Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules

Then using the judge's logic, prohibiting any person is unconstitutional. Do you agree?

 

The law was written by congress. The only power to rule on constitutionality in that case is the supreme court. What do I think? I think illegal immigrants should be turned around at the border so the issue would be moot. I have no problem with people who are not sociopaths or criminals owning guns. I have a problem with illegal immigration.

What about constitutionality? All gun laws are unconstitutional in my view as outlined in the second amendment. Nevertheless government has passed a panoply of laws limiting gun ownership. There is another panoply laws limiting the freedoms of non citizens. This law is no more or less constitutional than the rest of them. Circular enough for you?

 

Using your logic, prohibiting an illegal alien from voting is unconstitutional. Do you agree?

 

That's not accurate.

The Supreme Court indeed has the ultimate authority in determining the constitutionality of laws, in line with its role as delineated by Article III of the Constitution. However, it's important to recognize that lower courts also possess the authority to evaluate laws for their constitutionality. If parties involved in a case disagree with a lower court's ruling, they have the right to appeal the decision. This appeal process can potentially escalate the case to the Supreme Court, which then has the final say on the issue. The ruling of the highest court to hear the case becomes the governing legal precedent until it may be challenged and either overruled or reaffirmed in future cases.

Your use of the term 'illegal immigrant' is not accurate. If a migrant follows the legal procedures for entry or immigration, such as applying for asylum or obtaining a visa, they are not considered 'illegal immigrants' because they are complying with the law. Instead, they are either legally authorized to be in the country or are in the process of seeking legal authorization. If they are turned away, they are still not 'illegal'. No law has been broken.

Okay, welcome to the problem, glad you made note of the obvious.

No SC ruling, to date, agrees with that view. Heller in particular.

You passed the circular test, this time. However, but you are inaccurate, still.

Several SC rulings underscore the principle that no right is absolute. (for example, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 [1919] ) Therefore, rights are subject to regulation and congressional limitation, noting that such regs and laws can be litigated and affirmed or reversed by the SC.

 

The judge applied the constitution to migrants unauthorized to live in the united states. I'm not seeing that his ruling was intended to be interpreted as broader than that.

The 'logic' he used applied to that specific case, constitutional logic (so agreement or disagreement would have to be on that point, not your point).

"Any" is broad, and because of that, I'm not convinced that your premise is valid, as it is too broad for a coherent answer. What i don't believe is that his ruling was meant to imply 'any', for, if that were true, it is logical he would have declared it.

So, my answer to your question is that your question cannot be answered because the premise of your question is flawed (because it is assumed).

 

" The right of the people to keep and bare arms "......says NOTHING about any people prohibited.

The only " flaw " here is you dodging that point

 

Show me where the right to vote is constitutionally enshrined.

 

Well, the issue is what constitutes 'the people'. But, I think we should read his ruling as i beleive it encompasses more than just 2A.

 

I'm not a lawyer. It seems odd to me, though, that a lower court can allow someone to break a federal law even if it thinks it is unconstitutional. It looks to me like the judge got out of his lane. He should have enforced the federal law and explained to the defendant that he could appeal it for reasons of constitutionality. I think it was a bad decision. That judge gets my judicial cowboy of the week award. There you have the opinion of an outsider to the system.

My comment was not aimed at those who enter legally. Only those who enter illegally i.e. somewhere other than at a port of entry. Applying for asylum is a legal activity at a port of entry. It is not legal elsewhere. That federal government allows it doesn't make it legal. It makes it tolerated. I don't need a lesson on illegal immigration. I understand it well enough.

I'm not lawyer. I'm a lay person offering my own opinions. Some of them disagree with the judicial system. Do you never disagree with what the judicial system says? I disagree often. It doesn't mean I will get my way. It is just what I opine.

 

You can't use that 'logic'.

The constitution addresses who can vote, and where it is mentioned (the 15th & 19th. 24th & 26th amendments) voting is applied in the context of 'citizens', which has a legal definition.

but, second amendment makes no such limitation, so the issue becomes, "what constitutes 'the people' ?"

