agree with Bill Weise that it's not a fruitful area for advocacy or involvement for the gun rights crowd, since there are so many other areas where the same sentiment holds sway and where public and legal opinions can be more easily brought around to our argument.

But it remains an interesting discussion.

dustoff31
05-09-2012, 7:35 AM
This.
My initial reaction to this thread was along the lines of what bwiese stated above, combined with the question: "Can an illegal immigrant serve in the militia?"

No, they may not.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

Declaration of intentention is a formal process, i.e., a green card, or other lawful entry document, not just sying "Well, yeah, I intend to become a citizen some day."

AEtrane
05-09-2012, 8:43 AM
I typically don't post here since things quickly become divisive in this group, but wanted to point out the silver lining in this case. The left is both rabidly anti-gun in addition to pro-illegal immigration. This ruling has placed THEM, not us, into a paradox: which do they value more? Disarmament or Amnesty? They can only pick one.
Perhaps we ought to inform Mecha, Brown Berets, et al. about this ruling and tell them to inform Brady et al. just how they feel about having their ability to defend themselves being infringed?
Let them duke it out amongst themselves for once.

YubaRiver
05-09-2012, 8:55 AM
No, they may not.



Declaration of intentention is a formal process, i.e., a green card, or other lawful entry document, not just sying "Well, yeah, I intend to become a citizen some day."

LInk?

dustoff31
05-09-2012, 9:15 AM
LInk?


http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/declaration-of-intention/

A declaration of intention is a document filed in a court by an alien who intends to become a U.S citizen. The declaration is a preliminary step to naturalization. The declaration is made before a court of record. The declaration evidences that the applicant in good faith intends to become a U.S. citizen and renounce forever all his/ her allegiance to a foreign state.

Pursuant to 8 USCS § 1445, “an alien over 18 years of age who is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence may file with the Attorney General a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States. Such a declaration shall be filed in duplicate and in a form prescribed by the Attorney General and shall be accompanied by an application prescribed and approved by the Attorney General. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring any such alien to make and file a declaration of intention as a condition precedent to filing a petition for naturalization nor shall any such declaration of intention be regarded as conferring or having conferred upon any such alien United States citizenship or nationality or the right to United States citizenship or nationality, nor shall such declaration be regarded as evidence of such alien's lawful admission for permanent residence in any proceeding, action, or matter arising under this or any other Act”.

chicoredneck
05-09-2012, 9:58 AM
The right to arms is a human right, not a privilage.

dustoff31
05-09-2012, 10:06 AM
The right to arms is a human right, not a privilage.

So then, the insane should be allowed to have guns? Toddlers can have guns? Hell, repeat murderers should be able to legally own guns. It a human right after all.:rolleyes:

sharxbyte
05-09-2012, 10:12 AM
Make no mistake. I am strongly against the presence of illegal aliens. They should all be deported, and all services that we get as a result of being law abiding should be denied to them. That means no police, no firefighters (except to protect the property that does belong to those who are legally here), no non-emergency healthcare, no employment, nothing. Any person who insists on coming here illegally should be entirely on their own, with zero support from U.S. society. They should be outcast in that way.

But they still retain their rights, including that of due process. For it to be any other way is to go down a very very dark path that can only end in either fire or enslavement.


By sacrificing the rights of others, you inevitably sacrifice your own. It has always been that way, and will always be that way.


"ALL SERVICES" includes protection by OUR Constitution. They are not citizens. They have no rights here, because they should not be here. If they want guns, let them get green cards and naturalize like everyone else should have to. I can't go down to Mexico/central/south america, or Canada and legally acquire a firearm. If I get caught with one I will either be shot on the spot or imprisoned. If I get pulled over on the road by their border patrol, It is MY responsibility to prove that I have papers and that I have a right to be there, or I get IMPRISONED. You think there's not a good reason why American borders are a joke? It's because we let ILLEGAL's IN, and give them RIGHTS. They have the right to be sent back to their country free of charge. Period.



Illegal aliens pay both federal and state payroll taxes as well as sales taxes. Since many (most? all?) of them do not file tax returns, they often pay more taxes than legal residents in the same income bracket.

