- Joined
- Mar 18, 2024
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 2
Good thing the Eighth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights as well!
Illegal Immigrants can Possess Firearms
- Thread starter ggibson511960
- Start date
- Status
Good thing the Eighth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights as well!
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.
Last edited:
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 "
They will have to rely on the "Gun show loophole "
Like the right to vote? Thats the goal....
hkcavalier
US Veteran
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.
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.
cmj8591
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 850
- Reaction score
- 1,369
That's the true intent of this judge's ruling, to turn the world upside down.
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).
People in prison too?
cmj8591
Member
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.
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
US Veteran
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
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 850
- Reaction score
- 1,369
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
Last edited:
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
Member
If he can have a gun then so can I.
I guess no one has to fill out line 12C on the 4473 anymore...
edwardyoung
Member
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.
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!
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
Latest posts
-
BPLE 115 +P+ in Model 59 question for ISPCpt and others
- Latest: imarangemaster
-
-
-
So… is the Beretta M9 still the Worst?
- Latest: Rimfire Fanatic
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Postwar .38 Terrier & .38 Regulation Police grip frames?- Latest: two-bit cowboy
-
-