Illegal Immigrants can Possess Firearms

[cololab]

Originally Posted by Buford57

2nd Amendment advocates have long argued that it should be on equal footing with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th. Since we do.not limit the right to worship, or a fair trial or advice of counsel to citizens, this appears to be what we asked for. There are pending suits challenging the whole FOID system. Again, this is the hoped-for outcome, that post-Bruen a FOID requirement is an unconstitutional infringement. Now if some brave judge will just apply it to US citizens.

Well said!

[robvious]

Inalienable Rights... endowed by our Creator... We hold these truths to be self evident... doesn't say citizen.. a human right that can't be granted by any government... nor can it be infringed by any government... illegal aliens are a separate issue... pack them up and ship them back... it was never said that the plane had to land...

[kozmic]

I have given permission to use my name to plenty of worthy carry permit holders. Given the very first thing illegals, sorry "newcomers" have done is break our laws there is NO chance I will have my name attached to their applications. Assuming they will even need an application.

[Greyman50]

Who remembers how immigration was back in the 50s????
We need to return to Time Proven processes.
BTW, when the Statue of Liberty was erected our country was growing and needed all those that desired to become citizens. Have a Sponsor, have a JOB, learn ENGLISH and our History and Society and Appear before an immigration Judge yearly with sponsor.

[ladder13]

Human right? As most of the world I guess they have none where they come from. They’re coming here to own guns?

AND, explain how a NICS check on someone we know nothing about gets done? Or do we just eliminate the NICS check?
Good luck with that.

[Rodan]

IMHO, this decision was made specifically to create disagreement in the 'pro-gun' ranks, and to cast doubt on the Bruen decision.

It's time to decide if you believe in the basic tenet of the BOR and Constitution that there are inalienable rights for all people, or if you believe 'rights' should all be bestowed by governments.

While no rational person wants criminals running around with guns, and we can make the argument that anyone entering the US illegally IS a criminal, each and every one of us needs to decide for ourselves if we believe every person has the right to self defense, and thereby the right to keep and bear arms.

The argument from our side should not be for narrowing or "reasonable" restrictions on our rights, or even whether an 'illegal' individual violated those restrictions. The argument should be about why they were here in the first place, and whether a crime was committed with the gun. If no crime was committed with the gun, why do we care about who has it? It's just a tool. If it's used in a crime, there are plenty of laws on the books to deal with that.

Some here believe that J6 defendants are being wrongfully prosecuted because they were invited into the Capitol building. Does that same principal not apply to an 'illegal' invited in, with their transport facilitated by the current Federal regime? Obviously, if they commit a crime after entering, that's a different issue.

This decision is INTENDED to divide us and cause dissent. Don't take the bait! Praise it as a decision that endorses liberty, and pursue the immigration issue on its own merits.

[steelslaver]

There is absolutely no doubt the Founding Fathers saw the Bill of Rights as HUMAN rights that you are born with. Somehow I don't think God given rights only apply to those with citizenship or that an all powerful is very concerned about citizenship and borders.

Besides all gun laws are mute to those wanting to commit one of the ultimate sins of murdering another living person. Thou shall not kill

But then the whole issue would be mutew if when apprehended they were hauled 500 mile south of the border and 2 miles off shore loaded in rubber rafts handed a set of oars and a few bottles of water. That plus the fine for hiring an illegal should be $100,000 and the reward for turning someone that does $25,000. No money, no hope, bad outcome=NO DESIRE

[Super Trucker]

The last election libertarian VP candidate said illegals should be able to have firearms. I don't recall the exact words if it were, own, posses, carry but it was said during an interview.

So the liberals and liberal lite, both think its Ok.

[Buzzzer]

Sorry but I don't see this as a victory for firearm owners in America. IMHO, the judge broke the law by coming to this conclusion. First, he's here illegally, second, in Illinois you need to have a FOID card and third you are required to pass a background check (state and federal). We all have to do these things to purchase a firearm (well, not the FOID card if not an Illinois resident). We have "rights" but how many of us kick back and disregard the law on the above two (or three) issues to own a firearm? None, because we are law abiding citizens and follow the law, correct?

