Illegal Immigrants can Possess Firearms

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
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."
 
"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.
 
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!-:eek:
 
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
 
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”
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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...
 
Last edited:
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..
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top