2A Applies To Illegal Aliens

[Blacksmith101]

I think this a great opportunity for the SC to clarify who exactly the founders regarded as “people” in their time. While you may see this as a slippery slope to non citizen voting, it could also be applied to remove voting rights of current citizens that don’t meet the intended definition of “people” in the American colonies during 1776.
The slippery slope can fall both ways. It is much easier to be honest and concise than play games in the long run. Liberal activist judges and prosecutors are just winding up a pendulum. God help us all.

The founding fathers had no problem picking out broad classes of people to discriminate against i.e. Indians, slaves, Tories, women, etc.

Text History and Tradition!

 

[Bob A]

The 2A/illegal immigrant issue should be simpler. Their first act in the context of being on US soil is to break the law. Maybe we should examine whether that lawbreaking should rise to the prohibitive level.

The judge apparently discussed this aspect, or so the linked article would have it.

She felt that a non-violent misdemeanor should not void the God-given right of self-protection which is the underlying tenet of the 2nd Amendment.

While I might deplore the illegality of the entry, I can definitely feel the need for a means of protection, which the defendant in the case cited as the reason he sought and obtained a firearm during the unrest (read: rioting) in 2020. I found myself in his position even as a citizen (for what that's worth in Maryland) and I support the judge's reasoning. Poor shlub was in the same sinking boat that I was, here, at that time. Bruen seems to have saved the both of us.

Either America is a bastion of freedom, or it's only for the privileged few. There's a lot of folks here who feel it's "OK for me, but not for thee."

 

[Afrikeber]

The founders believed in the pre-existing (God given) inalienable rights of people. They penned the constitution and other documents setting boundaries on the government with respect to inalienable rights.

….and then they conveniently gave various “people” a different rating of personhood to validate their enslavement or indentured servitude to the new found liberty and freedom of the Anglo-Saxons and American aristocracy, so there is that.

I say and believe the constitution gives anyone in this country the freedom to own firearms period. Grandpa and uncles kept shotguns and pistols on the ready for the very reason the 2A says we should have them. No one dared or came creeping at night with their ignorance.

 

[Afrikeber]

The founding fathers had no problem picking out broad classes of people to discriminate against i.e. Indians, slaves, Tories, women, etc.

Text History and Tradition!

There is that pesky little thing called the 13th Amendment, just like the 2nd Amendment it’s the law of the land now.

Can’t have your cake and eat too.

 

[Oledirteh]

MSN

ok....

 

[Oledirteh]

Illegal Immigrant Can Carry Guns: Federal Judge

Ruling from U.S. Supreme Court means the attempt to ban an illegal immigrant from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, judge concludes.

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Shoobedoo]

This is a great idea, said no one ever...

 

[Ammo Jon]

No way Jose.

 

[Schipperke]

2A Applies To Illegal Aliens

The court has ruled that the GCA is unconstitutional. By that logic illegals get to vote also.

www.mdshooters.com

 

[Schipperke]

….and then they conveniently gave various “people” a different rating of personhood to validate their enslavement or indentured servitude to the new found liberty and freedom of the Anglo-Saxons and American aristocracy, so there is that.

I say and believe the constitution gives anyone in this country the freedom to own firearms period. Grandpa and uncles kept shotguns and pistols on the ready for the very reason the 2A says we should have them. No one dared or came creeping at night with their ignorance.

Prima facie evidence, rights come from what cultures and governments decide and nothing else.

 

[Ponder_MD]

There's a lot of Libertarians out there screaming that "this is the way."
If the Bill of Rights are "natural rights" then they belong to all people, regardless of citizenship.

Ok, fine. The moment you commit a FELONY, (such as violating our sovereignty) you forfeit those rights until you are either acquitted in a trial or convicted and serve your punishment. (My opinion)

Libertarians claim that "the state" cannot be a victim, so the felony does not apply. I agree that the state cannot be a victim but I submit that when someone violates our sovereignty, we (citizens) are ALL victims. We all suffer. The mass influx of non-citizens has erased our sovereignty, diluted the value of our citizenship and our vote. Violating our border is a crime against all citizens and all lawful aliens and residents.

 

[lazarus]

Constitution applies to US citizens only.

Since 1903 that hasn't been the case. Numerous supreme court cases have set the precedent that the constitution and its protections apply to all in the United States. Started with Yamataya vs Fisher (1903) and several big cases in the 1950s through the 1990s expanding and clarifying that. Only when the constitution specifies things like citizenship does it not extend to non-citizens. IE, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections (some places have extended a right to non-citizens to vote in local elections)

Loading…

constitution.congress.gov

 

[ironpony]

They can get them illegally quite easily through the cartel market. I know this doesn't help, just thought I'd mention it.

