Illegal Immigrants can Possess Firearms

[HeyJoe]

The judge is following the standard of scrutiny set in the Bruen decision. The knife cuts both ways. Thomas Jefferson would disagree with those who say the constitution and Bill of Rights only applies to citizens. You are either for strict constitutional interpretation of the text or you are not.

 

[Frailer]

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.

I agree. If we allow our stance on the 2nd Amendment to become entangled with any outside issues—or any single political party—we do so at our peril.

Human rights are human rights.

 

[djohns6]

If anybody thinks this Judge was trying to " be fair " then you're a fool . The decision had nothing to do with the law . There's an ulterior motive and nobody will convince me otherwise .

 

[ladder13]

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.

The end game is in your post.

 

[gp52555]

So, in ChiCom Joe's America, MS-13 gang members can freely enter the country, buy firearms, squat in your home, and the courts will grant them a restraining order against you if you try to kick them out.......what a country!

 

[Oldsalt66]

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.

There already are such "super citizens" who are impervious to legal and societal norms, and they've been created for the clear purpose of setting society on its heels in order to topple it.

 

[USBP SW]

Granted, this is a tough call and we don't know the circumstances of how he came into possession of the firearm. As I recall one of the questions on the 4473 asks if the purchaser is an alien illegally in the U.S.. Answering the question in the affirmative is reason to deny the sale. Illegally entering the U.S. is an administrative offense, however, reentry after deport is a felony. Resident aliens can purchase firearms the same as a citizen, a non-immigrant alien can purchase firearms but have some additional requirements, at least here in California. I would be curious to know if the firearm was legally acquired, the individual is certainly deportable. I would give him back the firearm, push him back across the border into Mexico and let him do time in Mexico for possession of a firearm.

 

[cmj8591]

I really don't see a bunch of MS13'ers lining up to get an LTC or buy a gun at the LGS because of this decision. I think they shop in different places than we do and they don't seem to have any problem getting healed even without this decision.

 

[vijonesjr]

The illegals will fall as hard as criminal citizens. Or I will die trying to defend myself and my family.

 

[rays44]

Constitutional rights apply to the citizenry of the republic

 

[cololab]

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?