5th Circuit Rules Illegal Aliens Not Protected by 2A

[MLeake]

Brent, those are separate issues.

I'm in favor of immediate deportation.

I'm not in favor of felony charges because they possess a weapon that would have been legal, if they had been citizens.

I am in favor of throwing the book at them if they actually commit felonies. Imprison them, then deport them; probably more of a deterrent than simple deportation.

But I'm not in favor of creating status offenses, past the actual offense of illegal presence.

[hogdogs]

Then give them the right to vote? Is it just a little misdemeanor to try to vote in a federal election?

But it is a felony to attempt to buy a firearm from a dealer if you are not qualified to own and if you are an illegal than you are not qualified...

Brent

[Brian Pfleuger]

MLeake, respectfully, I believe you confuse 2 separate ideas. The "God given right" is self preservation, not "firearms". God didn't invent firearms. Illegals have every right, as does every human everywhere at all times, to defend themselves against aggression. They do not have the right to do it under guarantees provided by a document for which they have no respect and under the jurisdiction of which they do not belong.

Every human has the right to eat. I guarantee my pizza is great, or your money back. If you steal my pizza, can you claim the money back guarantee, since you have a right to eat?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Brent

All I want to see is legal immigration.
No dang felons hoppin' the fence to pick produce.
If they were not here, the farmers would hire americans as would the construction trade contractors!

I like salad and houses, and don't want them to be more expensive.

Originally Posted by Brent

If you do not have "the papers" that I read about in Civics class required for every citizen not born here... What trial? Ship 'em back.

I have no papers on me at the moment. That is not an uncommon circumstance for the moment.

Illegal immigration is really a problem in some areas, but I dislike seeing the law driven by a specific problem.

I can't believe I made through that whole post without making a "papieren, Bitte!" joke.



D'oh!

[Al Norris]

The 5th Circuit decision was flat out wrong and contrary to current Supreme Court precedent.

Under the current doctrine of Substantial Due Process, fundamental rights belong to and are exercised by all persons that are under US jurisdiction. That simply means that if you are on US soil and/or subject to US law, you have certain fundamental rights that you enjoy, regardless of your alienage status.

What the 5th Circuit did was to apply the 14th amendments PorI clause. That was the argument Alan Gura made to the Court in McDonald. The Court rejected that argument, wholesale.

Under that argument, there were certain fundamental rights that only US Citizens enjoyed. Those rights could be legislated to apply to aliens, or not. Regardless, all persons (citizens and aliens) were to be afforded due process of law, when a violation of the law threatened to deprive them of life, liberty or property. All persons (citizens and aliens) were to enjoy equal protection of the law.

If you can wrap your head around this, then you have to agree that under current operation of law (as decided by the Supreme Court), the 2A rights to armed self defense cannot be abrogated merely by your being an alien (legal status notwithstanding).

[hogdogs]

I like salad and houses, and don't want them to be more expensive.

The only savings to the employer is in the taxes and fees they pay when an employee is "on the books". Here in fla, the illegals are paid $10 bucks an hour cash... Same wage most laborers of citizenship would be paid for the same job.

I like salad too... but I don't like the low price if it means others suffer so some sorry lousy law breaker is the hired worker when a legal law abiding citizen is out of work.

If the mexican (or any other nationality) finds it beneficial to be in America, do it legally. There is no excuse to support illegal immigration. If I had known the hypocrisy of some of the gun owners on the web, I might not have been so quick to get on these boards.

We claim how furious we are made when we hear of felons etc. with guns...

most are all for forbidding them from legal ownership. Yet some feel it is okay to circumvent the immigration laws and procedures of our nation in the name of the almighty cheap lettuce... GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Shameful is what it is!

And if you hadn't noticed... the produce ain't so cheap anyway!

LAW ABIDING IS LAW ABIDING! Don't pick and choose! You violate a serious law... YOU PAY!!!

If an illegal has the consitution on their side, then they should also choose the president of the country they want to live illegally in. If the constitution is FOR ALL PEOPLE, we need to overturn that law that prohibits felons... ALL OF THEM... from having firearms... for their self defense of course!

brent

[NJgunowner]

Al is technically correct.

