7the Circuit holds illegal aliens have 2A rights

[redeemed.man]

I hate illegals and I dont like most Lawyers because of stupid crap like this.

Tell us how you really feel.

For the record, my feelings are similar:

I hate all criminals (illegals are by definition criminals, right?), and I am not fond of most lawyers although we have some great lawyers on this forum that are awesome pro freedom guys.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[esqappellate]

Reason number 9753564366356644 why people hate lawyers.
Present company excepted of course.

That number is conservative.....

 

[wolfwood]

This is a pretty academic argument. It has no practical impact as to Second Amendment rights and really is there to serve to expand illegal immigrants rights in other areas such as 4th amendment search and seizure.

This is the deal every other Circuit has held illegals are not part of the People i.e. the virtuous citzentry. Historically that is the people that could be counted upon to fight or support the effort against an invading army or tyrannical government. As they've entered into the social contract with the State they are afforded certain rights such as the right to arms. The other Circuits have held that illegals have not entered into said social contract so the government need not show any rationale as to why federal law makes it unlawful for a illegal to posses a firearm.

The 7th held that they are part of the people so the government had to show cause. However it upheld the federal ban because the government has an important government interest in disarming illegals outright. So nothing has changed however this opinion can be used to strengthen the position that in other areas the government must show some interest in giving illegals less rights. E.g. in taking their property or searching their dwellings without a warrant.

 

[stm]

I would wonder if the reasoning used in this ruling would help solidify 2A rights for LEGAL aliens. They are not citizens, but as law-abiding persons, this natural right should extend to them.

 

[BeoBill]

So the BofR applies to illegals but not US citizens. Did I get it right? It doesn't matter in Maryland, the Worker's Paradise (tm) anyway.

 

[DC-W]

So the BofR applies to illegals but not US citizens. Did I get it right? It doesn't matter in Maryland, the Worker's Paradise (tm) anyway.

It just means they have to get their HQLs and CCWs like the rest of us

 

[Inigoes]

It just means they have to get their HQLs and CCWs like the rest of us

You missed the courts point.

They didn't wait in line before, so they don't have to now.

 

[BeoBill]

 

[pilotguy299]

This is a pretty academic argument. It has no practical impact as to Second Amendment rights and really is there to serve to expand illegal immigrants rights in other areas such as 4th amendment search and seizure.

This is the deal every other Circuit has held illegals are not part of the People i.e. the virtuous citzentry. Historically that is the people that could be counted upon to fight or support the effort against an invading army or tyrannical government. As they've entered into the social contract with the State they are afforded certain rights such as the right to arms. The other Circuits have held that illegals have not entered into said social contract so the government need not show any rationale as to why federal law makes it unlawful for a illegal to posses a firearm.

The 7th held that they are part of the people so the government had to show cause. However it upheld the federal ban because the government has an important government interest in disarming illegals outright. So nothing has changed however this opinion can be used to strengthen the position that in other areas the government must show some interest in giving illegals less rights. E.g. in taking their property or searching their dwellings without a warrant.

Didn't the Supremes already say that illegals have the right to free education in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, and define what "within the jurisdiction" meant?

The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state." The dissent simply concluded that the distinction the statute drew should survive an equal protection attack.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

 

[Schipperke]

MSI may want to recruit some illegals to champion shall issue in Maryland. That could be all the weight necessary, being overlooked for years..

 

[redeemed.man]

MSI may want to recruit some illegals to champion shall issue in Maryland. That could be all the weight necessary, being overlooked for years..

I agree, that and obtain the support of the LBGT community and shall issue concealed carry will be legal tomorrow.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[MikeTF]

No worries. If activist judges can 'interpret' The Constitution, Donald Trump can too, and say 'You're fired' to the judges. Problem solved. Elect Trump.

 

[Brooklyn]

They willingly caused a circuit split on this issue.

Quite..

 

[Brooklyn]

I would argue that violating the established rules is hardly a "community" act.

But that's just me.

Focus on the big picture.. As a right held by persons.. Its much stronger.. And it has no bearing on if a law baring illegals from bearing arms survives strict scrutiny.. Which it may if the gov can show that a lack of documentation precludes background check..

No part of this is bad..

 

[Inigoes]

Focus on the big picture.. As a right held by persons.. Its much stronger.. And it has no bearing on if a law baring illegals from bearing arms survives strict scrutiny.. Which it may if the gov can show that a lack of documentation precludes background check..

No part of this is bad..

Since this has to do with a hispanic, count Sotomayor in the affirmations.

A nice 6-3 pro2A decision from the SCOTUS would be a breath of fresh air.

 

[Hixster]

I fail to understand how non-citizens seem to have Constitutional Rights. I thought Constitutional Rights only applied to citizens.

 

[Kharn]

I fail to understand how non-citizens seem to have Constitutional Rights. I thought Constitutional Rights only applied to citizens.

Status determines some rights, and the extent of others. Police still need a warrant to search an illegal's home, they can't be tortured, etc.

 

[fidelity]

I fail to understand how non-citizens seem to have Constitutional Rights. I thought Constitutional Rights only applied to citizens.

Here's a brief explanation ...

http://stephendpalmer.com/differences-unalienable-civil-rights/

Here's an even briefer one ...

Self-defense is a natural, unalienable right.

The right to vote is a civil right.

Both natural and civil rights are codified in Constitutional Amendments. Natural rights existed, in theory, before they were formalized.

 

[LeadSled1]

So, if an invading army entered the United States they would have the right to bear arms under the Constitution, and also protection from unlawful search and seizure. What other rights do they have?

 

[JC92]

Focus on the big picture.. As a right held by persons.. Its much stronger.. And it has no bearing on if a law baring illegals from bearing arms survives strict scrutiny.. Which it may if the gov can show that a lack of documentation precludes background check..

No part of this is bad..

This is a good decision for 2A. It can be cited in other court cases that even illegal immigrants have 2A rights. Therefore, the government has to work even harder to justify 2A restrictions placed on its citizens, whom, by definition, must have more rights than illegal aliens.