Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Plenty of convicted felons would love to argue it is their right to own a gun.

I think that when someone is released from jail they should have no further constraints on their lives - certainly they should have their voting rights returned at a minimum.

If they were too dangerous to release, they should not have been released.

But how screwed up our penal system is seems like extensive enough of a topic that it might warrant it's own thread.

Yep. Again, you won't see me argue against it.

Probably don't need another thread, as I remember this subject being one of the few where Dakka OT came together in brotherly harmony to agree completely on the subject

OK, so the penalty for illegally entering the United States is ... getting fingered for every unsolved crime the local judge feels like doing you for?

Sounds like a good motivator to not enter the US illegally.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Plenty of convicted felons would love to argue it is their right to own a gun.

I think that when someone is released from jail they should have no further constraints on their lives - certainly they should have their voting rights returned at a minimum.

If they were too dangerous to release, they should not have been released.

But how screwed up our penal system is seems like extensive enough of a topic that it might warrant it's own thread.

Except rapists and child abusers. Recidivism rates are almost 100%.

So, creating an incentive to reduce illegal immigration is more important than having a functional justice system?

I have found some interesting differing thoughts on that. There are studies showing recidivism rates for sex offenders as being 3%, 15%, and the highest being around 75%.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
So, creating an incentive to reduce illegal immigration is more important than having a functional justice system?

If they are not here the justice system functions just fine.

Ouze wrote:
Not sure why this is shocking. For example, would you think it outrageous that illegal immigrants have the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, the right not to be jailed solely because of their viewpoints, the right not to have their property confiscated without remuneration, and the rest of the protections in the bill of rights? Nothing in those amendments specifies those protections only extend to citizens.

Although the second amendment rights of illegal immigrants haven't much explored that I know of, fundamentally this is not a new idea.

Under US Code, the unorganized militia specifically includes non-citizens. As members of the federally defined militia, they should fall under the 2A.

The only way to disclude them would be to make entering the country illegally a federal felony, for which their RKBA would be stripped.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
"So there was an actual country, complete with political system that existed in the US before the British came over to colonize it?"

Actually, yeah there was. Every hear of the Iroquois Nation? Our constitutional framers sure did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayanashagowa

With clearly defined borders, currency, and all other hallmarks of an established country?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
"So there was an actual country, complete with political system that existed in the US before the British came over to colonize it?"

Actually, yeah there was. Every hear of the Iroquois Nation? Our constitutional framers sure did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayanashagowa

With clearly defined borders, currency, and all other hallmarks of an established country?

Move goalposts much? I don't know how clearly defined the borders were (not there aren't many countries with disputed/vague borders today or throughout history, right?), but they did recognize a form of citizenship. Here is one of their laws "Any Chief or other person who submit to Laws of a foreign people are alienated and forfeit all claim in the Five Nations." All societies everywhere had a form of currency, it doesn't matter if it is trade or symbolic beads, or coined money backed by a federal reserve. But if you want to get technical about it, Wampum (ceremonial beads) were used as currency among the Eastern Woodlands people and was actually legal tender in New England from 1637-1661 and had a currency rate of six white beads or three black beads equal to one penny.

And considering the number of treaties the US govt. signed with Native Americans over the years up until the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 when it was established "That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty" certainly seems like legally they were considered it by law. The federal legal term today is "domestic dependent nations"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So there was an actual country, complete with political system that existed in the US before the British came over to colonize it?

The Iroquois League certainly existed prior to British colonization.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

With clearly defined borders, currency, and all other hallmarks of an established country?

The US didn't have an established currency when it was founded, or especially well defined borders.

Did he actually own a gun, or just the ammunition, the op didn't make it clear?

Cheers

Andrew

 CptJake wrote:

I know permanent residents can legally buy a gun, but folks on a temporary visa cannot.

Yes they can, actually. It varies by State, but I am not aware of a Federal law which prohibits a person on a temporary visa from possessing a gun.

 CptJake wrote:

I assume folks here illegally (no visa) cannot legally purchase a gun.

Sure they can, no identification is required for purchase at a gun show when the purchase is made from a private individual.

This is a good ruling.

 Scrabb wrote:
This is a good ruling.

