Guns For Illegals?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Judge Says Illegals Can Own and Carry Guns Under the Second Amendment

Here is why they can't:

"We the People of the United States" in the Preamble to the Constitution does not say the people "in" the United States. One must be a citizen - a person of the United States - to have these rights and privileges secured and to take part in our governance.

The Preamble goes on to state the purpose of the Constitution is to "... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...", with no mention of non-citizens, foreign governments, or any others whatsoever. "To ourselves" is quite obviously succinct. ANYTHING beyond "to ourselves" is unconstitutional.

We fought for and won the protection of our God given rights and blessings delineated in the Constitution - for ourselves. While all people have inalienable God given rights, those people need to fight for and secure those rights for themselves in their own country. Beyond that, they can enjoy our protections here in the United States only if and when they apply for admission and citizenship and are allowed as provided for in our Constitution.

The Preamble says it all. It is the reason for the rest of the Constitution to exist.

Woody   

[MechAg94]

IMO, they shouldn't be in the US at all.  That said, I don't think we should be worrying about whether they can legally buy guns.  Same as other criminals, they will get them anyway. 


I think I fall in the category of "the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone", not just citizens.  Everyone has the right of self defense.  Illegals should be deported.  I don't care if they possessed firearms. 

[dogmush]

I disagree, strongly.

The right's discussed in the Bill of rights are pre-existing, as a function of being human.  The BOR prohibits the government from taking away or restricting those preexisting rights of people.

There is no other right enumerated in the 1st ten ammendments that we feel only belongs to a citizen.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to be secure in your home and effects, have a fair trial and not incriminate yourself are all rights the government is prohibited from violating against any person.  There is nothing in the second amendment to imply that it doesn't also enjoin the government from infringing on the rights of non citizens to go armed.


Further, the constitution separates citizen from person in several places.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Clearly saying that a Citizen is a sub-set of Person (capitalization theirs).  Person being singular of People.  They do the same thing with requirement to be a Senator and POTUS.

Article IV also delineates a difference between Citizen and Person (or People):

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Where the founders meant "Citizen" they said it.  The Bill of Rights talks about "People" because it prohibits government abuse of everyone in the country.

Certainly folks have read it the wrong way in the past (slaves, freed slaves, and Indians being the obvious examples), but it's clear. 

Also taken in concert with the Declaration of Independence that the Rights are conferred by the Creator upon all men, and the BOR prevents the government from abusing those Creator granted rights, the delineation between People and Citizen is even more nonsensical.


I too would like to see our immigration laws actually enforced.  The folks here illegally should be arrested, given due process while respecting their human rights, and if found guilty of illegally entering the US, deported and flagged to deny further entry.

[AZRedhawk44]

Well argued, dogmush.

Count me on board with your stance.  BOR does not empower anything, it is a restraint on government.  I have no problem with illegals owning firearms.  I am fully OK if they bought them anonymously online with cryptocurrency with the intent to protect their marijuana plants, or 3D printed them, or whatever.

[cordex]

I agree with the idea that the Bill of Rights protects non-citizens.

However, if someone has committed the crime of illegal immigration, as dogmush says they should be arrested and deported if convicted.  Thus, their ownership of firearms is a non-issue.

It's not their ownership of firearms that is relevant to me.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Founding Fathers didn't write the Constitution for everyone on Earth. Our Constitution does not, for instance, apply to France or the people in it. It doesn't apply to Russia or Russians.

While the inalienable rights are universal, the Constitution only protects those for us. It doesn't protect the rights for Mexicans, Chinese, Pols or Canadians, etc. As stated, they must be here legally. As it stands, we can block their entry unless in accordance and in compliance with the law. We can limit the number of legal entries as well - all the way to zero when it is our wish. If a person doesn't agree with this, they can work to gain enough support to amend the Constitution.

Just being here doesn't afford a person the benefit of the Constitution. If it were so, any and all our immigration laws and regulations would be null and void. Borders would be unnecessary.

What is the difference between armed illegal aliens and an armed invasion force?

No elected position of power in Congress or the Executive is available to non-citizens. Is that not fair? Does it infringe on the supposed rights of illegal aliens?

We owe nothing to illegals. If they like what they see here, they need to fight off the oppression and inequality where they come from and then emulate what makes this country so great.

Woody 

[cordex]

Just being here doesn't afford a person the benefit of the Constitution. If it were so, any and all our immigration laws and regulations would be null and void. Borders would be unnecessary.

Do you contend that nothing in the bill of rights applies to non-citizens?

What is the difference between armed illegal aliens and an armed invasion force?

You're not serious, are you?  These two things are not the same at all.

No elected position of power in Congress or the Executive is available to non-citizens. Is that not fair? Does it infringe on the supposed rights of illegal aliens?

Well, if the Constitution doesn't apply to them, and the Constitution says they can't serve, then maybe they're eligible?   

[dogmush]

Just being here doesn't afford a person the benefit of the Constitution. If it were so, any and all our immigration laws and regulations would be null and void. Borders would be unnecessary.

You're absolutely incorrect on that.  The US government is prohibited from violating the rights of anyone it has jurisdiction over.  Certainly, anyone in the territory of the US.  There is no reason that the US can't make immigration laws and control the flow of people across its borders while also not violating the enumerated rights of anyone inside those borders.  You're way off base here Woody. 

[Hawkmoon]

Judge Says Illegals Can Own and Carry Guns Under the Second Amendment

Here is why they can't:

"We the People of the United States" in the Preamble to the Constitution does not say the people "in" the United States. One must be a citizen - a person of the United States - to have these rights and privileges secured and to take part in our governance.