Where do you get your information? because in another very recent thread that was rather well documented, something like 4 billion a year in tax credits are going out to more than 2 million illegals for claiming independants who dont live in the country, let alone under their roofs. Pay taxes? not likely.

http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true

chicoredneck
05-09-2012, 10:24 AM
So then, the insane should be allowed to have guns? Toddlers can have guns? Hell, repeat murderers should be able to legally own guns. It a human right after all.:rolleyes:

All those people do not hold rights. Society saw fit to remove them of their rights because society deemed them an unpredictible danger to uninvolved bistanders. Illegal immigrants may be here illiegally, but they are not deemed an irrational or irresponisble danger to others. They have the same right to self defence as you and I. I do not support illegal immigration, but I do support the right of of an individual to their life. When you remove their ability to defend themsleves you remove their right to life.

If you found yourself in another country that did not protect your right to self defence, free speech, or personal property do those rights cease to exist? No, they still exist, you just are denied the ability to freely exercise those rights. They are granted to us by nature, not by law. If you believe our rights are given to us by law - from the government - you acknowledge that you really have no rights, just privilages.

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2012, 10:34 AM
something like 4 billion a year in tax credits are going out to more than 2 million illegals for claiming independants who dont live in the country, let alone under their roofs. Pay taxes? not likely.

The fact that illegal aliens are even filing tax returns proves that illegal aliens are paying taxes. Some of the returns may be fraudulent, though the IRS doesn't think they are.* Thanks for making my point for me. It's appreciated. Now perhaps we can put to bed this silly notion that illegal aliens don't pay taxes.





* What the IRS says:
The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS shouldn't be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies it as it is written. If the law were changed, the IRS would change its programs accordingly. The IRS disagrees with TIGTA's recommendation on requiring additional documentation to verify child credit claims. As TIGTA acknowledges in this report, the IRS does not currently have the legal authority to verify and disallow the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit during return processing simply because of the lack of documentation. The IRS has procedures in place specifically for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing stream and prior to issuance of a refund. The IRS continues to work to refine and improve our processes.

SilverTauron
05-09-2012, 10:52 AM
You still aren't making a case for why of all the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms should be withheld from a certain segment of our society, people who remain, like all of us, innocent until proven guilty through due process of law..
Because illegal aliens are not members of our society!

Believe me, I understand that things in America are usually ten times better than life in their home nations.But the American Dream is NOT free! Participation in the American Social Contract-of which includes the Bill of Rights-requires a sacrifice in return. Jumping through bureacracy sucks, but that's the price one pays to gain entry into the American Experiment. Remember, in most nations their "Bill of Rights" comes down to what can you do for your government.Period. The moment the despots don't like you or your haircut, you're history.


And you need to get a better understanding of how immigration to the US works. It's not Ellis Island, with a chest x-ray and a train ticket anymore. Almost all illegal aliens would do what was necessary to become legal residents if there was some legal path for them to do so. But there isn't one. Aside from the lottery, and certain H visas, there is no legal way for a foreigner to become a permament resident unless he already has family members who are permanent residents.

It's not a lot of fun living in the shadows..

If you don't like immigration law, get off your butt and do something about it. But don't try to make a case that the Bill of Rights should apply to citizens of other nations due to it being recognition of "inalienable" rights. It may be true that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent no matter what the legal status of the government is. But we do not have the national mandate to enforce that on other nations' citizens. We can no more state that illegal immigrants-who are citizens of another nation-have rights applicable to our U.S. Constitution, any more than Saudi Arabia can say that American Citizens are subject to Sharia Law in the USA. Just like we believe that the Bill of Rights is inherent regardless of government,some people in Saudi Arabia believe Sharia Law applies no matter what nation you live in. Ill jump in line to get my prayer rug after you, partner.


The word "citizen" does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

Nowhere is it authorized that we have a mandate to spread our way of life to the rest of the world. At some point, we have to draw a line in the sand, if only for recognition of economic reality if nothing else.

PanaDP
05-09-2012, 10:54 AM
The word "citizen" does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

That's absolutely correct. The Constitution's exact wording is, "We the People of the United States of America..."

