7th Circuit says illegal aliens have right to arms
Brian Doherty: The Court decides the “people” in the Second Amendment are the same “people” as in other amendments, like the Fourth.
22 Responses to “7th Circuit says illegal aliens have right to arms”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 24th, 2015 at 7:34 pm
This will be great news for the Mexican drug cartels.
August 24th, 2015 at 7:34 pm
Al Qaeda and ISIS, too.
August 24th, 2015 at 7:50 pm
So does that mean that the part of the gca that says felons can’t have guns is ALSO unconstitutional?
August 24th, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Yeah; any invading army consists of illegal alliens, technically speaking. I gotta hand it to them; that is pretty Clever. You go, Progressives! Just don’t expect much sympathy once you’ve gotten your way. In your pride and hatred, I don’t think you’ve quite worked out how this ends up for you.
August 24th, 2015 at 8:54 pm
The 7th is not full of “Progressives.” And, as we always remind the anti’s, the Right does not extend to criminal -uses- of firearms.
That any person, not a defined prohibited person, physically within the physical confines of the US enjoys the same natural right, which predates both our Constitution and the Right as recognized hundreds of years prior to our Constitution in English Common Law, as a similarly situated citizen or legal resident is a no-brainer.
Without intellectually consistency we are as unprincipled as the emotionally reasoning Progressives.
August 24th, 2015 at 10:04 pm
Well the 7th has a bit of a problem.
See there are EXCEPTIONS to the 2nd amendment. That is why SCOTUS has always ruled barring felons and insane from possessing guns is ok.
I have no doubt SCOUTS will tell the 7th to ‘reconsider’.
August 24th, 2015 at 10:36 pm
Mathew Carberry:
An illegal immigrant is committing a felony by being here.
Not only should he have his bang toy taken from him, but he should get the penalty enhancement for committing a felony while armed.
August 24th, 2015 at 10:46 pm
The Bill of Rights were added should the Federal Government stray outside of its delegated powers. The Bill of Rights are DECLARATIONS of our pre-existing rights. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, its opening subordinate clause explaining the militia of a free State refers to the restrictive delegated power in Article I, Section 8.16 by which the United States only has authority ” for governing such part of them ( the militia) as may be EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE United States.” any matter re: the militia is LIMITED to ONLY those EMPLOYED in the service of the United States. Thus re: the RKBA, the Feds have No Power over Free Citizens in Free States? Because according to the 10th Amendment, it may find NOTHING for which it has not been delegated power!!!!
August 24th, 2015 at 11:46 pm
Jeez, you guys sound like a bunch of anti-gun liberal douchebags. The right to self-defense is a human right, like freedom of speech, etc.
If an illegal immigrant were to talk, or write a blog post, should they be charged with speech violations?
August 24th, 2015 at 11:57 pm
kristopher, illegal entry is a misdemeanor offense. Re-entering after deportation is a felony, and, yes, per the rule of law, then the illegal should be punished as a prohibited person in possession. Although I think “felon” should be redefined to “violent felon” as the only justification, if any, to infringe on the Right is public safety.
August 25th, 2015 at 3:17 am
So if the government appeals this to SCOTUS, then they either have to uphold it or they have to reverse it based on the logic that illegals are committing a crime by being in the country…
So which one does the left want, to have illegals carrying guns, or to have them actually declared to be illegals by the SCOTUS?
The double edged sword is sharp and waiting to cut one way or another.
August 25th, 2015 at 6:32 am
The BATF 4473 asks if you are in the country illegally. I suppose a SCOTUS ruling to uphold would force elimination of that question.
August 25th, 2015 at 7:18 am
There’s your answer, Mek: Ron W shows that liberals are 7-dimension-chessin’ you here, establishing yet one more totes rational argument to Close That Loophole.
August 25th, 2015 at 8:12 am
Ok, I went and read the actual opinion. I should have done that in the first place. I know you guys like Reason but …. The illegal lost. All this pro-RKBA stuff was two of the judges thinking out loud. The court found that the law under which he was indicted did meet Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny in this case. Adios amigo.
August 25th, 2015 at 9:11 am
Kristophr:
In addition to what Mr. Carberry said, (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor on the first offense, a felony thereafter), half of all the illegal aliens in the United States did not enter illegally. They entered legally as nonimmigrants (students, tourists,etc.) and violated their status by overstaying their visas, working without permission, unlawfully changing status, etc. Violation of nonimmigrant status is not a crime at all, but is an administrative violation whose only remedy is deportation (now called removal). Removal is not a criminal punishment, but an administrative remedy. Therefore, the half of the illegal alien population that did not enter illegally is not criminal.
August 25th, 2015 at 10:32 am
The irony and hipocrits are strong here! At least Matthew and others get it.
One needs to look no further than this comment section to be reminded that gun owners are their own worst enemies.
August 25th, 2015 at 3:33 pm
Steve and Matthew; correction humbly accepted. Thanks. On the surface I took it as being some sort of extension of Operation Fast and Furious, which is turn an extension of the Progressive assertion that guns are for criminals. We have had so many tricks played on us that we (or I) tent to start seeing everything as a trick. Big mistake.
August 25th, 2015 at 3:42 pm
Lyle, It ain’t paranoia if they really are out to get ya. =)
Good ruling in my opinion, makes clear the Right is truly human not gov’t related, and leaves open the standard disqualifiers for actual cause as they stand now and as they might be improved in the future.
August 25th, 2015 at 5:27 pm
As so many, my knee jerk response was, “Illegal aliens have no rights”, but then a little sanity clicked in. Rights are held in common by all human beings, regardless of physical location, or they aren’t rights.
August 25th, 2015 at 10:04 pm
OK, fine.
They can keep their firearm. But they still need to be deported. They can deal with the authorities in their home country on their own.
I wish them good luck with getting a pistol into Mexico legally.
August 26th, 2015 at 7:37 am
Kristophr, I like your resolution. The illegal alien may buy a gun, but he may not stay. Like you say, his rightful possession will probably be confiscated when he is lawfully deported back across the border where such rights are violated. But then we have powers that be here who would like to do so here too.
August 26th, 2015 at 12:40 pm
The Right to own & carry weapons is NOT subject to the government getting to decide whom the wrong people are. The prohibited persons criteria is an affront to said Rights as well as the controlling document in this case.
The rule of law is not served by punishing someone for exercise of a Right that the government is forbidden to impose upon, & we do a disservice to the notion of rule of law when we accept that a statute can ignore a constitutional provision.
So no – this was not a good ruling or a good result. They gave lip service but then did what all the other circuits have been doing – dressing up rational basis as intermediate scrutiny (when the strictest should have been applied) & telling the .gov that they can go right on infringing their little hearts out.