PDA

View Full Version : 922(g)(5): No firearms for illegals upheld by 4th Circuit in US v Caprio-Leon


Kharn
12-26-2012, 10:28 AM
I tried searching for Caprio, Traxler, Niemeyer, 922, etc, and could not find a relevant discussion.

4th Circuit ruling from 14 Dec 2012 (http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/115063.P.pdf)

I've barely skimmed the ruling, but it amounts to illegals are violating other laws, so they're not law abiding and not covered by the Second Amendment. I'll try to read it later to ferret out any anti sentiments buried within.

Librarian
12-26-2012, 11:11 AM
Concluding that ß 922(g)(5) is constitutional, we affirm.

On Carpio-Leonís Second Amendment challenge, we conclude that the scope of the Second Amendment does not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens are not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance.

On Carpio-Leonís Fifth Amendment challenge, we conclude that prohibiting illegal aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms is rationally related to Congressí legitimate interest in public safety.

...

To apply Heller, we follow the two-step approach set forth in Chester, asking first
whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendmentís guarantee. This historical inquiry seeks to determine whether the conduct at issue was understood to be within the scope of the right at the time of ratification. If it was not, then the challenged law is valid.

Chester, 628 F.3d at 680 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

If, however, the regulation is found to burden conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendmentís protections, "we move to the second step of applying an appropriate form of means-end scrutiny."

Thanks.

dfletcher
12-26-2012, 11:26 AM
I tried searching for Caprio, Traxler, Niemeyer, 922, etc, and could not find a relevant discussion.

4th Circuit ruling from 14 Dec 2012 (http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/115063.P.pdf)

I've barely skimmed the ruling, but it amounts to illegals are violating other laws, so they're not law abiding and not covered by the Second Amendment. I'll try to read it later to ferret out any anti sentiments buried within.

I've skimmed the same. The decision appears to say Congress can make such laws as to prohibit a person and that an illegal alien (like a felon or illegal user of drugs, dishonorable discharge, etc) falls into the category of a "prohibited person".

I'm strict with respect to legal immigration and illegal aliens. I am interested though in how a distinction is made between rights of "the people" referenced in other amendments and afforded to illegal immigrants, but not afforded in the 2nd Amendment. Absent violating the law and being classified a prohibited person, would an illegal alien be considered part of "the people" with respect to the 2nd Amendment? It seems they are part of the people regarding the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th & 8th.