I can see the headlines now. "Gunowners think everyone should be able purchase/own a firearm!", or whatever the wording of the day would be. I see this judges ruling as bait.

God given rights of defending oneself has little to do with the 2nd Amendment. God given rights, as one sees it, does not apply to nation states, it's universal. The 2nd Amendment, however, is part of our nation states laws, the U.S.

We can agree to disagree...

[pawngal]

I'm not going to comment one way or another on the judge's decision
What I would like to know is how was the illegal able to obtain a firearm?
Doesn't Illinois require a valid FOID card for private sales/transfers?
He doesn't qualify for one.
Someone violated Illinois law.
History trace on the firearm, was it done?

[lifeofvice]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

There is absolutely no doubt the Founding Fathers saw the Bill of Rights as HUMAN rights that you are born with. Somehow I don't think God given rights only apply to those with citizenship or that an all powerful is very concerned about citizenship and borders.

Besides all gun laws are mute to those wanting to commit one of the ultimate sins of murdering another living person. Thou shall not kill

But then the whole issue would be mutew if when apprehended they were hauled 500 mile south of the border and 2 miles off shore loaded in rubber rafts handed a set of oars and a few bottles of water. That plus the fine for hiring an illegal should be $100,000 and the reward for turning someone that does $25,000. No money, no hope, bad outcome=NO DESIRE

Good thing the Eighth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights as well!

[biku324]

Originally Posted by Greyman50

Constitution and Bill of Rights are for US Citizens.

Not at all true.

James PLYLER, Superintendent of the Tyler Independent School District and Its Board of Trustees et al., Appellants, v. J. and R. DOE et al. TEXAS, et al., Appellants, v. CERTAIN NAMED AND UNNAMED UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN CHILDREN et al.

457 US 202 (1982)

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.

[BAM-BAM]

Good NEWS; There's no way they can pass the background checks...... because they have no known background!

They will have to rely on the "Gun show loophole "

[A10]

Originally Posted by Frailer

I’ve not read the text of the decision, but IMHO the right to bear arms is a *human* right.

Meaning it applies to everyone.

Like the right to vote? Thats the goal....

[hkcavalier]

Nationwide, and particularly in the "blue" states, we are creating a two-tiered legal and economic system. In one camp are those that obey the ever-growing set of laws and regulations because they have a lot to lose --- homes, professions, assets, etc. In the other camp are those with little or nothing to lose and this group is increasingly let off the hook when they break those same laws and regulations.

Why a "blue" state problem? Politicians there have found that they can guarantee the vote of the second group if they don't hold them accountable for their actions AND promise them some of the money they've confiscated via taxes/fees/etc from the first group.

This ruling is a piece of this overall puzzle, and makes perfect sense given the model above. If you don't think illegals vote or influence elections, you may want to do some research.

We're living in the prequel to Atlas Shrugged and soon there won't be a Galt's Gulch to run off to.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by A10

Like the right to vote? Thats the goal....

That will be the next, or is it current, “human right” for them.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by A10

Like the right to vote? Thats the goal....

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote. Congress decides who gets to vote. They must abide by the amendments that control things like poll taxes, voter discrimination based on race or gender and who gets to be a citizen. Voting is controlled by legislation and interpretation of that legislation by the courts. The individual states maintain a large role in setting voting rules (Think mail in ballots.) but they must stay within the laws made by Congress. I have no illusion that the Blue's would like nothing better than making all of the new residents citizens but I think it's something much more simple. The US is in the middle of a huge demographic shift with the boomers dying off and being replaced by a much smaller generation. There has been a big shift in population from the eastern and western urban areas as the middle class follow the jobs to the south and southwest. There has been a large drop in population in those Blue states and what do they use to decide how many representatives a state gets? Population. And it's JUST population. It does not matter. When they count, they count bodies. Not just citizens. So that's what they are doing. Propping up the numbers so that they can keep their Blue seats in congress. Right now it's working great for them but soon the bill is going to come due and it's all going to implode.

[Oldsalt66]

Originally Posted by Bald1

This is silly. No FOID card and at some point lied on or didn’t even fill out a 4473. If a relative gave him the gun then they broke the law as well……. In NY you need a semi auto rifle permit for a 10/22. I NYC my carry permit is not valid. But an illegal invader can have a gun? The world is upside down

That's the true intent of this judge's ruling, to turn the world upside down.

[WCCPHD]

Soon, the left will agree that illegal aliens cannot lawfully own firearms at the same time they will call for equal protection under the law. Then they will use their circular reasoning to take guns from ALL people whether lawfully present or not (of course the "government" will be exempt).

[gerhard1]

Originally Posted by Frailer

I’ve not read the text of the decision, but IMHO the right to bear arms is a *human* right.

Meaning it applies to everyone.

People in prison too?

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Soon, the left will agree that illegal aliens cannot lawfully own firearms at the same time they will call for equal protection under the law. Then they will use their circular reasoning to take guns from ALL people whether lawfully present or not (of course the "government" will be exempt).

Which is why gun owners can't fall for this. This is about gun rights, not immigration and it's a round about way to try and take Bruen out of the argument.

[Frailer]

Originally Posted by gerhard1

People in prison too?

I am going to be naive and assume this is a serious question and not just snark.

No. Prisoners do not enjoy the same rights as free persons. For example, most people would agree that the freedom to come and go as one pleases is an inherent human right, but no one would rationally suggest this applies to those who are imprisoned (because limitations on this freedom literally defines imprisonment). In recognition of this, the crafters of the Bill of Rights dedicated fully half of the document (Amendments 4-8) to enumerating the rights those accused or convicted of crimes retain.

[hkcavalier]

Originally Posted by gerhard1

People in prison too?

They have been deprived of liberty through the due process of law, just as the 5th and 14th Amendments intended.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by hkcavalier

They have been deprived of liberty through the due process of law, just as the 5th and 14th Amendments intended.

I agree; however, it did not stop the left from calling for felons in prison to be allowed to vote.

While it may not make sense, those who would take our guns have never been know to use logic. They operate solely on emotion.

[Oldsalt66]

Originally Posted by RMFnLA

Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…

Not at all, since the immigrants of which the poem speaks, and who passed under the statue's torch, entered this country lawfully through the Ellis Island point of entry.

As opposed to this:

Migrants break barriers and rush border guards in shocking scene at El Paso - YouTube

[Frailer]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

I agree; however, it did not stop the left from calling for felons in prison to be allowed to vote.

While it may not make sense, those who would take our guns have never been know to use logic. They operate solely on emotion.

You’re absolutely right. But they act more out of emotion than logic not because they are politically left-leaning. They do so because they are human.

What is incumbent upon those of us who wish to behave rationally is to recognize we *all* have this Achilles' heel. It is in our very natures. Logic dictates we acknowledge the fact that just because we disagree with a law or policy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It is perfectly OK to dislike—or even hate—a thing. It is not, however OK to insist everyone else share our views.

The only difference between the “Left” and the “Right” is which specific rights they wish to infringe upon. And they *both* appeal to emotions to do so.

[nicky4968]

If he can have a gun then so can I.

[HeloMt]

I guess no one has to fill out line 12C on the 4473 anymore...

[edwardyoung]

There’s a difference in qualifying to purchase a gun from a dealer and legally possessing one. I would think that illegally being in America would disqualify you from legally doing lots of things, but I still say it’s a God-given pre-existing right. Let the legislators work it out, legally.

[6string]

Originally Posted by RMFnLA

Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…

If you are referring to the sonnet, The New Colossus, that was never part of the conception of the Statue of Liberty as intended by the French artist Frederic Bartholdi.
Rather, that sonnet was written by an American as part of a fundraising gimmick to finance the statue’s pedestal.
American journalist John T Cunningham wrote, "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch and the shining face, heading toward Ellis Island. However, it was [Lazarus's poem] that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants.”
And, furthermore,
"Bartholdi's gigantic effigy was originally intended as a monument to the principles of international republicanism, but 'The New Colossus' reinvented the statue's purpose, turning Liberty into a welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world." (Paul Auster)

What is ironic, however, is seeing yet one more act of historic revisionism taken as fact.