How does an illegal alien pass the background check?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
This is a good ruling.

How does an illegal alien pass the background check?

They pass because the system don't have any data?

I thought background checks only for the existence of any criteria that fails the check... not that you have a record that says, "yep... you are a citizen".

Right?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
This is a good ruling.

How does an illegal alien pass the background check?

I don't know how the check works, but if it's simply checking for convictions or other such holds, as opposed to confirming an SSN or something, I would imagine it might be quite easy if they haven't been arrested.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

I know permanent residents can legally buy a gun, but folks on a temporary visa cannot.

Yes they can, actually. It varies by State, but I am not aware of a Federal law which prohibits a person on a temporary visa from possessing a gun.

 CptJake wrote:

I assume folks here illegally (no visa) cannot legally purchase a gun.

Sure they can, no identification is required for purchase at a gun show when the purchase is made from a private individual.

Give me a break, the vast majority of gun show sales are via licensed vendors (who must perform the background checks).

Oh and:

In 1998, Public Law 105-277 amended the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 and made it illegal for nonimmigrant aliens to possess or transport firearms or ammunition in the United States. On 05 February the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the United States Department of the Treasury published regulations that became effective on 19 February 2002.

http://www.visaservices.duke.edu/FireArms.html

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
This is a good ruling.

How does an illegal alien pass the background check?

They pass because the system don't have any data?

I thought background checks only for the existence of any criteria that fails the check... not that you have a record that says, "yep... you are a citizen".

Right?

I had to give my SSN when I went through my check. I'm just assuming that illegal aliens won't have one.

Depends on the state and the store. Since Federal Law can either be matched or raised.......can never be lowered....I did show proof of Citizenship on the weapons I brought so unsure if that's a state or federal requirement.

 Jihadin wrote:
Depends on the state and the store. Since Federal Law can either be matched or raised.......can never be lowered....I did show proof of Citizenship on the weapons I brought so unsure if that's a state or federal requirement.

I just showed them my id and smiled. Something to the effect that "holy mother of Dog! anyone with teeth that bad has to be from Louisiana, or maybe the Ozarks" confirmed I was a citizen.

I don't think that really counts frazz, your from Texas, guns are like dimestore candy down there.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Move goalposts much? I don't know how clearly defined the borders were (not there aren't many countries with disputed/vague borders today or throughout history, right?), but they did recognize a form of citizenship. Here is one of their laws "Any Chief or other person who submit to Laws of a foreign people are alienated and forfeit all claim in the Five Nations." All societies everywhere had a form of currency, it doesn't matter if it is trade or symbolic beads, or coined money backed by a federal reserve. But if you want to get technical about it, Wampum (ceremonial beads) were used as currency among the Eastern Woodlands people and was actually legal tender in New England from 1637-1661 and had a currency rate of six white beads or three black beads equal to one penny.

And considering the number of treaties the US govt. signed with Native Americans over the years up until the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 when it was established "That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty" certainly seems like legally they were considered it by law. The federal legal term today is "domestic dependent nations"

This is not moving the goalposts. I asked if there was a country here prior to the British colonization and you said that there was. Part of the hallmarks of a country is the presence of clear borders and currency. This is pertinent to the issue in question.

A nation is typically defined as a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language in a given area. Nation =/= country

 CptJake wrote:

Give me a break, the vast majority of gun show sales are via licensed vendors (who must perform the background checks).

Indeed, but there still exists a means for illegal aliens to legally purchase firearms.

 CptJake wrote:

Oh and:

In 1998, Public Law 105-277 amended the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 and made it illegal for nonimmigrant aliens to possess or transport firearms or ammunition in the United States. On 05 February the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the United States Department of the Treasury published regulations that became effective on 19 February 2002.

http://www.visaservices.duke.edu/FireArms.html

The law provides for some exceptions for persons who wish to use firearms for sports or hunting...

...meaning nonimmigrant aliens can legally possess ,and transport, firearms under Federal law.

 CptJake wrote:
The guy WAS deported.

