7the Circuit holds illegal aliens have 2A rights

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    MADISON, Wis. —*People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.

    The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from*Mexicoillegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.

    Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his*Second Amendment*right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.

    The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-people-us-illegally-carry-guns-33308403
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    So the 7th will broadly interpret "people" but not "shall not be infringed"

    Ok.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    Cool. More fodder for internet arguments with those that can't get past the individual right thing (despite SC rulings) and keep arguing you need to be part of a regulated militia. Now they have to be anti-"undocumented immigrant" as well.
     

    pbharvey

    Habitual Testifier
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    30,158
    Reason number 9753564366356644 why people hate lawyers.
    Present company excepted of course.
     

    Glaron

    Camp pureblood 13R
    BANNED!!!
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 20, 2013
    12,752
    Virginia
    What ever happened to "We the People of the United States of America???

    Don't worry they are just setting the foundation for internet voting for illegals. They just need room for 6 billion fudged votes.
     

    501st

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 16, 2011
    1,627
    e8a.jpg
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    What ever happened to "We the People of the United States of America???

    Verdugo-Urquidez happened, SCOTUS, 1990:
    While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
    Being here for 10+ years, even illegally, would seem to establish a connection.
     

    prometa

    Member
    Jul 29, 2015
    2
    and now I have a paradox headache

    the article said:
    Judge Joel M. Flaum, a member of the panel, wrote in a concurring opinion that ... the panel shouldn't have addressed the broader constitutional question since the possession ban is clearly legal.

    The question of whether the 2A applies is the very definition of moot if the federal law applies regardless. Why did they even consider that part of the question?
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    I don't have a problem with the premise, it does take a step twards "blame the criminal, not the tool", and I do believe in the 2A as an inalienable right, all people have the right to keep and bear arms, just happens to not be lawful in most of the world, and one of the reasons we are better than them. There should not have been a charge for possessing a round, shouldn't have been a charge if it was a gun instead of a 22 round, if there was a charge for anything it should have been for unlawful immigration long before now.


    The one part I do have a problem with is this
    The court’s
    judgment, however, was correct for a different reason: the
    Second Amendment does not preclude certain restrictions on
    the right to bear arms, including the one imposed by
    § 922(g)(5).

    This is somewhat expected crap, They recognize it's a right, but also recognize the government can restrict it, basically saying 2A is constitutional and inalienable right, held by all people, but the government can restrict it anyway. It's that line moving from "shall not be infringed" and twards tyranny that the real fight is over.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom