Illegal Immigrants can Possess Firearms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wrangler Rich said:
He is in Illinois, as am I, we are required to have an FOID to legally be in possession of a firearm. Right or wrong, he broke the law coming here, and being in possession of a firearm. I believe the second amendment considered "the people" to be lawful citizens.

WR
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
If illegal entrants into the U.S. are allowed to lawfully possess firearms, thus being granted 2A rights same as a citizen, even though they committed a federal crime by entering illegally, and a felony strips a citizen of their 2A rights, then a dangerous precedent has been set. Such a thing would create a "super citizen" status, one where violating laws goes without prosecution and could also be grounds for granting voting rights as well. I sure hope that this decision is quickly appealed and overturned.
 
hdfinder47 said:
I thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied to American citizens - not foreigners on US property illegally.
Ed
Click to expand...

Similar to the rest of the Constitution, rights are for all, not just legal residents. We do not require visiting tourists to house our army, nor can they be arrested or charged without Miranda or other legal procedures. Felons can not be gun owners but those charged with and convicted of misdemeanors can. It's a slippery slope to decide whether firearm ownership should be with the most popular of groups or all.
 
ASA335 said:
But, this judge's reasoning has some merit. A person who is not committing a crime, or has not be found guilty of a crime, or has not been found to be a danger to themselves or other, through a due process, should not be prohibited from possessing or bearing a firearm in any of the states.
Click to expand...

They are committing the crime of being here illegally.
 
mtgianni said:
Similar to the rest of the Constitution, rights are for all, not just legal residents. We do not require visiting tourists to house our army, nor can they be arrested or charged without Miranda or other legal procedures. Felons can not be gun owners but those charged with and convicted of misdemeanors can. It's a slippery slope to decide whether firearm ownership should be with the most popular of groups or all.
Click to expand...

Visiting tourists have come here legally. Illegal immigrants - not so.
 
ASA335 said:
But, this judge's reasoning has some merit. A person who is not committing a crime, or has not be found guilty of a crime, or has not been found to be a danger to themselves or other, through a due process, should not be prohibited from possessing or bearing a firearm in any of the states.
Click to expand...

They did not enter this country by means of due process, so no firearms for them.
 
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
 
RMFnLA said:
Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue… :cool:
Click to expand...

39ma8z.jpg
 
Here is this judge’s biography:

Sharon Johnson Coleman - Wikipedia

I will not get political here, but look very closely at her photograph, and where she resides, and where she grew up, and who appointed her, and then decide for yourself which way she might lean.

And then you have some folks that lean one way, and wish to give rights to some groups of individuals, and you have some folks, probably the very same folks, who want to strip individuals of their second amendment rights. Then you have folks that lean in the opposite direction.

It is interesting which way this judge sided, it’s the proverbial between a rock and a hard place.

Isn’t the role of a judge to interpret existing Federal law and ensure one’s legal rights are maintained, and not instead to go against Federal law and create that which you want it to be?

This could be a dangerous precedent. In that what’s to preclude a judge from deciding you cannot keep and bear firearms (what they want the law to be) despite the Second Amendment protecting those rights?
 
I really don't think this judge all of a sudden became a stalwart supporter for the 2nd amendment. I'm thinking that this is more about trying to get SCOTUS to go back and make decisions against Bruen. I think there may be more goofy decisions like this in the future. Bruen has the anti gun movement back on it's heels and they are going to try to get SCOTUS to start narrowing their decision. I don't think we should take the bait and let the whole immigration issue start driving the 2nd amendment argument. The result of doing that is that the pro 2nd amendment people will be making arguments that there are certain people who the 2nd doesn't apply to. I don't think it helps our cause to go down that road. Regardless of your opinion about immigration, our default position should be that all law abiding people have the right to own a firearm. All law abiding people. We can't take the immigration bait. That's another argument that shouldn't be tied up with gun ownership.
 
It’s a pre-existing God-given right.

Maybe laws like this can be used to strike down un-Constitutional restrictions on law-a using American gun owners. I wish I’d gone to law school
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bratastic007
Thoughts on Freedoms and Firearms
Replies
5
Views
1K
Yeutta
Y
boltman
Letter to the President
Replies
6
Views
1K
DeathGrip
DeathGrip
Ben Cartwright SASS
No 2nd Amendment right in Massachusetts?
Replies
14
Views
3K
Ben Cartwright SASS
Ben Cartwright SASS

Latest posts

Back
Top