Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules

that judge was going by Bruen, so thank the Supreme Court.

 

No, I argued that the issue of individual versus militia wasn't a settled argument until Heller.

 

Hmmmm, well, no, not so fast. When the constitution was being ratified, these concepts like 'American Citizens' was not a fully matured concept, as the nation was in it's incipient stage at the time. So, 'the people' in the constitution, doesn't necessarily mean 'citizens'. But let's take a deeper dive, shall we?

When the United States Constitution was drafted and ratified in the late 18th century, the concept of national citizenship was indeed less defined than it is today. The early United States was a confederation of states each with its own citizenship laws, and the notion of a unified national citizenship that was distinct and separate from state citizenship was not fully developed.

The Constitution itself does not define "the people" explicitly as "citizens." For example, the Preamble begins with "We the People of the United States," aiming to establish a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed, not explicitly from the consent of the citizens. This choice of words suggests an inclusiveness that may extend beyond the legal definition of citizenship.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, significantly clarified national citizenship, stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Before this amendment, the Constitution did not provide a clear, inclusive definition of national citizenship. The evolution of citizenship rights and definitions through amendments and court decisions highlights that the understanding of "the people" has been subject to interpretation and expansion over time.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted "the people" in various amendments to include more than just citizens in certain contexts. For example, the Court has ruled that certain constitutional rights, such as those protected by the First and Fourth Amendments, apply to "persons" within the United States, which includes non-citizens.

The framers of the Constitution were influenced by Enlightenment principles, which emphasized individual rights and the social contract between the government and the governed. This philosophical background supports a broad interpretation of "the people" to include all those who are part of the social and political community, not just those who are legally recognized as citizens.

So, I can't accept your premise that it's 'obvious', given that the claim that "the people" as mentioned in the Constitution does not necessarily mean "citizens" aligns with historical, legal, and philosophical understandings of the terms at the time of the Constitution's ratification and in subsequent interpretations. The evolving concept of citizenship and the inclusive nature of constitutional rights support a broader interpretation of "the people" beyond just those with formal citizenship status.

This is probably why the judge ruled the way she did. Methinks she ruled that way just to get the thing kicked up to SCOTUS, to settle the argument once and for all.

 

For me, it would depend on the crime.

If it was a non violent crime, I'm okay with rehabilitated felons owning fire arms (and voting).

But, felons convicted of violent crimes, io my view, forfeit this right for a long time.

Permanently? I wouldn't go that far, but for a long time, until society is darn sure the person is
not a threat to society.

 

I am in 100% agreement. As I have said before I would favor a period of 5 years for non-violent felons as the vast majority of all recidivism occurs within the first 3 years.

The issue of violent felons is a bit more of a moral quandary for me, particularly if their violent act was committed with a firearm.

 

It's also quite easy to make tin foil hat conspiracy theory claims when you're on an anonymous forum and "don't have to actually PROVE ANYTHING."

Most of your comments seem to come directly from Trump, and are hyperbolic at best. Why does he want his supporters to be so afraid of damned near everything? I could not live like that.

 

Whatever that meant

 

You'll work it out if you try hard, BB.

I am always convinced by one line arguments along the lines of "you are wrong." That always convinces me I am wrong.

 

OK

 

who cares? They can get the guns illegally just as easily as they crossed the border ILLEGALLY

 

I didn't question the motivation. I assumed it was his opinion that it is unconstitutional which, incidentally, is an opinion I support. The problem is that, despite his opinion, he should not have defied federal law. He should have enforced it and made his case for unconstitutionality in a written decision. He didn't set a precedent. He didn't change the law. He just ignored a law he didn't like. That's my opinion for what it is worth.

........and therein is the heart of corruption in the justice system. Power and control are human nature.

 

If you scroll further back, you'll see that I agreed with the Judge's decision. "People" doesn't differentiate between citizens living here and aliens (although there is another legal argument that "people" refers to the people under US jurisdiction-but let's dismiss that for now).