But, I digress. Going back to Judge Coleman’s ruling, I don’t think she could care one bit about the second amendment.
Her intent is, I believe, to foment chaos and violence by empowering criminals.
Look at who appointed her!

[rosewood]

Originally Posted by DWalt

They are NOT illegal immigrants. They are now officially Newcomers. That came straight from the top.

You mean the same one that said to shoot someone through the door and to fire up in the air to scare off intruders?

[rosewood]

Originally Posted by Frailer

No, it isn’t

It should be, maybe that is the 1st thing our new president should get passed.

[rosewood]

I think we should just sit back and see what happens with the FOID card. This may be a case that gets it ruled unconstitutional maybe??

Rosewood

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

I agree; however, it did not stop the left from calling for felons in prison to be allowed to vote.

While it may not make sense, those who would take our guns have never been know to use logic. They operate solely on emotion.

I agree with the post that mentions that felons are deprived of their rights through due process. People are deprived of their rights and property every day. It is done legally and necessarily using due process and is the whole purpose of our justice system. In the case of convicted felons, they loose their right to vote because at some point, congress decided that felons shouldn't vote. That could be changed at any time by congress. I think it's an important point to remember because there is a difference between depriving someone of a constitutional right and finding them in violation of a law and that distinction tends to muddy the waters when you talk about what rights felons have.

[biku324]

14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[max503]

"Illegal Immigrant" is a free get-out-of-jail-card here in Illinois.

I try to ignore what they do up there but it's getting harder and harder to do. I might have to go up there (Chicagoland) on some family business and I'm not looking forward to that.

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Makes you wonder how citizenship is defined.
Curious as to how an illegal immigrant could pass a NICs or state background check ?

[NYlakesider]

Originally Posted by BLACKHAWKNJ

Makes you wonder how citizenship is defined.
Curious as to how an illegal immigrant could pass a NICs or state background check ?

A good chance that some wacky court decision will say those checks are a invasion of the illegals rights and they are exempt.

Today anything is possible!-

[pricedo]

Originally Posted by djohns6

NOTHING surprises me . I think I know what the end game is though . More gun legislation to combat the rising crime rate that they created .

... disarm The People and go soft on crime ... it's working great in Canada ... thefts and home invasion stats are going through the roof

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by BLACKHAWKNJ

Makes you wonder how citizenship is defined.
Curious as to how an illegal immigrant could pass a NICs or state background check ?

There’s nothing to look for.

[ladder13]

Well there you have it.


“A federal judge on Thursday tossed a conservative legal group's lawsuit against a controversial Washington, D.C. law that allows noncitizens — including illegal immigrants and foreign embassy staff members — to vote in municipal elections

In a 12-page opinion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the plaintiffs, a group of U.S. citizen voters represented by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), lacked standing to challenge the law because they could not demonstrate how they are harmed by noncitizens who vote and run for local office”

[Llance]

If you read the whole of the decision you will learn this ruling only applies to Heriberto Carbajal-Flores and not all illegals.

On another note: How many think the law recently passed by the Illinois legislators requiring the registration of all semiautomatic firearms or the owners of said firearms are automatically felons. It also says that if you register them later than the cutoff date, you are a felon. First you have to be tried, and found guilty, but that's another issue.

Not so folks. Registration after the cutoff date does not make you a felon because in doing so you are incriminating yourself. And you can't register later than the cutoff date without incriminating yourself. We have the 9th circus court to thank for that one. It was ruled in a case in California that criminals can't register their guns without incriminating themselves.

Yeah for the good guys

[BB57]

Originally Posted by hdfinder47

I thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied to American citizens - not foreigners on US property illegally.
Ed

I realize this is a tough one for many conservative Americans to swallow, but it was the right decision for the court to make.