I know permanent residents can legally buy a gun, but folks on a temporary visa cannot. I assume folks here illegally (no visa) cannot legally purchase a gun. Illegal possession of a gun (be it a convicted felon, temporary visa holder, what ever) should have been the issue rather than turning into a 2nd amendment issue. Assumedly some law(s) was(were) broken for this guy to obtain the gun in the first place.

If we want to make the case he had a right to have the weapon, and the legality of obtaining that weapon makes no difference, then I think we are opening an interesting can of worms. Plenty of convicted felons would love to argue it is their right to own a gun. Heck, I would like to own some types of guns that are currently illegal (new automatic weapons for example) or that have stupid federal restrictions and taxes that make ownership damned hard and expensive.

There is nothing stopping the holder of a temporary visa from purchasing a firearm from a private citizen.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
This is a good ruling.

How does an illegal alien pass the background check?

IDK. But anyone who is here illegally and wants a gun to protect themselves should be able to get it.

 Psienesis wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The guy WAS deported.

I know permanent residents can legally buy a gun, but folks on a temporary visa cannot. I assume folks here illegally (no visa) cannot legally purchase a gun. Illegal possession of a gun (be it a convicted felon, temporary visa holder, what ever) should have been the issue rather than turning into a 2nd amendment issue. Assumedly some law(s) was(were) broken for this guy to obtain the gun in the first place.

If we want to make the case he had a right to have the weapon, and the legality of obtaining that weapon makes no difference, then I think we are opening an interesting can of worms. Plenty of convicted felons would love to argue it is their right to own a gun. Heck, I would like to own some types of guns that are currently illegal (new automatic weapons for example) or that have stupid federal restrictions and taxes that make ownership damned hard and expensive.

There is nothing stopping the holder of a temporary visa from purchasing a firearm from a private citizen.

And? If that holder of a temporary visa gets caught, he/she is gonna be in a lot of trouble since it is illegal for he/she to purchase a gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Give me a break, the vast majority of gun show sales are via licensed vendors (who must perform the background checks).

Indeed, but there still exists a means for illegal aliens to legally purchase firearms.

 CptJake wrote:

Oh and:

In 1998, Public Law 105-277 amended the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 and made it illegal for nonimmigrant aliens to possess or transport firearms or ammunition in the United States. On 05 February the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the United States Department of the Treasury published regulations that became effective on 19 February 2002.

http://www.visaservices.duke.edu/FireArms.html

The law provides for some exceptions for persons who wish to use firearms for sports or hunting...

...meaning nonimmigrant aliens can legally possess ,and transport, firearms under Federal law.

"I disagree politely" is an alternative way to say what you said that isn't breaking rule 1, motyak. You stated in reply to me saying

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

I know permanent residents can legally buy a gun, but folks on a temporary visa cannot.

Yes they can, actually. It varies by State, but I am not aware of a Federal law which prohibits a person on a temporary visa from possessing a gun.

 CptJake wrote:

I assume folks here illegally (no visa) cannot legally purchase a gun.

Sure they can, no identification is required for purchase at a gun show when the purchase is made from a private individual.

You clearly stated non-pemanent aliens could legally purchase a gun. They cannot. If they do so and get caught, they will be in violation of federal statute.

 CptJake wrote:

You clearly stated non-pemanent aliens could legally purchase a gun. They cannot. If they do so and get caught, they will be in violation of federal statute.

The Duke Visa Services page you linked to clearly states there are exemptions to the Federal law which prevents nonimmigrant aliens from possessing a firearm; meaning it does not actually prevent them from doing so.

The rights and privileges of being a US citizen do not apply to those who are not US citizens. That is the entire point of having said rights and privileges clearly defined, by law.

This is ridiculous.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The rights and privileges of being a US citizen do not apply to those who are not US citizens. That is the entire point of having said rights and privileges clearly defined, by law.

This is ridiculous.

So as a foreigner visiting the US, I would have no right to free speech, no right to a fair trial, etc. ?

One is reasonably certain that the trial aspect is taken care of through various treaties between nations, hence why we can, at times, deport people to stand trial in other countries and vice versa.

There has been, IIRC, some issues here and there to do with the death penalty affecting some , as well as occasional concerns with sentencing etc.


But in general, no you or indeed any other non US citizen doesn't have the same legal protections as an established citizen.

Same as most countries.