Posted on Aug 25, 2015
Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
709
3
10
1
1
0
Does this support the gun control argument or hurt it?
Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
Posted from msn.com
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Personally, I have a serious problem with the whole notion that people who are breaking our law (by being in our country illegally) are afforded the same constitutional rights as citizens of this country. I honestly do believe that this kind of thinking will eventually be our downfall.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Playing Devil's Advocate. What other "illegal activity" would be the "minimum" to deny someone an inherent Right (specifically Protection of Right)? Ignore the gun issue. Someone crosses the border. They get caught. Do they have the Right to an attorney? Or to a trial? Or Miranda Rights in general? What about if "we think" someone entered illegally? Can we raid a house with a bunch of people who speak Spanglish only to find out they were born on this side of the Rio Grande in 1974?
That slope gets mighty slippery, mighty fast.
That slope gets mighty slippery, mighty fast.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It's very simple. Anyone inside the confines of the United States Borders, as in past an "access point" is accorded the Protections of the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't only Protect Citizens. It Protects everyone.
The idea is that Rights are just that. Rights. If they can be denied based on an arbitrary status like being born on an the other side of an imaginary line, then they are a Privilege not a Right. Now the big issue is that the Constitution does NOT grant Rights. You are BORN with Rights. The Constitution offers Protections. It specifically PROHIBITS the Power of the Government in regards to our Rights.
One of those Rights is Self Defense, and by extension the Right to Bear Arms.
Now, yes an Illegal Alien may be prohibited from transferring (purchasing) a firearm, because of Legislation (enumerated Power), however that is not in conflict with the 2a Protections. The issue is POSSESSION. When Legislation says someone who has never been CONVICTED of a crime is prohibited, there is a rub.
But back to the original question regarding Gun Control. It's outside the scope. This isn't a Gun Control question. It's a Civil Liberties question, which just happens to include guns as an example. We could have just as easily included Warrants, or Speech, or Press instead of Guns, in the exact same article or argument, without changing anything else.
The Constitution doesn't only Protect Citizens. It Protects everyone.
The idea is that Rights are just that. Rights. If they can be denied based on an arbitrary status like being born on an the other side of an imaginary line, then they are a Privilege not a Right. Now the big issue is that the Constitution does NOT grant Rights. You are BORN with Rights. The Constitution offers Protections. It specifically PROHIBITS the Power of the Government in regards to our Rights.
One of those Rights is Self Defense, and by extension the Right to Bear Arms.
Now, yes an Illegal Alien may be prohibited from transferring (purchasing) a firearm, because of Legislation (enumerated Power), however that is not in conflict with the 2a Protections. The issue is POSSESSION. When Legislation says someone who has never been CONVICTED of a crime is prohibited, there is a rub.
But back to the original question regarding Gun Control. It's outside the scope. This isn't a Gun Control question. It's a Civil Liberties question, which just happens to include guns as an example. We could have just as easily included Warrants, or Speech, or Press instead of Guns, in the exact same article or argument, without changing anything else.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Spencer Sikder
Very well stated. I wonder though, given the ignorant rants we have seen time and time again, if this gives those who want further restrictions the motivation to push for further restrictions?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Spencer Sikder I could manipulate the argument to say "there should be a law!!" that foreigners shouldn't be allowed to own guns!!! They shouldn't shouldn't be accorded the same Protections as Citizens!! But any such argument needs to be applied equally to every other Protection as well.
But our Framers came up with a (near) perfect document. It's 4 pages long. It's easily understood by anyone who has higher than an 80 IQ. Sure, the occasional law creates interpretative conflicts. Sure new technology creates interpretative conflicts. But the philosophy is bedrock solid.
But our Framers came up with a (near) perfect document. It's 4 pages long. It's easily understood by anyone who has higher than an 80 IQ. Sure, the occasional law creates interpretative conflicts. Sure new technology creates interpretative conflicts. But the philosophy is bedrock solid.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Spencer Sikder
We find though in today's environment, social media and the news media frame a broad response and like wildfire it takes off. Often gets convoluted in the process. Look at the Target issue last month, one woman complained about gender specific signage, about 2900 others signed on in support and Target changes their design to appease them disregarding the millions of others who sought not to say anything. Good Morning America and all the other news outlets went crazy with it. The cost to make the change across the system must be expensive. Who bears the cost, those who shop there. (I don't they don't allow my CCW)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally."
RUFKM??? REALLY???
RUFKM??? REALLY???
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
It's counter-intuitive because we are adding the gun complexity to a Civil Liberty issue. If it were any other Civil Liberty, namely Speech, or Privacy, or Due Process, their legal status in the US becomes a non-issue, therefore why is their legal issue in the US an issue with this specific Protection?
(0)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
Because the federal appellate courts are a bunch of a$$ clowns... Its hard to believe we can't even get the federal appellate courts to even agree on federal laws. If Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition, which it does, then this shouldn't even be an appellate issue.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google