That's been subject to extensive debate for quite a long time. I don't really believe it's a settled argument, hence the judge's ruling., he's making an attempt to trigger an appeal process to the eventual SCOTUS so that they will settle the argument, that is what I think this judge is doing.

 

I'm not a lawyer, either. My reply is based on my research. My research indicates that lower courts can rule on constitutionality of laws, noting that such ruling can be appealed to higher courts, all the way to SC, if necessary. Whichever court is the last ruling, is the precedent until overruled by a higher court, that's the system, as I understand it.

Well, before you shout 'bad decision' it may very well be because 'the people' is not clearly defined, he made the ruling, a textualist ruling, which is the thing with SCOTUS, apparently, so that it would be eventually ruled upon by the SC to settle the matter, that just might be the motivation. So, I wouldn't kneejerk what motivates the judge.

Sure, don't we all?

And, by the way, lawyers disagree with each other, as do legal scholars, as to Justices on the SC, all the time, right?

Whoever is at the top of the heap, decides, rightly or wrongly.

That's the system.

 

I have read the ruling and the way it's written means that no one should be barred according to the second amendment.

If you agree with the ruling then that should be obvious.

Haven't I seen you arguing in the past that the second amendment only applies to the militia?

 

That was then, this is now.

I've been highly amused with the leftists on this forum coming down in favor of a judge ruling that any limitation on the Second Amendment is constitutional.

Ha!

This really has nothing to do with guns from their point of view and more to do with illegals. In the same way that they want illegals to vote, squat in people's homes, and get social service benefits, they want them to have guns. The thing is they still don't want you to have guns. They still oppose the Heller decision, just not for illegal aliens.

 

Well, if you backtrack this conversation, I commented in crimes I saw with my own eyes, and in the citations, I believe there were at least a few that comported to what my eyes saw. IF I saw it, then everyone else saw it.

Now, of course, in law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but, in the court of public opinion, particularly when
we can see crimes being committee out in the open with little attempt to hide them, and charges made comporting to those crimes, then I think it is fair and reasonable to hold a solid opinion about guilt. If he is a acquitted, I might change my mind, depending, but a hung jury won't be good enough.

 

I didn't come out one way or the other, I just posited the question with the gun crowd.

It's like this, if constitution doesn't come right out and specify, 'citizen', and the constitution just says 'the people', are illegal immigrants people? Last time i checked, they were. Does the consensus count illegals, it does, so, I suppose if it is good enough for the consensus on 'the people' it should be good enough for the second amendment.

I don't know if the judge's ruling is constitutional or not, but what I think the judge is doing is forcing the issue, hoping it will be appealed all the way to the SC, so the matter can be settled on just what 'the people' means, in the second amendment, because, apparently, it isn't. That is why I think she ruled the way she did, to get it kicked upstairs. I'm not convinced she even believes in her ruling, and is just going full on textualist, like the boys upstairs have been doing.

 

A judge also recently held that a convicted felon could not be charged with illegal possession because it was unconstitutional.

That is the very same concept the judge is working on here.

 

The fuderal kangaroos in the black robes have already ruled that the second amendment has limitations.

You can bet they'll rule the same way again so this is dead in the water

 

Absolutely!

 

I don't have any faith in your opinion as to what is a crime.

 

How can I disagree given your so very deep explanation as to why I am wrong.

 

The Constitution does not say..... The right of the criminal illegal alien Invaders

 

When the Constitution says the people.... They are obviously referring to the American people.

Not the people of Singapore or the people of Mexico or the people of Panama.....

They probably thought future Americans would have the good common sense to know what is obvious. It appears they overshot the mark

 

Ah....but what about those inalienable rights you say people have which are merely confirmed in the Constitution, and not created?

 

And missed the mark on many other issues. That is exactly why I assert "your" Constitution is a fundamentally flawed document.

 

Impressive.

Apparently not everyone benefits from an education.