The Eighth Circuit: "unlawful aliens are not part of 'the people'......

[MechAg94]

The Eighth Circuit upheld 922(g)(5)(A) today, saying that "unlawful aliens are not part of 'the people' to whom the protections of the Second Amendment extend."
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1643320981870477313

Decision
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/04/221010P.pdf


John Crump News did a livestream talking about this. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWRak4H8gfI

What other rights under the Bill of Rights are denied to non-citizens or illegal aliens?  "Shall not be infringed" doesn't apply to everyone according to them.

[AZRedhawk44]

Interesting perspective.

Seems the court wants to create a parallel between "the people" and "citizens."  Not sure how I feel about that.

[Perd Hapley]

Seems obvious that people not allowed to be here are not "the people" the Constitution speaks of.

Seems equally obvious that no rights can be ascribed to illegal aliens, aside from the right to humane treatment until they can be deported. Everyone has a basic, human right to defend themselves, but breaking the laws means giving up certain rights.

[Hawkmoon]

Seems obvious that people not allowed to be here are not "the people" the Constitution speaks of.

Seems equally obvious that no rights can be ascribed to illegal aliens, aside from the right to humane treatment until they can be deported. Everyone has a basic, human right to defend themselves, but breaking the laws means giving up certain rights.

I agree completely. Illegal aliens are "people" but they are not "the people."

What other rights under the Bill of Rights are denied to non-citizens or illegal aliens?  "Shall not be infringed" doesn't apply to everyone according to them.

Let's look at that.

It's not that "shall not be infringed" doesn't apply to illegal aliens, it's that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not (and IMHO should not) apply to them. If you read up on firearms law, a legal foreign visitor to the United States (in other words, an alien here on a tourist visa, not a green card resident alien)) is not legally allowed to pick up a firearm and shoot it -- even at a shooting range. If a legal alien can't touch a firearm, why should an illegal alien have a right to a firearm?

Freedom of speech: Should someone who is in this country illegally be allowed to flap their gums to help elect politicians that a majority of lawful citizens may not want to see elected?

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure: Why should someone who is in the country illegally be protected against searches and seizures? I think if someone is subject to a search and it transpires that they are an illegal alien, the threshold for allowing the evidence turned up by the search should be lower than for a citizen (or legal alien).

[HankB]

. . . Seems equally obvious that no rights can be ascribed to illegal aliens, aside from the right to humane treatment until they can be deported . . .

Agree with this - humane treatment in custody, absolutely, pending deportation ASAP. But no other rights should apply.

As for legal aliens, they enjoy more rights, but still should be limited with respect to the rignts of citizens - which means no voting, no holding elective office, no working in law enforcement.

Once naturalized, all rights other than holding the office of POTUS apply to former aliens.

. . . . It's not that "shall not be infringed" doesn't apply to illegal aliens, it's that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not (and IMHO should not) apply to them. If you read up on firearms law, a legal foreign visitor to the United States (in other words, an alien here on a tourist visa, not a green card resident alien)) is not legally allowed to pick up a firearm and shoot it -- even at a shooting range. If a legal alien can't touch a firearm, why should an illegal alien have a right to a firearm?

I'm not sure that's the case - I remember reading about "firearm tourists" from Japan who come here (legally!) in order to have an expensive "shooting holiday" at a gun range. And even though the US is not really known as a hunting destination the way Africa is, I'm pretty sure that foreign hunters can enter this country with firearms in order to hunt. (I'm sure some restrictions are in place, but I don't think there's an absolute prohibition.)

[Hawkmoon]

I'm not sure that's the case - I remember reading about "firearm tourists" from Japan who come here (legally!) in order to have an expensive "shooting holiday" at a gun range. And even though the US is not really known as a hunting destination the way Africa is, I'm pretty sure that foreign hunters can enter this country with firearms in order to hunt. (I'm sure some restrictions are in place, but I don't think there's an absolute prohibition.)

A hunter who brings his own firearms is okay. So is an IPSC competitor or an Olympic-type competitor who brings his/her own guns. The problem is transfers. It's unlawful to transfer a firearm to anyone who isn't a citizen or a legal resident alien. Strictly speaking, a range allowing a non-resident alien to shoot is performing a (temporary) transfer to that non-resident alien.

Read the 4473.

[HankB]

A hunter who brings his own firearms is okay. So is an IPSC competitor or an Olympic-type competitor who brings his/her own guns. The problem is transfers. It's unlawful to transfer a firearm to anyone who isn't a citizen or a legal resident alien. Strictly speaking, a range allowing a non-resident alien to shoot is performing a (temporary) transfer to that non-resident alien.

Read the 4473.

Guns that don't leave the premises of the owner are not considered to be transferred. Firearm tourism exists in Hawaii.

https://www.hawaiigunclub.com/

  Established in 1988, Waikiki Gun Club has over two decades of experience of providing a safe environment to enjoy firearms at an indoor shooting range. We are conveniently located in the heart of Waikiki on the main road of Kalakaua avenue next to Oakley and across of Tommy Bahamas and Bank of Hawaii. We provide our services to locals, the military, people from the Mainland, and visitors from over 50 different major countries.

