Illegals have the right to keep and bear arms

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.

**Breotan**

The 9th Circuit Court is commonly known for handing down rulings worthy of a three-ring circus but it isn't the only one with clowns apparently. The last sentence is worthy of a Picard/Riker double facepalm.

http://journaltimes.com/news/news-state-wi/court-second-amendment-also-covers-those-in-us-illegally/article_855ef023-9c26-507e-abb4-8835a3024b7a.html

Todd Richmond wrote:Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.

Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.

The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.

"We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded," Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

But the panel upheld Meza-Rodriguez's conviction, saying the federal ban on people in the country illegally possessing weapons remains valid. Wood wrote that the right to bear arms isn't unlimited and the government has a strong interest in preventing people who have already broken the law by coming to the country illegally from carrying guns.

Meza-Rodriguez's attorney, Joseph Bugni, said the decision contradicts itself. He plans to ask all nine active 7th Circuit judges to review the case together. If Meza-Rodriguez doesn't prevail at that level he'll go to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bugni said.

Judge Joel M. Flaum, a member of the panel, wrote in a concurring opinion that he doubts the Second Amendment applies to people in the country illegally. He acknowledged that the decision conflicts with other federal rulings and said the panel shouldn't have addressed the broader constitutional question since the possession ban is clearly legal.

**Ouze**

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.

**Spetulhu**

Hmm. A serious conundrum indeed.

But laws aren't always all-inclusive or all-exclusive. Even if people (any people) have a right to bear arms it doesn't mean some other law couldn't take that right away for some specific reason. Like not having applied for a license in a state that requires it, for example.

**Ahtman**

Edited by Manchu. Rule Number Three is No Spam.

**LordofHats**

The Constitution is the law of the land, not the law of everyone we deem to be on the land properly. I'd argue that we risk invalidating the entire essence of the Constitution if we go around making laws that it doesn't apply to X persons for w/e reason.

**Henry**

Some people are all ready restricted from obtaining fire arms. At what point does an inalienable right become alienable?

**Breotan**

LordofHats wrote:
The Constitution is the law of the land, not the law of everyone we deem to be on the land properly. I'd argue that we risk invalidating the entire essence of the Constitution if we go around making laws that it doesn't apply to X persons for w/e reason.

The key issue is, who does the phrase "the people" apply to? This court essentially ruled it is everyone and anyone standing on US soil. Apparently other courts have ruled otherwise. Even one of the judges on the panel expressed doubts. I'm pretty sure gun rights were never (or at least rarely) afforded to Native Americans in newly claimed Territories as the nation's borders expanded westward. Slaves didn't have these rights prior to emancipation, either.

**sebster**

Heh. Is the right wing more obsessed with guns or with illegal immigrants?

Breotan wrote:
The 9th Circuit Court is commonly known for handing down rulings worthy of a three-ring circus but it isn't the only one with clowns apparently.

Bringing up the 9th is very odd considering you know they didn't make this ruling. It gets even stranger when you'd drag them in, only to raise a gakky old conservative myth like that durn liberal 9th. The 9th is overturned the most for the simple reason that it rules the most. Flip it around and the 9th also has overwhelmingly the highest proportion of rulings passed so much so that the SC didn't even review.

fething zombie conservatism. You knock these old myths down and they just come back, again and again.

**LordofHats**

Breotan wrote:
I'm pretty sure gun rights were never (or at least rarely) afforded to Native Americans in newly claimed Territories as the nation's borders expanded westward. Slaves didn't have these rights prior to emancipation, either.

That's kind of my point. We can't proclaim that the government can't restrict a right, and then look the other way just because we think someone is less entitled than we are (well we can obviously, but I don't like it

).

**stanman**

So they ignore the fact that an illegal is is in fact committing a crime by being here illegally but instead they are worrying about infringing upon their right to carry a weapon, shouldn't the government just concern themselves with deporting the person (along with their weapon) and solve both problems?

**sebster**

stanman wrote:
So they ignore the fact that an illegal is is in fact committing a crime by being here illegally but instead they are worrying about infringing upon their right to carry a weapon, shouldn't the government just concern themselves with deporting the person (along with their weapon) and solve both problems?

First up, you can be in the US without a valid visa and not necessarily breaking a law.

But to more directly answer your post, there's nothing in this ruling that stops any person from being deported. The question is whether you first get them to serve a jail sentence for illegally having a weapon or ammunition.

**Kilkrazy**

Being an unregistered immigrant is not in fact a crime. All that the government can do is to deport you, unless you have committed some actual offence.

Obviously there is a common sense objection to unregistered immigrants having the right to carry guns, on the basis that they do not have the right to be in the country, but the constitution in itself does not offer any support for this position, and it must arise as a result of interpretation.

When the constitution was written, there weren't any illegal immigrants anyway. The concept didn't really exist.

**Breotan**

sebster wrote:
Heh. Is the right wing more obsessed with guns or with illegal immigrants?

Breotan wrote:
The 9th Circuit Court is commonly known for handing down rulings worthy of a three-ring circus but it isn't the only one with clowns apparently.

Bringing up the 9th is very odd considering you know they didn't make this ruling. It gets even stranger when you'd drag them in, only to raise a gakky old conservative myth like that durn liberal 9th. The 9th is overturned the most for the simple reason that it rules the most. Flip it around and the 9th also has overwhelmingly the highest proportion of rulings passed so much so that the SC didn't even review.

fething zombie conservatism. You knock these old myths down and they just come back, again and again.

