Illegal Immigrants can Possess Firearms

[pantannojack]

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.

But your "LEFT" goes with what ever they "FEEL" at the time.

"No "Reasonable" Prosecutor would prosecute."

 

[pantannojack]

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."

They ain't supposed to be in the jurisdiction. Are they.

 

[biku324]

Doesn't matter - they are within US jurisdiction. This has been long decided.

 

[BB57]

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...

Quite possibly. If I understand the court’s logic in this ruling they viewed it as a right the “the people” and “any person” have that shall not be infringed, and like the other rights granted in the bill of rights didn’t see “citizen” as a requirement for being considered part of “the people” or “any person”.

 

[pantannojack]

Doesn't matter - they are within US jurisdiction. This has been long decided.

NO. It has been cowardly avoided for convivence. The LAWS were never voided, just skipped over by

 

[biku324]

Then the plain language of the 5th and 14th Amendments and a hundred twenty years of subsequent SCOTUS decisions are all just mistakes? Good luck selling that.

It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings. See The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86,100-101 (1903). - Reno v Flores, 507 US 292 (1993), written by that noted liberal Justice Antonin Scalia (no, he was NOT liberal - it's a joke).

 

[pantannojack]

This country used to be ruled by elected law. Now it is by appointees with personal hero agenda.

 

[cmj8591]

If you read the whole of the decision you will learn this ruling only applies to Heriberto Carbajal-Flores and not all illegals.

That is because he is the only one in front of the court. The decision however will be applied as controlling law for any other cases unless/until it is overturned by a higher court. A different judge at the District Court level could ignore it in a different case but that would, most likely, push that case to a higher court. This was a District Court decision so it could be appealed to the Appeals Court and possibly to the SCOTUS. I'm pretty sure we haven't heard the last of it and I still think that is the whole point of that judges decision.

 

[fordson]

I haven’t read all the posting here, so maybe my comments have already been bought up. Looking at this ruling from a different angle: this ruling appears to also reaffirm the rights of “all people “ to own firearms “without infringements”. And this from a Liberal justice. The sword does cut both ways ……

 

[HeyJoe]

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.

that is quite an ironic statement. That is exactly what the gun grabbers say, never mind the text of the constitution we need to use common sense and restrict gun ownership, and ban anything i dont like. The text of the constitution decides what is constitutional or if it doesnt, thats when the onerous gun laws and bans begin.

 

[pantannojack]

I haven’t read all the posting here, so maybe my comments have already been bought up. Looking at this ruling from a different angle: this ruling appears to also reaffirm the rights of “all people “ to own firearms “without infringements”. And this from a Liberal justice. The sword does cut both ways ……

I insist that these "others" must possess firearms by god given right IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY not ours.

 

[pantannojack]

Doesn't matter - they are within US jurisdiction. This has been long decided.

No they are not in the US Jurisdiction. They are in the shadow by their own choice. They only have rights by the creator in their own country. when they invade ours, they give up all rights.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Constitutional rights apply to the citizenry of the republic

That is certainly a nice turn of phrase, however, that would also mean that it would be OK for government agents to torture or beat illegal immigrants, or to deprive them of food and water while they are being held, etc.

 

[pantannojack]

That is certainly a nice turn of phrase, however, that would also mean that it would be OK for government agents to torture or beat illegal immigrants, or to deprive them of food and water while they are being held, etc.

So what's the problem?
Are you suggesting it is OK to do so to J6 "suspects" only?

 

[biku324]

So what's the problem?
Are you suggesting it is OK to do so to J6 "suspects" only?

Not quite sure the 5th, 6th or 8th Amendments apply to Federal inmates because they have no control over their HVAC, limited selections on their cable, boring item choices on their individualized weekly meal menu, or who get a mild rash from prison laundry detergent, but hey, maybe they shouldn't have done things that got them convicted by juries, found guilty at bench trials, or caused them to plead guilty.

We all make choices.