The law actually states that entering the country illegally is CIVIL offense, not criminal. Therefore it wouldn't automatically exclude an illegal alien from owning a firearm here.

Now if they get caught, deported, come back, and get caught again... THEN it becomes a criminal felony.

Personally I think they need a better method to allow season workers temporary work visas and a much bigger and better fence (I'm think automated machine guns ) to keep the drug runners out.

[MLeake]

PK, sorry my friend, but the confusion is not mine.

Voting has never been allowed to non-citizens.

On the other hand, legal resident aliens can buy guns here. Legally visiting aliens could have access to guns here.

The recent Helller decision made specific mention of the right to individual self-defense being part of the rationale behind 2A. Self-defense falls under the God-given, fundamental, natural right category.

So, by Heller, which most of us want to see used to, for instance, force Illinois to respect our carry rights, one should also accept that self-defense is a fundamental right, and that involves the weapons normally involved with self-defense, which are typically firearms here. Again, if it's a fundamental right, then it applies to all - until they do something that abrogates that right.

Usually, abrogation of rights requires a pretty high standard. Right now, there are a lot of people trying to undo the Lautenberg Act, on the grounds that it's overreaching and can easily be abused. Other, similar actions involving misdemeanors causing lifetime bans are being challenged.

I don't think illegal immigration rises to the level of domestic violence, let alone violent felonies, and so I don't think it should abrogate a fundamental right.

And if we decide that firearms for self-defense is not a fundamental right, we've just undermined our intended use of Heller.

[Aguila Blanca]

I think Al Norris has it right, and the decision is legally flawed.

That doesn't mean I am not happy to see a court try to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and do SOMETHING to whack the illegals upside the head. I agree with Obama -- we urgently need immigration reform.

However, I don't see his administration ever proposing the kind of immigration reform I have in mind.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Voting is not a fundamental right either. There are very few true fundamental rights.

There are Constitutional rights and there are fundamental rights. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not.

We have a constitutional right to vote for our "overseers". The constitution could have been set up so the president is selected by a roll of special dice. We have a fundamental right to be governed in a manner of our collective choosing. We do not have a fundamental right for that method to be an Electoral College controlled by popular vote.

We have a fundamental right to self preservation. Firearms are not "fundamental". They are a modern tool constructed by man, they can not be, by definition, "fundamental".
We have a constitutional right to firearms, as established by our agreed upon principles of governance.

Legal residents exist, by choice, under the dictates and protections of our nations laws. They have all their fundamental rights and all their constitutional rights.

Illegals exist, again by choice, outside the dictates and protections of our constitution. They enjoy fundamental rights, but not "non-fundamental" constitutional rights.

Don't get me wrong, many of the rights are both constitutional AND fundamental but the two concepts are NOT universally interchangeable.

[hogdogs]

to allow season workers temporary work visas

We should try this... But not until unemployment is under 2% and there isn't anyone to pick/plant crops available. WE NEED TO USE THESE PEOPLE! Not the other way around. They have farms in mexico. If they need to be seasonal, they ought to head south and illegally enter a country... Oh yeah those countries (including mexico) jail immediately for illegal entry.

Brent

[MLeake]

PK, the point of Heller was that firearms are the current norm for self-defense, and that therefore they are covered under 2A.

Quibble about firearms being fundamental if you want, but realize that doing so undermines the basic premise being used by SAF to try and get carry in all 50 states, plus DC.

Your current argument, or a theme thereon, will undoubtedly be employed by antis in the coming legal battles.

Do you really want to reinforce their position?

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

They "owe" obedience to that which, if they were to obey it, would preclude their very presence?

Isn't that a bit like a convicted felon being required to license his illegal gun?

A better example would be the fairly frequent practice of charging organized crime figures with tax evasion. The fact that their income derives from illegal activities doesn't mean that they're not required to pay taxes on it.

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Al is technically correct.

Should read "Al is correct."

This is not a technicality.