 

[w2kbr]

As short as possible, the entire question is "horse hockey",,they have an opportunity
to embrace citizenship, if they fail to take advantage of that, so be it! Go back to whence you came!. We owe them nothing, except humane treatment. That does not include Rights and Privileges under the COTUS. Period. Just my opinion.

 

[Occam]

Prima facie evidence, rights come from what cultures and governments decide and nothing else.

No. Reason easily demonstrates natural rights. You’re confusing “comes from” with “protects.” The “comes from” perspective is a classic statist, top-down, authoritarian perspective. It’s the very antithesis of our constitution. Our founders didn’t fancy themselves doling out rights, the saw them as obvious and derived objectively from the fact or our existence as thinking beings. Then they set out to make sure culture and government couldn’t infringe on them. Wishing that away is pretty dreadful. And it’s the primary objective of the political left.

 

[smokey]

The rights that are protected in the 2a are unalienable natural rights, full stop. As such all people are entitled to them, with the exception of criminals that are imprisoned for crimes. All gun laws are unconstitutional.

...That said, if ranking the importance of removing existing 2a infringements, I'd place this fairly far down the list. Before removing infringements against criminal aliens, I'd like to see poll taxes and literacy tests(licensing and registration processes to buy or carry guns) against citizens removed. Criminal aliens with guns shouldn't be an issue because we SHOULD be deporting every single one caught and the border SHOULD be locked down to prevent more from coming in.

In that way, it's a bit like the anchor baby argument. We don't need to change laws about birthright citizenship, we just need to enforce immigration laws. If someone comes here and has a baby, the baby is a citizen and the parents can decide if they're taking the US citizen child with them WHEN they are deported, or if the baby stays here in the foster system. Wanting to change birthright citizenship doesn't address the actual problem. It's addressing a symptom.

In this case, not thinking criminal aliens should have 2a rights should be irrelevant, because they should be booted the second they're found.

 

[LeadSled1]

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“People” in the context of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are American citizens. It is a God given right, it cannot be infringed upon for American citizens. All others it is able to be infringed upon for government purposes.

 

[alucard0822]

Seems simple to me, inalienable rights = rights of all people, specifically protected by the constitution here, other countries that ban guns are violating the rights of their citizens. The constitution differentiates between citizens and "the people" aka everyone.
The bill of rights:
1. "congress shall make no law", "right of the people"
2. "right of the people"
3. "without consent of the owner"
4. "right of the people"
5. "no person shall" aka "prohibits government"
6. "right of the accused"
7. "right to trial by jury" aka "right of the people"
8. "prohibits government"
9. " rights of the people"
10. " rights of the people"
then there is the 19th(voting rights): "The right of citizens" specifically, it is not an inalienable right

The bill of rights limits government on behalf of the people, ensures a right of the people, or people in a circumstance, these are human rights that all people have including those here unlawfully. Of course those here unlawfully may be charged, jailed, and tried for their crime in a number of ways that preserve their constitutional rights. That includes the 2A, and being "shall not be infringed" simply means "all gun laws are unconstitutional" yes, those here unlawfully have a right to keep and bear arms, or more accurately the same rights as anyone else that has committed a crime, and is "innocent until proven guilty". So how can an illegal immigrant pass a background check? fill out a 4473? file a NFA form? register a firearm with the state? simple, all those practices are unconstitutional and invalid. Of course I would save this particular infringement for last to repeal, but the judge did decide it correctly.

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I don't fault people walking across the border, looking for a better life here. The process to enter legally is horribly complex and limited, and leadership that has a responsibility to control immigration has neglected that duty for some time. They have made it clear that immigration law will not be enforced, and go so far as to prevent states and agencies from enforcing it. If I drew the geographic short straw, and grew up in a crime riddled s#!thole, I would try to get my family into the best nation on earth. Of course there should be a defended border and a fair process to enter legally, along with enforcement for those who don't. IMO it's a crime against humanity for politicians to essentially invite people here, but only unlawfully, and through a deadly gauntlet of 3rd world countries, criminal cartels and a random collection of unmaintained and dangerous border defenses. If we are to deport people, IMO we should start with the politicians that created this mess.

 

[Occam]

“People” in the context of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are American citizens.

So, if your grandmother is visiting from Montreal or London, she is subject to cruel and unusual punishment, warrantless searches, being prevented from freely associating with you or speaking in public? Can't have it both ways.

 

[outrider58]

Were the British allowed to keep ALL their arms at the ind of the Revolutionary War?