Whoa, son. Where is all this coming from? I didn't drag anybody anywhere. All I did was make one snarky comment comparing this ruling by the 7th Circuit Court to the generally applied stereotype of the 9th. If you're seeing anything else in that statement then you need to get your prescription checked.

**dogma**

Breotan wrote:

Slaves didn't have these rights prior to emancipation, either.

And American women didn't have the right to vote until 1920, but they were still considered to be American people who had American rights. The reason slaves were considered exempt is that they were generally African-American, and African-Americans weren't considered to be people at the time.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

When the constitution was written, there weren't any illegal immigrants anyway.

The Sioux nation, the Navajo, the Delaware, et al strongly disagree with you

Anyway, back OT. Does this ruling mean that tourists have the right to bear arms in the USA?

Because next time I'm in the states...

**Ouze**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When the constitution was written, there weren't any illegal immigrants anyway.

The Sioux nation, the Navajo, the Delaware, et al strongly disagree with you

Hehehe. Well, technically, there were, but they were the ones signing it.

**Dreadclaw69**

Looks like the ATF will have to update their 4473s - K "Are you an alien illegally in the United States?"

I will admit that I am conflicted on this. On the one hand I believe that people should have the right to defend themselves. On the other these people should not even be in the country to begin with. Will we now be expanding the right to vote to illegal immigrants?

It will be interesting to see how the background check is handled.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When the constitution was written, there weren't any illegal immigrants anyway.

The Sioux nation, the Navajo, the Delaware, et al strongly disagree with you

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

**Frazzled**

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.

I do actually think its outrageous they have a right to any trial, much less a fair one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Looks like the ATF will have to update their 4473s - K "Are you an alien illegally in the United States?"

I will admit that I am conflicted on this. On the one hand I believe that people should have the right to defend themselves. On the other these people should not even be in the country to begin with. Will we now be expanding the right to vote to illegal immigrants?

It will be interesting to see how the background check is handled.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When the constitution was written, there weren't any illegal immigrants anyway.

The Sioux nation, the Navajo, the Delaware, et al strongly disagree with you

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

That what I was thinking.

**Deathklaat**

I think the only right illegals should have is to be sent across the closest border. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200, no free meal or lodging.

I think the only exception to this I would allow would be medical treatment because otherwise would be unethical. Other than that go back from where you came and do it the right way.

**Gordon Shumway**

"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

**Frazzled**

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

Mississippii peoples as well. Cherokee, Seminoles and a hundred other tribes. California tribes were still hippy tree huggers though.

**kronk**

Ouze wrote:
would you think it outrageous that illegal immigrants have the right not to be tortured

Oh.

I guess I need a new weekend hobby.

Damn.

**AndrewGPaul**

Frazzled wrote:
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.

I do actually think its outrageous they have a right to any trial, much less a fair one.

Well, that would certainly help with conviction rates. No need to find the actual criminal, when you can just point at an innocent immigrant and say "yep, he did it".

**Deathklaat**

illegal immigrants aren't criminals already? like did we forget the world illegal is there? they should have basic rights but deportation should always be the priority, having them rot in jail and take up space and cost taxpayers is a joke.

Catch and release, catch and release.

**Frazzled**

AndrewGPaul wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
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.

I do actually think its outrageous they have a right to any trial, much less a fair one.

Well, that would certainly help with conviction rates. No need to find the actual criminal, when you can just point at an innocent immigrant and say "yep, he did it".

When they are here legally then they can have rights. until then they are Ostrogoths outside the gates. WWtCD? (What Would the Comanches Do?)

**CptJake**

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.

**AndrewGPaul**

Frazzled wrote:
AndrewGPaul wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
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.

I do actually think its outrageous they have a right to any trial, much less a fair one.

Well, that would certainly help with conviction rates. No need to find the actual criminal, when you can just point at an innocent immigrant and say "yep, he did it".

When they are here legally then they can have rights. until then they are Ostrogoths outside the gates. WWtCD? (What Would the Comanches Do?)

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?

A fair trial is as much for the benefit of society as it is for the accused.

**LordofHats**

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

It is. People just don't care about their rights being violated cause their ex-cons. Once the debt to society has been paid there should be no further penalty, otherwise we're just rejecting those men/women from society based solely on past transgressions. My understanding is that we're not fond of denying people their rights on the grounds "they might do something bad somewhere sometime possibly who knows."

**CptJake**

LordofHats wrote:
CptJake wrote:
The guy WAS deported.Plenty of convicted felons would love to argue it is their right to own a gun.

It is. People just don't care about their rights being violated cause their ex-cons. Once the debt to society has been paid there should be no further penalty, otherwise we're just rejecting those men/women from society based solely on past transgressions. My understanding is that we're not fond of denying people their rights on the grounds "they might do something bad somewhere sometime possibly who knows."

You won't see me argue against that. It is already illegal for a convict to use a gun to commit another crime. And yet plenty do so. There are already plenty of places with laws on the book that tack on a large number of mandatory years to the sentence if a weapon is used during a crime. Tacking on a couple more because the guy/gal was not supposed to have the gun anyway does not act as a deterrent and does not really help in any other way. Sentencing guidelines already hammer you if you are a repeat offender/have a weapon/actually use the weapon and so on.

And of course I see limiting my 2nd amendment rights because "I might do something bad somewhere sometime possibly who knows" or "some other guy killed a bunch of folks with a gun so all gunz are bad" as even more ludicrous than keeping guns out of the hands of know violent criminals. If we don't want to violate their rights, we sure as feth should not contemplate violating the rights of millions of legal gun owners.

**Ouze**

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.