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2012, 10:58 AM
But don't try to make a case that the Bill of Rights should apply to citizens of other nations due to it being recognition of "inalienable" rights.

Well, that's my interpretation.

I can't imagine any other if you want to keep claiming there is a right to keep and bear arms, as I'm pretty sure you do. Rights are not granted by governments (they are more usually infringed by governments). They are aspects of our humanity.

Whatever ones legal status.

It may be true that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent no matter what the legal status of the government is. But we do not have the national mandate to enforce that on other nations' citizens.

As long as they are subject to US law, we sure do. Says so right there in the US Constitution.

We can no more state that illegal immigrants-who are citizens of another nation-have rights applicable to our U.S. Constitution, any more than Saudi Arabia can say that American Citizens are subject to Sharia Law in the USA. Just like we believe that the Bill of Rights is inherent regardless of government,some people in Saudi Arabia believe Sharia Law applies no matter what nation you live in.

You can bet you are subject to the laws and Constitution of Saudi Arabia when you are in Saudi Arabia.

scarville
05-09-2012, 11:12 AM
I can't go down to Mexico/central/south america, or Canada and legally acquire a firearm.
This is part of the socialist playbook that really bug me. I am sick and tired of you collectivist pud-knockers invoking the law in other countries as justification for screwing over the Constitution.

End of rant. I now return you to your regularly scheduled flatulence fest.

GaryV
05-09-2012, 12:00 PM
Big flaw in your argument, One is a US citizen the other is not. It makes a difference.

Wrong. One could be a legal non-citizen who is just illegally parked. There is no citizenship test for constitutional rights. Legal non-citizen immigrants are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as are citizens, so this is not a question of citizenship, but of legal status. And the legal status of an illegal immigrant is no different that the legal status of someone parked illegally. Besides, your logic turns the whole meaning of the Constitution upside-down. It is not a list of rights that we have only because of our citizenship, it is a list of powers and restrictions on our government. When a right "of the people" is listed there, that doesn't mean the document is creating the right, it means that our government is prohibited from infringing on that right.

It's the right itself that is off-limits to them, not the person. It's just like any other prohibitory law, like a law that says you may not break into someone else's home. Unless there's an exception written into the law, the prohibition is absolute. The Bill of Rights is a list of things that the government may not do, and there's no exception written in that says "unless the person is not a citizen". We've allowed them to continually claim exceptions to many of these prohibitions over the years, usually because they start off using them against unpopular groups, but doing so is extremely dangerous. And allowing them to claim that a mere civil infraction is enough to do so is insane. Just look at what happened with gun control laws that started out as restrictions only on minorities and immigrants. If it wasn't for anti-immigrant gun laws, California would have constitutional-carry. But how long did that continue to only apply to immigrants?

Your logic would only work if the right was granted by the document or the government and could then be withheld by it at its own discretion. You're basically saying that rights are simply privileges that we extend only to those we choose. That isn't how rights work. They are things we prohibit the government from violating.

Anchors
05-09-2012, 12:18 PM
Personally, I am pretty "all in" with the Second Amendment.
I don't believe in any of the restrictions except maybe people who are actively serving time/on parole and the mentally insane
(like actually mentally insane, not some 5250 a guy got 20 years ago when he was a teenager which currently makes him prohibited for life with no recourse for removing/vacating the ban).

I don't think illegal aliens or anyone shouldn't just be able to walk in and buy a firearm. Personally.
I do think we should do something about illegals coming here and also about them staying here.

To me, the issues are completely separate.

ptoguy2002
05-09-2012, 12:39 PM
If Heller ended up incorporated under privleges and immunities in McDonald, which refers to the "states" violating peoples rights, I would think that would give the fed an open door to pass laws making guns for illegals illegal??
Privileges and immunities refers specifically to citizens.
They didn't, but just a thought I about this whole thing.

OleCuss
05-09-2012, 12:44 PM
If you're not legally in the U.S. you have no legal right to be in the U.S.

If you have no legal right to be in the U.S. it's a little difficult to understand how it possible to legally do anything in the U.S. whether it is bearing arms, having a job, etc.

Sort of like if I break into your house and watch your TV. Watching TV may not be illegal, but my watching TV in your house after illegally entering your house is illegal because my mere presence in your house is illegal. Anything I do in your house is illegal because I'm there illegally.