It’s consistent with how we extend amendments like the first, fourth and fifth amendments to *all* persons present in the US, rather than only recognizing these inalienable rights for citizens.

We don’t for example condone beating confessions out of immigrants - legal or otherwise. We treat them like the humans they actually are.

Similarly, unless an individual arrested for a crime was in fact a prohibited person prior to the crime, the court is just saying charging them with illegal possession of a firearm won’t wash. They would however still be subject to any sentence enhancements in place for using a firearm in commission of a crime.

It’s a pretty reasonable ruling. You can argue they were here illegally, and thus were in violation of immigration law. But unless and until they have been charged with the crime or convicted of the crime, it won’t prohibit firearm possession.

——

If we start carving out specific groups who don’t enjoy second amendment protection, we run the real risk of starting precedents where they can carve away 2A rights for a number of other status offenses. We don’t want to go there.

[gerhard1]

Originally Posted by Frailer

I am going to be naive and assume this is a serious question and not just snark.

No. Prisoners do not enjoy the same rights as free persons. For example, most people would agree that the freedom to come and go as one pleases is an inherent human right, but no one would rationally suggest this applies to those who are imprisoned (because limitations on this freedom literally defines imprisonment). In recognition of this, the crafters of the Bill of Rights dedicated fully half of the document (Amendments 4-8) to enumerating the rights those accused or convicted of crimes retain.

Of course: I merely asked the question to make the point that certain rights can be lost and this loss does not mean that the rights in question are not rights. Provided due process is followed, rights can be lost. This includes those rights protected under the second amendment.

It has been said by some, although not in this thread, that if rights can be lost then they are not rights but privileges.

That was my point; not to put you down. Sorry if you took it that way.

[rosewood]

Originally Posted by gerhard1

It has been said by some, although not in this thread, that if rights can be lost then they are not rights but privileges.

If this was a true statement, then rights don't exist.

[Buzzzer]

The GCA of 1968 specifically states that he cannot own a firearm, exception 5 (B). Heck, does this ruling negate that law? If it does, wow, lots of people are getting freebees...

[rosewood]

Originally Posted by Buzzzer

The GCA of 1968 specifically states that he cannot own a firearm, exception 5 (B). Heck, does this ruling negate that law? If it does, wow, lots of people are getting freebees...

And I agree 100% with that particular line...not so much with some others.

The judge probably doesn't even know that..

[hdfinder47]

Originally Posted by BB57

I realize this is a tough one for many conservative Americans to swallow, but it was the right decision for the court to make.

It’s consistent with how we extend amendments like the first, fourth and fifth amendments to *all* persons present in the US, rather than only recognizing these inalienable rights for citizens.

We don’t for example condone beating confessions out of immigrants - legal or otherwise. We treat them like the humans they actually are.

Similarly, unless an individual arrested for a crime was in fact a prohibited person prior to the crime, the court is just saying charging them with illegal possession of a firearm won’t wash. They would however still be subject to any sentence enhancements in place for using a firearm in commission of a crime.

It’s a pretty reasonable ruling. You can argue they were here illegally, and thus were in violation of immigration law. But unless and until they have been charged with the crime or convicted of the crime, it won’t prohibit firearm possession.

——

If we start carving out specific groups who don’t enjoy second amendment protection, we run the real risk of starting precedents where they can carve away 2A rights for a number of other status offenses. We don’t want to go there.

I understand your logic but I believe that, at some point, we need to start using common sense or what is left of our Republic will be lost forever. It may already be. JMO.

[pantannojack]

Originally Posted by RMFnLA

Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…

Then REMOVE the STATUE.

[pantannojack]

Originally Posted by Buzzzer

Exactly, he already broke the law. Therefore, IMHO, he should be in jail, or sent south. He is not a U.S. citizen. Why is this even being talked about? People really think like this nowadays? If you went to Mexico and tried this you'd be in jail forever...

It happened to a Marine vet took a wrong turn at the California/Mexico border. The then President did nothing to help.