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?

They are NOT illegal immigrants. They are now officially Newcomers. That came straight from the top.
No, it isn’t
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.
Makes you wonder how citizenship is defined.
Curious as to how an illegal immigrant could pass a NICs or state background check ?
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 .
Makes you wonder how citizenship is defined.
Curious as to how an illegal immigrant could pass a NICs or state background check ?
I thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied to American citizens - not foreigners on US property illegally.
Ed
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.
If this was a true statement, then rights don't exist.It has been said by some, although not in this thread, that if rights can be lost then they are not rights but privileges.
And I agree 100% with that particular line...not so much with some others.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...
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.
Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…![]()
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...