Federal Judge says 2nd does not apply to illegals.

[BC38]

I have to disagree. The fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights do not only apply the first time someone is accused of a crime. Repeat offenders still have right to counsel and a jury trial and to not have a confession beaten out of them. Do we really want our rights to be so fragile that an alcohol possession conviction at age 20 means you can be executed for murder without a trial at 50? Of course we restrict the right of those convicted of crimes to come and go as they please...for a given period of time. Only murderers and certain repeat violent offenders lose that right for life. And here we are, you and me exercising our mutual right to free speech.

Umm, WOW! How far can you possibly twist or distort what I said to try to put words into my mouth?

I was listing some of the inalienable human rights that are bestowed upon us by our Creator (per the Declaration of Independance) that CONVICTED criminals forfeit by their CRIMINAL actions.

And you are trying to equate that into a false claim that I am advocating denying basic human rights to those who have been CHARGED or ACCUSED, but NOT convicted of any crime?!? maybe you missed the fact that I specifically referenced CONVICTED criminals.

Our Constitution states that NO ONE shall be deprived of their rights without DUE PROCESS. That is a principle I 100% agree with. We are a nation of LAWS, not a nation of MEN.

I think you may have misread and/or misrepresented my comments...

JMO, forgive me if I misinterpreted your intentions or what you are trying to say. Please feel free to further expound on the point you were trying to make...

 

[Llance]

I'm not to keen on the "failed to swear allegiance to the US" assertion. Those of us who served in the military did, however only while serving. I doubt most born in the US have done so.

No offense to your statement here but this only applies to those persons serving as enlisted servicemen(women). Officers and that includes warrant officers, took that oath and it applies until they reach a certain age. It used to be 64 YO, but I believe it has been extended to 73 YO.

Here is an interesting observation, You signed up for 4 years active duty. You served active duty for 3 years and 363 days when you were released from active duty. Your obligation is for 6 years, when does your oath of office expire???

Llance

 

[Sistema1927]

I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I want the law of the land to be obeyed.

On the other, I recognize that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, but rather enumerates natural rights that are applicable to all people everywhere.

I am concerned that any court ruling that imposes limits on those rights can possibly lead to abuse. The curse of unintended consequences.

 

[BC38]

I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I want the law of the land to be obeyed.

On the other, I recognize that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, but rather enumerates natural rights that are applicable to all people everywhere.

I am concerned that any court ruling that imposes limits on those rights can possibly lead to abuse. The curse of unintended consequences.

Isn't every criminal sentencing hearing a "court ruling that imposes limits on those rights"? When the judge sentences someone to prison he denies them all the rights I listed in post #37.

Is that an issue of concern for you?

Then there are the most extreme cases, where we even deny a criminal the right to life - in the case of capital punishment.

We can't have it both ways - either we don't restrict the rights of criminals and let them run free, or we "infringe" on their rights by locking them up - or worse.

 

[Jon651]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate for a second, I see many here echoing the commonly held opinion "The Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens and those here legally", or some close variation of that belief.

HOWEVER, we need to think about this very hard for one moment. The fact that a duly authorized judge made this ruling in open court during a trial literally undermines that very opinion - because if the Constitution DIDN'T apply to the defendant who was here illegally, then he wouldn't (and shouldn't) have had a trial to begin with...

And THAT is a very slippery slope indeed. Just saying...

 

[skwchock]

ILLEGALS violated US LAWS when they "illegally" invaded the US. Since they "--violated" US laws -- they are CRIMINALS. Criminals are NOT allowed to own guns.

 

[moosedog]

"HOWEVER, we need to think about this very hard for one moment. The fact that a duly authorized judge made this ruling in open court during a trial literally undermines that very opinion - because if the Constitution DIDN'T apply to the defendant who was here illegally, then he wouldn't (and shouldn't) have had a trial to begin with..."

The judge just verified what was already known and was law. It's more like the left just keeps trying to change things for the worse.

 

[CH4]

Slippery slope….

Why not the 2nd?
Seems illegals get to enjoy other constitutional protections like those provided by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th, etc. For example, the illegal who was just convicted of killing the nursing student in Georgia. Now the taxpayers get to pay for his life stay in prison, current and ongoing legal fees, etc. Seems dude, should the firing squad and the bill sent to his country of origin.

Moreover, any public official caught aiding and abetting an illegal should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[BC38]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate for a second, I see many here echoing the commonly held opinion "The Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens and those here legally", or some close variation of that belief.

HOWEVER, we need to think about this very hard for one moment. The fact that a duly authorized judge made this ruling in open court during a trial literally undermines that very opinion - because if the Constitution DIDN'T apply to the defendant who was here illegally, then he wouldn't (and shouldn't) have had a trial to begin with...

And THAT is a very slippery slope indeed. Just saying...

Like you, I disagree with the idea that our human rights only apply to US citizens.
Everyone is born with basic human rights - including the presumption of innocence when accused of a crime, and the right to due process.
These rights can only be forfeited by the individual's actions - as in committing crimes.
Even illegal aliens are entitled to due process. HOWEVER, by being here illegally they are by definition criminals who have broken our laws.
Once that is established - through due process - their rights (as enumerated in the US Constitution) are rendered null and void by their own criminal actions.
Making an illegal gun purchase (or purchases) just adds to their crimes and confirms their criminal disregard for following our laws.

 

[SMSgt]

Being here "illegally" makes one a criminal, therefore not necessarily eligible for all the rights of those here legally--citizens or not.

 

[SWFan27]

Human rights and Constitutional rights are two completely different things. And Constitutional rights only apply to American citizens. One of the dumbest nonsensical things I have ever heard is the old "no human is illegal" argument or chant/rant.

I have no idea what an illegal human is. Maybe someone who was cloned in a lab or some other science fiction mumbo jumbo. But I do know that if someone is in America illegally, they are sure as heck not an American citizen. And they have absolutely zero Constitutional rights.

 

[CH4]

Being here "illegally" makes one a criminal, therefore not necessarily eligible for all the rights of those here legally--citizens or not.

Is being here illegally an misdemeanor or felony?

 

[SWFan27]

Is being here illegally an misdemeanor or felony?

It is a deportable offense.

 

[Muss Muggins]

First offense is a misdemeanor, second and subsequent offenses are felonies. Generally, the first offense isn’t charged, they just walk ‘em back across. Illegal re-entry after deportation is a felony, and penalties vary based on aggravating factors like multiple prior misdemeanor convictions, prior felony convictions, prior violent felony convictions, etc. . .

 

[CH4]

First offense is a misdemeanor, second and subsequent offenses are felonies. Generally, the first offense isn’t charged, they just walk ‘em back across. Illegal re-entry after deportation is a felony, and penalties vary based on aggravating factors like multiple prior misdemeanor convictions, prior felony convictions, prior violent felony convictions, etc. . .

Thanks for the detailed 411.

 

[Oldsalt66]

The answer to this question isn't even a close call.
The defendant's lawyers are throwing everything they can "up against the wall - just to see what sticks".

Looking at the FACTS of this case:

1) The defendant was in the US illegally. At the most basic level, that defines him as a criminal - someone who has already shown a complete disregard for our laws by breaking the immigration laws of our country.

2) In addition to that foundational violation of the rule of law, he also acquired firearms by repeatedly breaking the existing laws of our country (regardless of whether one sees them as right or wrong) - by lying on the 4473 forms that all of us law-abiding citizens are required to complete to LEGALLY purchase firearms.

So, if this guy isn't prosecuted for these violations of our laws, we are no longer a "nation of laws - rather than a nation of MEN".

The law has to be applied equally to everyone. We can't make every case an exception and still uphold the ideal of EQUAL protections under the law.

JMO...

I'm a second amendment absolutist however I agree with this.

"They The Illegal Aliens" are not "We The People".

 

[Jon651]

Being here "illegally" makes one a criminal, therefore not necessarily eligible for all the rights of those here legally--citizens or not.

I'm still in Devil's Advocate mode for a while, so this is what I see: The person may be here "illegally" but he is not a convicted criminal until AFTER he is convicted in a court of law. Under our Constitution and laws, you cannot be punished for a crime you have not yet been convicted of. If we were all subject to some sort of punishment for illegal acts we may have committed but were never charged and convicted of then I doubt any of us would even be allowed to drive a car, much less own a gun.

(However, in reality I will fully admit that many things done to people prior to their ever being convicted in court certainly can be considered "punishment" by many observers, but that is the nature of the system. Nothing is perfect.)

 

[Jon651]

Human rights and Constitutional rights are two completely different things. And Constitutional rights only apply to American citizens. One of the dumbest nonsensical things I have ever heard is the old "no human is illegal" argument or chant/rant.

I have no idea what an illegal human is. Maybe someone who was cloned in a lab or some other science fiction mumbo jumbo. But I do know that if someone is in America illegally, they are sure as heck not an American citizen. And they have absolutely zero Constitutional rights.

So what about foreigners who commit a crime but are here legally, don't they get the same Constitutional and legal protections as everyone? They committed a crime as well, right? Shouldn't they get the same right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial, the right to free speech, etc.? If we didn't have those basic protections for foreigners in this country just imagine how bad it would be for Americans abroad.

Civil rights are the foundation of our civil society. I say if you want to revoke ANY of them for someone who commits a criminal act then catch them, charge them and convict them FIRST - but until you do everyone gets treated the same.

And before someone comes to the absolutely wrong conclusion, NO - I am NOT saying that illegal aliens should be allowed to buy and possess firearms. If you don't want them doing that, then we need tighter controls to catch them before they can do that. If you want looser controls, then expect more people to slip through the cracks.

 

[ACORN]

NO states do thier OWN....a 4473 is called in to the FBI in Clarksburg,Wv...where it is approved or Delayed or turned down...I know..

Apparently not.
Pa. State Police do ours.
Firearms Records | State Police | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

 

[SWFan27]

So what about foreigners who commit a crime but are here legally, don't they get the same Constitutional and legal protections as everyone? They committed a crime as well, right? Shouldn't they get the same right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial, the right to free speech, etc.? If we didn't have those basic protections for foreigners in this country just imagine how bad it would be for Americans abroad.

Civil rights are the foundation of our civil society. I say if you want to revoke ANY of them for someone who commits a criminal act then catch them, charge them and convict them FIRST - but until you do everyone gets treated the same.

And before someone comes to the absolutely wrong conclusion, NO - I am NOT saying that illegal aliens should be allowed to buy and possess firearms. If you don't want them doing that, then we need tighter controls to catch them before they can do that. If you want looser controls, then expect more people to slip through the cracks.

Any non-citizen here legally or illegally should be deported instantly if they break one of our laws. I am confident that the new administration will get back to enforcing this.