I know, I know. IANAL and I'm sure there is some legal fatal flaw in the above. But in terms of common sense, it's right.

GaryV
05-09-2012, 3:01 PM
If Heller ended up incorporated under privleges and immunities in McDonald, which refers to the "states" violating peoples rights, I would think that would give the fed an open door to pass laws making guns for illegals illegal??
Privileges and immunities refers specifically to citizens.
They didn't, but just a thought I about this whole thing.

But then that only applies to states and not the federal government. The feds are restricted by the 2nd as written, not as incorporated under the 14th.

GaryV
05-09-2012, 3:04 PM
Sort of like if I break into your house and watch your TV. Watching TV may not be illegal, but my watching TV in your house after illegally entering your house is illegal because my mere presence in your house is illegal. Anything I do in your house is illegal because I'm there illegally.

No, it's not. There would not be any separate charge for watching the TV, because watching the TV would not be illegal. Your example is completely false. It also, like the other arguments here, turns our whole system of laws upside down. For your idea that being here illegally makes everything do illegal to be true, that would mean that everyone is only allowed to do what the government allows. Anything that there was no a law allowing would be illegal. But our legal system works the opposite way. Everything is legal unless there's a law prohibiting it. That's why you can't be charged with a separate crime for watching TV once you break in. There's no law against that act.

OleCuss
05-09-2012, 3:18 PM
I don't think you fully understood what I wrote. That's OK.

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 3:57 PM
"ALL SERVICES" includes protection by OUR Constitution.


Wow. You equate Constitutional protections with government-provided services?!?

If that's so, then both can legitimately be removed by government fiat.


You clearly don't get the fundamental concept of a right at all...


If I get caught with one I will either be shot on the spot or imprisoned. If I get pulled over on the road by their border patrol, It is MY responsibility to prove that I have papers and that I have a right to be there, or I get IMPRISONED. You think there's not a good reason why American borders are a joke? It's because we let ILLEGAL's IN, and give them RIGHTS. They have the right to be sent back to their country free of charge. Period.


So now you want to turn the country into the equivalent of Soviet-era Russia, where everyone needs to have their papers in order be "safe" from the government?

You should consider moving. You'll like China much better than this country.

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 4:01 PM
KC, I'll give you that civil/human rights go beyond citizenship or if not it creates a whole other set of powers we don't want entrusted to the government. But the problem we face is that our Liberal elements of government and the lobbying organizations for Latino immigration have successfully cast many, many of the 'services' and true privileges you mention as 'rights', e.g., the Dream Act, free medical care, access to government housing subsidy programs, drivers licenses, etc.


This is the crux of the issue, and is the trap some people here are falling into. They're equating access to government-provided services with protection from government intrusion.

Those are quite clearly not the same thing at all.

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 4:05 PM
It may be true that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent no matter what the legal status of the government is. But we do not have the national mandate to enforce that on other nations' citizens.


You are making a fundamental error here. That error is that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, dictates the powers and behavior of the government.

What you're talking about here is not "enforcing" a right "on other nations' citizens", it is refraining from violating their rights.

Remember, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, one that is inherent to our very existence. The 2nd Amendment is a recognition of that right. It is an admonition to refrain from violating that right. It does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, it protects it. That is a huge distinction that is of particular importance here.

paul0660
05-09-2012, 4:11 PM
Cool thread.

People have the right to bear arms, not just citizens. People includes anyone here. The point should be to have a mechanism for getting them the heck out when they don't belong, not depriving them of the rights granted by some old dead white guys.

I know many felons who I think should have the right to possess firearms, and some DV offenders as well. The system is clunky. I don't think it can be fixed, but avoiding the specific language in the Constitution isn't a help either.

chris12
05-09-2012, 4:12 PM
No, it's not. There would not be any separate charge for watching the TV, because watching the TV would not be illegal. Your example is completely false. It also, like the other arguments here, turns our whole system of laws upside down. For your idea that being here illegally makes everything do illegal to be true, that would mean that everyone is only allowed to do what the government allows. Anything that there was no a law allowing would be illegal. But our legal system works the opposite way. Everything is legal unless there's a law prohibiting it. That's why you can't be charged with a separate crime for watching TV once you break in. There's no law against that act.

