[carguychris]

Originally Posted by carguychris

I'm aware that the previous administration achieved some notoriety for changing regulations WITHOUT the formal review process and comment period, but people can (and did) sue to stop these changes from taking effect, and it's easier to demonstrate in court that someone has suffered specific harm from having their 2A rights taken away than it is to demonstrate such harm from the Obama administration's actions on DACA and so forth. This should make it easier to establish a plaintiff's standing and justify an injunction against the regulations.

Here's the key: It's MUCH easier to make the case that the government has specifically screwed YOU over by taking away your Constitutional right to [fill in the blank], than it is to demonstrate that the government has directly harmed you by not deporting certain undocumented immigrant children, or by enforcing environmental regulations in a very aggressive and legally questionable way.

The court case discussed by Frank Ettin is germane because it specifically says that 2A rights broadly apply to immigrants, although those rights may be restricted for certain specific and narrowly-tailored purposes. The court used reasoning consistent with other decisions upholding the application of other BoR protections to immigrants.

I guarantee you that there are MANY immigrant aliens who would raise a BIG stink over such an attempt—e.g. handgun licenses are VERY popular with the Sikh community in my area, as a modern-day substitute for that religion's duty to carry swords. Given that many folks on the left are broadly pro-immigrant, I DON'T believe it's a foregone conclusion that they would jump on the wagon.