The Preamble goes on to state the purpose of the Constitution is to "... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...", with no mention of non-citizens, foreign governments, or any others whatsoever. "To ourselves" is quite obviously succinct. ANYTHING beyond "to ourselves" is unconstitutional.

We fought for and won the protection of our God given rights and blessings delineated in the Constitution - for ourselves. While all people have inalienable God given rights, those people need to fight for and secure those rights for themselves in their own country. Beyond that, they can enjoy our protections here in the United States only if and when they apply for admission and citizenship and are allowed as provided for in our Constitution.

The Preamble says it all. It is the reason for the rest of the Constitution to exist.

Woody

If the above is correct, then why are legal aliens (green card holders) allowed to possess firearms?

I agree with MechAg94 -- illegals are illegal and IMHO shouldn't have any rights at all, other than the right to be fed subsistence rations until they are deported.

[HankB]

. . .  illegals are illegal and IMHO shouldn't have any rights at all, other than the right to be fed subsistence rations until they are deported.

Courts may not agree with me, but I basically agree with the above - the ONLY right illegals should have is humane treatment from the government in the interval between their apprehension and their removal back across the border through which they entered - and that interval should be only as long as it takes to arrange transportation.

[dogmush]

I don't disagree with Hawk and Hank in principle the question is how do you know someone is illegal?

Sure if you catch them at a border, it's pretty obvious, but if LE scoops up Juan in Minneapolis, I feel like you have to treat him as here legally until he has been given due process and proven to be here illegally.

And honestly that leads to 4th Amendment issues already. CBP thinks they can stop anyone within 100 miles of a border and question them for citizenship status. I'm definitely not OK with LE scooping up random folks all over America and demanding papers.

That's more of an enforcement issue than the "Rights" question we started the thread with, but worth remembering when we talk about "no rights except deportation".

How many of us have passports with us at all times to make sure government agents know we deserve rights?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If the above is correct, then why are legal aliens (green card holders) allowed to possess firearms?

I agree with MechAg94 -- illegals are illegal and IMHO shouldn't have any rights at all, other than the right to be fed subsistence rations until they are deported.

Green Card holders are here legally.They have our permission to be here. Most are in the process of becoming citizens, have passed background checks, and we have law that allows them to posses arms. I don't remember the chapter and verse of the law, but it is legal. Congress has power to craft such law in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.

I transferred a pistol to an Australian citizen here on a Green Card back in 2018. She had a valid alien number/admission number. (Cute, too!)

Woody

[Hawkmoon]

Green Card holders are here legally.They have our permission to be here. Most are in the process of becoming citizens, have passed background checks, and we have law that allows them to posses arms. I don't remember the chapter and verse of the law, but it is legal. Congress has power to craft such law in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.

I transferred a pistol to an Australian citizen here on a Green Card back in 2018. She had a valid alien number/admission number. (Cute, too!)

Woody

I don't dispute that green card holders are here legally. My late wife lived here ona green card, and she died before becoming a citizen. The point is that green card residents are still NOT citizens, so if the basis for denying firearms possession to illegal aliens is simply that they aren't citizens (as was proposed above), then the same would/should apply equally to legal aliens.

[HankB]

I don't disagree with Hawk and Hank in principle the question is how do you know someone is illegal? . . .

No command of the English language and no ID of any type is reasonable suspicion. Extensive face, neck, arm, head, and body tattoos of skulls, death's heads, and spelling out MS13 is also suspicious.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know why people think there are only 2 categories: citizen or illegal alien. Leaving Native American issues aside, there are legal immigrants, tourists, embassy staff, students on visa, and probably a few other categories I don't know about.

Those legally in the US have a right to self defense. It makes sense that our laws would allow them to own enough gun(s) to defend themselves.

What I don't understand about this ruling is, if the court knows this person is illegally present, how do they have a right to anything more than humane treatment while they're being detained or deported? Are they waiting for an asylum hearing, maybe?

[dogmush]

What I don't understand about this ruling is, if the court knows this person is illegally present, how do they have a right to anything more than humane treatment while they're being detained or deported? Are they waiting for an asylum hearing, maybe?

This ruling was a ruling on a motion to dismiss the charge of violating 18 USC 922(g)(5).  There was nothing in the motion pertaining to any charges based on the illegal immigration status.  The judge ruled narrowly on the specific motion in front of her.  The ruling does mention that Pre-Trial services have been regularly meeting with Mr. Carbajal-Flores, and that he "has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants."  I'm unclear if there are more pending charges for illegal entry but it seems clear that for four years he's been "in the system" and on pretrial release, so that may be why the Feds didn't scoop him up at the court house. 

Illinois is a Sanctuary State by Illinois statute, so local law enforcement could not help the feds if they were trying to deport him, which may have an impact on how strongly the Feds are trying to deport him as well.

[MechAg94]

If the above is correct, then why are legal aliens (green card holders) allowed to possess firearms?

I agree with MechAg94 -- illegals are illegal and IMHO shouldn't have any rights at all, other than the right to be fed subsistence rations until they are deported.

I don't think I intended to say that in quite the same way.  IMO, if an illegal alien is caught, gun charges aren't the issue.  Holding them and deporting them is the issue.  They still get due process, but I don't see any reason that should take months/years, more like days. 

While they are here, IMO, they have the right to self defense and bearing of arms just like everyone else.  "Congress shall make no law...." and "..shall not be infringed."  There was no exception for citizenship status.  If we don't like that, then it is on us to stop them at the border.  There hasn't been the political will to do that in some decades.