So, are you saying ideally there should be 2 charges against an illegal aliens, 1 for being here illegally and 1 for purchasing a gun for self defense?

Why not just let people purchase weapons like people purchase computers (which are also tools capable of both great good and harm) and deal with whatever crimes are actually committed with the tools?

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 5:01 PM
But then that only applies to states and not the federal government. The feds are restricted by the 2nd as written, not as incorporated under the 14th.

But the 14th has two clauses, the PorI clause and the Due Process clause. Both are operative. The Due Process clause is operative regardless of one's citizenship.

So a state government cannot legitimately remove anyone's right to keep and bear arms without due process, even if they're here illegally.

That's why laws forbidding the sale of arms to people on the "terrorist watch list" are Unconstitutional on their face: the "watch list" is not managed through due process, since one doesn't get on it as a result of a court order, but rather at some bureaucrat's whim.

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 5:03 PM
Why not just let people purchase weapons like people purchase computers (which are also tools capable of both great good and harm) and deal with whatever crimes are actually committed with the tools?

This, in spades.

People, liberty is dangerous. Either man up and deal with it, or move your cowardly butt someplace where you'll be protected from those nasty freedoms by the warm, suffocating embrace of a 1984-style government.


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

SilverTauron
05-09-2012, 5:33 PM
Well, that's my interpretation.

I can't imagine any other if you want to keep claiming there is a right to keep and bear arms, as I'm pretty sure you do. Rights are not granted by governments (they are more usually infringed by governments). They are aspects of our humanity.

Whatever ones legal status.

.

Then , by your system,a Taliban warlord has the right to sail into Miami Harbor and legally pack an AK47. He has an international right to keep and bear arms, after all. His legal status may be a terrorist combatant, but he has the absolute right to own and shoot his weapon according to your interpretation.

You are right in that I do believe in the 2nd Amendment being an inherent right. That said, its not an ABSOLUTE right, just like no right is absolute. In order for civilization as we know it to function we all have to yield our rights for the greater good of the social whole. I have the right to free speech, but I shouldn't run into LAX and yell BOMB. I have the right to life, but that doesn't mean if I step in front of a freight train that the conductor should be charged with murder. I have the right to free choice, but that's not a license to go around randomly killing people because they casually offended me.

The problem we have is that the social regulation on the right to keep and bear arms is so restrictive the right can hardly be said to exist at all in California and other states in America, not to mention a majority of international nations.The effort to restore recognition of the RKBA should not turn down the path of total anarchy.

I agree that the RKBA is recognized-NOT GRANTED-by the Constitution.If we are to follow the interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right equal to the right to life and the right of free speech, then no nation meets the standard.Including our own. If we are to hold that the RKBA is an absolute right equal in standing to the right to life, then we should be sending a Military Expedition to England to eliminate the repressive government therein. We ought to send a squad to Sacramento , CA too.




As long as they are subject to US law, we sure do. Says so right there in the US Constitution.
.

And US law classifies an illegal alien as being a criminal.



You can bet you are subject to the laws and Constitution of Saudi Arabia when you are in Saudi Arabia.

Your argument collapses at this point. On one hand you recognize the sanctity national sovereignty, and on the other you propose the idea that the RKBA is an absolute right which transcends government recognition. You cannot have both. Either the RKBA is absolute, in which case every nation on Earth is infringing on the rights of its citizens, or its a regulation subject to restrictions as dictated by the social necessity of a community to function.

That last part-the need of some form of regulation on who owns and shoots guns for the good of the collective-is why the RKBA is in trouble in places like California. People in red states believe keeping guns out of the hands of the insane and violent are as far as the regulations should go. People in Blue States and Cities believe the "regulation" should be defined as an outright ban on civil gun ownership.

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 6:01 PM
You are right in that I do believe in the 2nd Amendment being an inherent right. That said, its not an ABSOLUTE right, just like no right is absolute. In order for civilization as we know it to function we all have to yield our rights for the greater good of the social whole. I have the right to free speech, but I shouldn't run into LAX and yell BOMB. I have the right to life, but that doesn't mean if I step in front of a freight train that the conductor should be charged with murder. I have the right to free choice, but that's not a license to go around randomly killing people because they casually offended me.