My point had nothing to do with that. My point is that you've been posting anti-second amendment posts, and the associated rights that come with it, for years. So it's simply hilarious to me, and hypocritical for you, that you suddenly find a class of people that you want to have firearms: people who have no right to be in the country anyway.

As I said in my original post, the ruling as a practical matter, doesn't mean anything anyway since the person in question didn't buy the gun legally since he lied about being a US citizen or lawful immigrant. So in doing that he committed a felony.

But you would rather him, or cartel guys from Mexico, having a gun than actual American citizens. It's just a total intellectual collapse of reason, logic, and law.

 

Both voting and gun ownership are rights defined in the constitution. But voting

It puts voting squarely on the states so it doesn't define the right. The states have the power to handle elections by the constitution and they have "enshrined" the right.

 

Apparently you didn't read my comment

 

I saw this and thought it belonged in this thread.

 

Illegals do have a right to a bus ride to the border and pushed back accross.

 

I think you missed the point, It's all about the appeal. The judge is hoping it will be appealed up to SCOTUS, who will settle a much needed concept, just what does 'the people' in the constitution, mean? Defying a law was necessary for that objective, and the judge has every right to do it, as a judge.

Someone has to be at the top of the heap, and one man's justice is another's injustice.

No system can please everyone all the time. So, welcome to the club.

 

Nice kneejerk jumping to a conclusion.

You do realize the title of the thread is the title of the article, and not my 'advocacy for illegal immigrants to own guns', eh? Did that occur to you? No.

And......

Where in my OP did I say a favor the ruling?

Not only that, even if I opposed guns altogether, wanted them all banned (and i don't) it is not at all inconsistent for me to say, well, justices on the court, if you are 'textualists' as you say you are, and Heller is the law of the land, and 'the people' in the second amendment is not defined, then, according to your own standard, an illegal must also be allowed to own a gun. All I would be doing is trying to get the court to be consistent. That isn't hypocrisy, it's the opposite of it, it's trying to get the court to NOT be hypocritical. That doesn't make me one. (I'm speaking for the judge, here, what might be on he mind).

so take your 'hypocrisy' and go fly a kite with it.

Quit kneekerking.

 

Well, one possible answer would be that they, too, get background checked.

I should think that if illegal aliens were somehow granted the right to own a gun (which would likely require significant changes to existing laws and I suspect the judge who ruled against a law in favor of an illegal owning a gun was to get the thing appealed up to Scotus, to rule on it, so that the matter of who 'the people' in the second amendment, actually is, is settled, once and for all, because, apparently, it's not real clear), the specific process for conducting background checks would need to be established by lawmakers. This process might involve coordination with immigration authorities to verify the individual's immigration status and possibly additional screening measures to ensure public safety.

 

Is this true? As an Australian can I not buy an American gun?

 

We've already addressed this. Having a legal right to have a gun, and to buy a gun, are not necessarily the same thing.

(Not when it comes to non-citizens)

I also suspect that if you were able to smuggle a gun into Australia, you would probably have no trouble being able to illegally buy a gun in the U.S., regardless of whether a law specifically existed to ban sales to foreigners. So it's not like the policy in the U.S. would have much of an effect on another country like Australia.

 

A more reasonable approach would be the moment that an illegal takes a background check and it is revealed that they are an illegal....see ya later, to the deportation bus you go !

 

Have the dealer give the illegal a call and tell 'em it is time to pick up their gun. Then have ICE agents waiting for 'em.

If the illegal wants to "pick up" their gun they bought, it can be handed over by U.S. authorities (who will be temporarily holding the detainee's personal belongings) to the Mexican authorities at border checkpoint when the alien is deported. The Mexican authorities can then determine whether their citizen is allowed to bring it into their country.

 

Do you know the answers to these questions? I'm coming to the US in June. Am I able to enter a gun shop ( in West Virginia), buy a gun and then keep and personally use it? Australian passport.

 

Sounds fair enough. Maybe 40 years too late?