|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 2, 2017, 08:08 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
BATFE, Non-Citizens, Guns, & Gun Control
QUESTION:
- Can the ATF prevent non-citizens from completing Form 4473 by a simple change of the form and regulation? COMMENT: - If I were on the other side, I'd push for legislation that prevents non-citizens from acquiring ANY firearms. In our current sociopolitical environment, this would have a strong likelihood to pass, IMO.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
November 2, 2017, 09:08 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
I'm not sure that you mean the first question literally. If an immigrant completes the form truthfully, why try to prevent him from completing it.
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
November 2, 2017, 09:11 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Nope, not a chance. Everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law according to the 14th amendment.
Non permanent aliens are currently prohibited with a few exceptions. If they meet one of the exceptions, they can pass a background check. I imagine that could be changed, but I think it would still require an act of congress. Being such a person myself, and qualifying for one of those exceptions, I hope it doesn't change since I would have to get rid of my guns. |
November 2, 2017, 12:06 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
I thought the 14th was only applicable to citizens? Not referring to Due Process. My question relates to non-citizens and gun ownership.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying Last edited by Onward Allusion; November 2, 2017 at 12:25 PM. |
November 2, 2017, 01:05 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
I think a legal resident, whether a citizen or not, should have the same ability to protect himself/herself as anyone else. Those who can't pass a background check shouldn't be here to begin with. There are more than enough restrictive gun laws on the books. Law abiding folks with guns are not the problem.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
November 2, 2017, 01:14 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
In the united States each individual has all the rights that a citizen has except for the right to vote.
Our rights are basic, fundamental rights that are endowed by our birth as human beings, therefore they pertain to each individual in the united states and its legal territories. |
November 2, 2017, 03:51 PM | #7 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
In the real world, under federal law, and with a few very narrow exceptions, a foreign national present in this country on a nonimmigrant visa may not lawfully have physical or constructive possession of a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(5)). Recently the Seventh Circuit found in United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, 7th Circuit, No. 14-3271, 2015. that --
A quick search did not find a case addressing the application of 18 USC 922(g)(5) to documented, non-resident aliens, so that remains an open question.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
November 2, 2017, 11:43 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
|
Frank, that seems like a contradiction. They said the 2A extends even to the undocumented, but the law prohibiting those here on visas is constitutional?
|
November 3, 2017, 12:39 AM | #9 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Let's look at United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, 7th Circuit, No. 14-3271, 2015. First, there nothing really new here. There are other cases in which courts have concluded that even illegal aliens can, under some circumstances, be entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights. And there have been other court decisions which have upheld various of the factors enumerated in 18 USC 922(g) disqualifying one from possessing a gun or ammunition. Background As the 7th Circuit in its opinion outlined the background of the case (slip op., at 1 -- 2): Questions on Appeal Meza-Rodriguez' appeal of the District Court's refusal to dismiss his indictment potentially raises two questions: (1) do the rights protected by the Second Amendment extend to unauthorized aliens (using the terminology of the Circuit Court); and (2) if so, is prohibiting unauthorized aliens from possessing a gun or ammunition a constitutionally impermissible regulation of the rights protected by the Second Amendment? To respond to and rule on Meza-Rodriguez' appeal, the Circuit Court needed to address both those questions. Do the Rights Protected by the Second Amendment Extend to Unauthorized Aliens? The Circuit Court did not comprehensively answer that question. Rather it concluded that the rights protected by the Second Amendment extended to Meza-Rodriguez, and unauthorized aliens similarly situated. To reach that conclusion, the Circuit Court looked at other cases extending under some circumstances certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to unauthorized aliens. As the 7th Circuit noted (Meza-Rodriguez, slip op. at 9 -- 10, emphasis added): And with regard to Meza-Rodriguez' ties to the United States, the 7th Circuit notes (Meza-Rodriguez,slip op at 11): Thus the rights protected by the Second Amendment extend to Meza-Rodriguez. Is Prohibiting Unauthorized Aliens from Possessing a Gun or Ammunition a Constitutionally Impermissible Regulation of the Rights Protected by the Second Amendment? And with regard to that question, the 7th Circuit concluded the disqualifying unauthorized aliens from possessing a gun or ammunition was a permissible regulation. In sustaining the application of 18 USC 922(g)(5), the 7th Circuit found (slip op., at 15): Discussion Basically, the 7th Circuit could not resolve this case by refusing to extend the rights protected by the Second Amendment to unauthorized aliens. Were it to do so, it would have undercut existing and important legal principles extending certain fundamental, personal rights to persons who , "...have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country...." However, several of the conditions listed in 18 USC 922(g) disqualifying one from possessing a gun or ammunition have been sustained at the Circuit Court level. If this case were to go up to the Supreme Court the arguments would focus on the disqualifying condition and whether it passes the applicable level of scrutiny.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
November 3, 2017, 04:34 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Are illegal immigrants "the people" referenced in the Constitution?
https://thinkprogress.org/gun-rights...-a25692714603/ |
November 3, 2017, 09:54 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
If so, I believe the answer to your question would be no. Form 4473 cannot be modified nor the underlying regulations changed without a formal review process and a comment period. The law does not prohibit an immigrant alien from possessing firearms and Form 4473 reflects this. 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. [EDIT] Footnote: Just to be clear myself, by using the term "immigrant alien," I am referring to a lawful permanent resident – someone with a green card.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; November 3, 2017 at 10:16 AM. Reason: edited out part about nationals (checked definition) |
|
November 3, 2017, 11:17 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Denver area
Posts: 221
|
My wife is a legal resident. I would like for her to be able to carry. I think at some point soon she'll knuckle down and apply for citizenship, we just have this issue of her still owning property in that other country.
|
November 3, 2017, 11:44 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
Quote:
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
|
November 3, 2017, 12:25 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
Quote:
I am not sure I would agree that it would be difficult to do, however. I'm fairly certain that a portion of gun owners/supporters would not put up a big stink over it. Not to mention the antis who would jump on the wagon.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
|
November 3, 2017, 12:27 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
https://www.denvergov.org/content/da...6-Revision.pdf |
|
November 3, 2017, 12:33 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
|
Thanks, Frank. So, basically, what the courts are saying is that 2A rights apply to the undocumented fella because he established a life for himself here, while people who are just visiting haven't done that.
|
November 3, 2017, 01:08 PM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
November 3, 2017, 05:27 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Note that limited regulations of constitutionally protected rights have been found by the courts to be permissible under some circumstances.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
November 3, 2017, 09:07 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,897
|
Quote:
I was getting real dizzy watching the tennis ball. |
|
|
|