[MillCreek]

^^^When I used to go to Honolulu once a year on business for five years, there were people on the streets of Waikiki handing out brochures in Japanese to the Japanese tourists about the gun range. 

[MechAg94]

There is an indoor range local to me that rents guns to shoot.  I saw a foreigner from Europe show up to rent guns and shoot one evening.  He was in the country legally.

IMO, the right of self defense belongs to everyone.  Not sure where I draw the line on illegal aliens when it comes to carrying guns for self defense.  It is hard to say they have all these rights when I also think they should be deported quickly after being found.   

[AZRedhawk44]

Given that one cannot immediately tell an illegal alien from a citizen, and it is considered deplorable behavior to live in a "papers please" society:

There are a host of other rights that illegal aliens, and legal aliens, enjoy alongside citizens.  It's a question of whether they are accidental privileges or actual rights though.

They have free speech and assembly.  They have right to trial.  They have rights to protect against unreasonable search and seizure.  All in all, I don't see the 2A as any different than that.  Murder is already illegal.  We seem to all agree that self defense is still a right illegal aliens have and I rather doubt any of you would convict Lupita the illegal alien janitor in a gun possession trial if she shot and killed someone in demonstrable self defense.

I'd rather err on the side of granting "too many" rights than establish a discriminatory precedent in regards to eligibility to own arms.  Murder, robbery and such can't get any more illegaler.

[Pb]

The Eighth Circuit upheld 922(g)(5)(A) today, saying that "unlawful aliens are not part of 'the people' to whom the protections of the Second Amendment extend."

Under Bruen, this is absolutely correct.  In early America there were laws banning various non-citizen groups from owning weapons (slaves and Indians).  Noncitizens were not considered to have gun rights.

You may think this is bad policy, but it is consistent with early American firearms laws.

[MechAg94]

Under Bruen, this is absolutely correct.  In early America there were laws banning various non-citizen groups from owning weapons (slaves and Indians).  Noncitizens were not considered to have gun rights.

You may think this is bad policy, but it is consistent with early American firearms laws.

I questioned this before when someone else mentioned it.  It is my understanding that was in the post civil war time frame when the 14th amendment was adopted.  That time frame was included in the test under Bruen.  I don't think those laws existed in 1789. 

If all other restrictions fell away except that, I could live with it.    

[dogmush]

I would call this similar to (but not as bad as) when the US started scooping people up, imprisoning and torturing excuse me, enhanced interrogating them, without trial or any due process.  The Bill of Rights lays out what the Government is not allowed to do.  The Government claiming they are allowed to do something they are specifically proscribed from doing because they are doing it  outside the US or to a particular, unloved, group of people is quibbling, and reminds me of the kind of argument a child caught misbehaving makes.

We routinely pontificate about how there is a natural right to own firearms, and the government can not infringe on it.  I have read the argument on this site that folks in Europe and other restrictive countries have the right to bear arms, their government's are just using force to infringe on that pre-existing, natural right.  If that's the case, I can't agree that there's a blanket prohibition on those folks exercising their right without due process.

If the courts were to make it a condition of the illegal's release after a hearing, pending the outcome of their full case, I could at least see that as lip service to due process.

[Perd Hapley]

We seem to all agree that self defense is still a right illegal aliens have and I rather doubt any of you would convict Lupita the illegal alien janitor in a gun possession trial if she shot and killed someone in demonstrable self defense.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, even a convict who is attacked in prison. That doesn’t mean inmates have a right to keep guns in their cells. But free adults have a right to own guns.

Free adults have a right to own guns, but that doesn’t mean I have to right to illegally cross the border into another country, and bring a firearm. Or bring anything, really. I don’t think this is really a question of whether illegals can have specific items, or whether they have specific rights. That’s why my original comment was, they have a right to humane treatment while being deported. Or whatever consequence we decide to impose on border-jumpers.

Yes, Lupita the illegal alien has a right to defend herself, but what should that really amount to, in the end? Seems like it should just boil down to “glad you were able to fend off an illegal attack against your life. (Attempted murder is illegal, regardless of anyone’s immigration status.) Have fun on your trip back to Latin America.” Right?

[Doggy Daddy]

Guns that don't leave the premises of the owner are not considered to be transferred. Firearm tourism exists in Hawaii.

https://www.hawaiigunclub.com/

And Vegas...

https://machinegunsvegas.com/
(just one example)

[Hawkmoon]

Guns that don't leave the premises of the owner are not considered to be transferred. Firearm tourism exists in Hawaii.

Tell that to the State of New York.

In New York, no one can touch a firearm unless they have a New York issued permit.

Remember, we have fifty states, plus the District of Columbia, plus the over-arching mantle of federal law to deal with.

From the BATFE: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/can-alien-who-enters-united-states-nonimmigrant-alien-visa-rent-firearm-lawful-hunting

So the loophole is for aliens to get a hunting license. Then they can legally rent firearms.

[Edit to add] Do any states sell hunting licenses without requiring the completion of a hunter's safety class?