You are conflating the existence and recognition of a right with the consequences of its misuse. Further, you're assuming that recognition of a right, even in an absolute sense, absolves the right-bearer of responsibility for the consequences of his misuse of it.

It does not.

You can run into LAX and yell "BOMB", but you are then responsible for the resulting consequences and should be held accountable for them. If you go around randomly killing people, you are responsible for that action and its consequences.


The only legitimate time to strip someone of a natural right is when there is no other reasonable choice on the table. Preemptively stripping someone of their rights is not the proper response to the possibility that it will be misused (the case of those who have been declared insane by a court of law is a notable and rare exception).

You're going down the wrong path here, and it leads exactly to where we are in California right now (actually, it leads to where China is and has been).



The problem we have is that the social regulation on the right to keep and bear arms is so restrictive the right can hardly be said to exist at all in California and other states in America, not to mention a majority of international nations.The effort to restore recognition of the RKBA should not turn down the path of total anarchy.


Nor are we advocating that it should. Absolute recognition of a right does not absolve the right-bearer of responsibility for his actions. "Total anarchy" would indeed be the result were such responsibility absolved in that way, but that is not what we are advocating here.



I agree that the RKBA is recognized-NOT GRANTED-by the Constitution.


But you are not recognizing the consequence of that.

The consequence is that the recognition by the Constitution forcibly stays the government's hand in infringing the right so protected, and that everyone has the right in question.

Once you start preemptively taking away rights from people on the basis that they're doing something you don't like (or that there's something about them that you don't like, be it their color, religion, creed, or whatever), what you have is no longer a right, it's a privilege, to be doled out to those society "likes". That's what we have in California now.

Do not go down this road! It is well-trodden, and always leads to tears.



If we are to follow the interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right equal to the right to life and the right of free speech, then no nation meets the standard.Including our own.


That's correct. How is your solution, which is to water down the right and turn it into a privilege, better than recognizing the truth that damned few places in the world properly recognize and respect the right?



If we are to hold that the RKBA is an absolute right equal in standing to the right to life, then we should be sending a Military Expedition to England to eliminate the repressive government therein. We ought to send a squad to Sacramento , CA too.


Logically, yes, but that, of course, is not a political reality.

We're not sending military expeditions into Saudi Arabia, or China, or any other country that recognizes no rights at all, are we?


Your argument collapses at this point. On one hand you recognize the sanctity national sovereignty, and on the other you propose the idea that the RKBA is an absolute right which transcends government recognition. You cannot have both. Either the RKBA is absolute, in which case every nation on Earth is infringing on the rights of its citizens, or its a regulation subject to restrictions as dictated by the social necessity of a community to function.


And I say that it's absolute. Otherwise, you must acquiesce to the anti-gunners' demand, because what you are left with is nothing more than a privilege.



That last part-the need of some form of regulation on who owns and shoots guns for the good of the collective-is why the RKBA is in trouble in places like California. People in red states believe keeping guns out of the hands of the insane and violent are as far as the regulations should go. People in Blue States and Cities believe the "regulation" should be defined as an outright ban on civil gun ownership.

Yes. So why are you arguing, here, in favor of the underpinnings of the latter?

Colt-45
05-09-2012, 6:11 PM
What, you think they don't?



What's with you people and rights, anyway? Why is the concept so difficult for you to grasp?


It was a legitimate question which I have wondered for a long time and you have answered. Maybe you got the wrong idea by how my question was written but no where did I imply illegals have 0 rights.

kcbrown
05-09-2012, 6:20 PM
It was a legitimate question which I have wondered for a long time and you have answered. Maybe you got the wrong idea by how my question was written but no where did I imply illegals have 0 rights.

The question itself implies that very thing (or, at least, the possibility of it). That's what I was responding to.

My apologies for the harshness, but rights are the very core of what this country is all about, and what the CGF/SAF/etc. mission is all about, and it is alarming to see so many who would throw rights away so easily.

We've lost enough on the rights front as it is, don't you think?