Does the 2nd Amendment apply to those here illegally?
2nd amendment; a different question
Collapse
X
-
2nd amendment; a different question
This came to me watching Trump last night.
Does the 2nd Amendment apply to those here illegally?"Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book
Tags: None -
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
I would say not. I believe that the Bill of Rights was written for U.S. citizens.
That being said, I am not a liberal.
I would find it interesting to see which way liberiods will go. If they
Say yes, the 2nd amendment does apply to illegal immigrants, aren't
they also endorsing it?
If No, where is the line drawn with the Government?....pick and choose
won't work.Originally posted by George JungDon't under-estimate Jack. He's purty damned talentedComment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
Not being a Constitutional attorney, my opinion is about as useful as any other civilian, but I would hazard that yes it does apply. After all, it refers to just people, not specifically citizens.Gerard>
Albuquerque, NM
Next election, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Be patriotic, save the country.Comment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
If that is the case, would it not extend beyond our borders?Originally posted by George JungDon't under-estimate Jack. He's purty damned talentedComment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
The answer is yes, but no.
Liberals don't have a problem with people exercising the second amendment, they have a problem with the second amendment. It's a blanket law, and like most blanket laws, it doesn't deal well with the variety of situations that now exist.Comment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
No, Jack. It is a Constitution for the USA and for people residing therein, not for the world.Gerard>
Albuquerque, NM
Next election, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Be patriotic, save the country.Comment
-
Yes. The Committee on Style used the word "citizen" very deliberately. Except for a very small usage, defining eligibility for office and the scope of judicial power, etc., "person" or "people" is used exclusively. The intent was that the Rights defined in the 1st 10 amendments extend to all who come under the thumb of the United States. They do not extend to citizens.
The courts have narrowed that considerably over the years, by virtue of chicken-s*#t deference to the executive branch, however.
Here is an interesting article from the Harvard Law Review.
“The big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the tools to its own destruction,” Goebbels said as the Nazis rose to power—one of those quotes that sound apocryphal but are not.— Adam GopnikComment
-
Originally posted by George JungDon't under-estimate Jack. He's purty damned talentedComment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
Other amendments (eg 4th, 5th) seem to have been construed as applying to illegal immigrants, so 2nd should as well.
State laws may have that pesky "legal resident..." language.
Why do you ask, are you illegal?Comment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
also supporting its right to exist?
How can one say someone has a right, then turn around and campaign to abolish that right?Originally posted by George JungDon't under-estimate Jack. He's purty damned talentedComment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
Here is the more basic question: Are illegal aliens entitled to due process? If so, can gun rights be far behind?"Where you live in the world should not determine whether you live in the world." - Bono
"Live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." - Will Rogers
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho MarxComment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
Let's see here,.....come on in, legal or not.
You will be protected by our constitution.
Paid by our welfare system.
Fed on our food stamps.
Watched over by our police.
Just don't get caught, we might deport you.....
All in all its just another brick in the wall.......Originally posted by George JungDon't under-estimate Jack. He's purty damned talentedComment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
I'm curious what the NRA would say in regards to illegals have the right to weapons."Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book
Comment
-
Re: 2nd amendment; a different question
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they can actually have guns.
See http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/03/appeals-court-ruling-could-threaten-the-second-amendment-rights-of-american-citizens
On August 20, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Mariano A. Meza-Rodriguez.[1] This case addresses two interesting questions:
- Do non-citizens have Second Amendment rights?
- Even if they do have such rights, can the government criminalize the possession of guns by illegal aliens?
Key Points
- United States v. Mariano A. Meza-Rodriguez addressed two interesting questions: Do non-citizens have Second Amendment rights? Even if they do, can the government criminalize gun possession by illegal aliens?
- The Rodriguez court held that although illegal aliens are covered by the Second Amendment, the government nevertheless can constitutionally prohibit them from owning firearms and ammunition.
- In Rodriguez, the Seventh Circuit held that the federal government’s interest in “prohibiting persons who are difficult to track and who have an interest in eluding law enforcement” from owning firearms and ammunition is strong enough to pass constitutional muster.
- Even if illegal aliens are considered part of “the people” for Second Amendment purposes (or if a court declines to address the issue), the blanket prohibition on illegal aliens possessing firearms may properly be considered a traditional regulation that is per se constitutional under Heller and not subject to intermediate or heightened scrutiny.
I rather be an American than a Republican.Comment
Comment