Illegal immigrants are one of the few groups left in this society that it's politically acceptable to hate. That hatred, much on display in this thread, is something that's systematically taught: it's part of a general divide-and-rule political strategy that's been used against all working people in this country, legal and not, for some decades now.

One of the main reasons for having a written Constitution at all is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities from the "will of the majority." It's easy to support the rights of people you like and/or identify with... but the real test of principle involves supporting the rights of those you don't.

Originally Posted by MLeake

I don't think illegal immigration rises to the level of domestic violence, let alone violent felonies, and so I don't think it should abrogate a fundamental right.

And if we decide that firearms for self-defense is not a fundamental right, we've just undermined our intended use of Heller.

Exactly.

[Tom Servo]

If you do not have "the papers" that I read about in Civics class required for every citizen not born here... What trial? Ship 'em back.

What "papers?" A birth certificate? Naturalization papers? Since when do I have to carry those around? If that's where we want to go to combat illegal immigration, I'm truly starting to worry our future.

I'm not picking you out directly, Brent. I understand your frustration. But, the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment are fundamental, and if we can deny them to one class of people, who else can see them denied down the road? Can 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights later be denied along the same lines?

If I get pulled over in a traffic stop, and the computer system is down at the police station, can they assume I'm an illegal alien and incarcerate me?

Now, my point is largely philosophical. Portillo was already in trouble, and I doubt the weapon was acquired legally. Still, the question remains, and I'm very unhappy with the court's response.

The "God given right" is self preservation, not "firearms".

Let's be careful with that! Don't forget that our opponents argue that some weapons are acceptable for self preservation, while others are not.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I would only have to be careful if the sole reason for the RKBA was self defense. It isn't. I would argue that it's not even PRIMARY, say nothing of solely.

Many TFLers would be none too fond of my opinion of Incorporation either.

[Tom Servo]

I would only have to be careful if the sole reason for the RKBA was self defense. It isn't. I would argue that it's not even PRIMARY, say nothing of solely.

Very good point. I recently had to correct someone who claimed that the sole reason for it was to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Many TFLers would be none too fond of my opinion of Incorporation either.

We were actually pretty divided over the issue during the lead-up to McDonald. Those threads were some of the liveliest and thought-provoking debates I've had in quite some time.

[Hugh Damright]

Many TFLers would be none too fond of my opinion of Incorporation either.

On the other hand, there is the 14th's "equal protection" clause. The legislative history seems to prove that this clause was intended to embrace gun laws. In fact, the preceding Freedmen's Bureau Bill was once amended to specifically address the RKBA, and they added it to the equal protection clause:

"full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms, are [not to be] refused or denied ... on account of race"

And the 14th's equal protection clause says that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". So, regardless of incorporation, it appears that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the RKBA of aliens.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

We have a fundamental right to self preservation. Firearms are not "fundamental". They are a modern tool constructed by man, they can not be, by definition, "fundamental".
We have a constitutional right to firearms, as established by our agreed upon principles of governance.

Nope and nope.

We do not have a constitutional right to "firearms," we have a constitutional right to "arms." However, your statement implies that our right to arms is somehow NOT a fundamental right, and that it derives from the Constitution.

In fact, the Bill of Rights does not -- and does not claim to -- grant any rights. It is a statement and a (supposed) guarantee of preexisting rights. And, in Heller and then McDonald, the Supreme Court has stated explicitly that the right to keep and bear arms IS a "fundamental" right. And, although the SCOTUS has recognized that self defense is one of the potential uses for the arms we have a "fundamental" right to keep and bear, they made clear that it is not the only use. The RKBA applies equally to the bullseye shooter and the collector of safe queens as much as to the armed citizen who goes forth always ready to defend himself with "arms."

[nazshooter]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

MLeake, respectfully, I believe you confuse 2 separate ideas. The "God given right" is self preservation, not "firearms". God didn't invent firearms. Illegals have every right, as does every human everywhere at all times, to defend themselves against aggression.

So long as they don't use tools to do so? Try applying that logic to the 1st. Does congress have the power to limit expression to stone tablets? Can they limit you to a short list of approved religions so long as you can choose between them?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk