Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 440

Thread: illegal immigrants not allowed to own guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169

    illegal immigrants not allowed to own guns

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  2. #2
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Decision

    http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-8051.pdf
    This ascending scale of constitutional rights is elaborate.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 05-08-2012 at 02:20 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Illegals ought to be able to carry. They may have broken the Law crossing the border, but no Law breaking ought to deprive an individual the Right to have, and carry a firearm(s).
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Illegals ought to be able to carry. They may have broken the Law crossing the border, but no Law breaking ought to deprive an individual the Right to have, and carry a firearm(s).
    It seems you are presuming that the only crime the individual has committed is unauthorized entry into the country. The appellant fit that description, but it makes no difference. Even in the landmark Heller decision SCOTUS allowed that there are certain infringements that can in fact take place.

    What is of special note for me is that the appellant was brought to this country at the age of three, and has done nothing to try and avail himself of any of the myriad programs that would have cured his disability and put him on the road to citizenship. Nor did he apparently attempt to avail himself of any of the priviliges of citizenship such as voting or registering for selective service. From the limited information available it appears he was fully aware that he was in the country illegally, and that he did nothing to remedy that status.

    I am quite comfortable with the court continuing the separation of The People from Persons from Citizens within the context of the apperal argument. Part of that confort comes from understanding that the appellant has demonstrated no inclination to participate in the life of the country except as it pertains to receiving. Nothing shows that he, in return for receiving, gave anything back. Part of that comes from understanding that there are, in fact, rational reasons for excluding the right to keep and bear arms from certain discrete groups. Illegal aliens may have been excluded based on an irrational fear held by Congress, but so far they (illegal aliens) have not advanced any reason to change that exept that they want to enjoy one more benefit of living in America. And since they should not be living here in the first place I do not see any compelling reason to let them enjoy that benefit.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    It seems you are presuming that the only crime the individual has committed is unauthorized entry into the country.
    The crime, any crime is irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty. If the offense is barrable then I am for the most part in agreement with it. Crossing a border, or THE border, is not a felony, nor is it a violent crime.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The crime, any crime is irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty. If the offense is barrable then I am for the most part in agreement with it. Crossing a border, or THE border, is not a felony, nor is it a violent crime.
    We must disagree on this one, they illegals that came here knowing they where breaking the law have NO rights and should NOT have any rights.

    Try this in any other country...go to Russia without permission and start claiming their rights, China?, how bought Iran...good luck. You won't find one country that allows an invasion of either a forign army or and individual rights that its citizens have.

    The USA is the only country that has tried to help others and what has happened we are bankrupt, we have more illegals (CRIMINALS) than any other country.

    It is like inviting your mother-in-law over to stay the night and she moves in permently. Soon you find your bags packed on the front porch.

    CRIMINALS HERE ILLGALLY SHOULD GET NOTHING AND HAVE NO PROTECTION>>>>

    IF THEY NEW THEY WOULD NOT GET PERTECTION OR HANDOUTS HOW MANY WOULD STILL COME HERE?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    We must disagree on this one, they illegals that came here knowing they where breaking the law have NO rights and should NOT have any rights.

    Try this in any other country...go to Russia without permission and start claiming their rights, China?, how bought Iran...good luck. You won't find one country that allows an invasion of either a forign army or and individual rights that its citizens have.

    The USA is the only country that has tried to help others and what has happened we are bankrupt, we have more illegals (CRIMINALS) than any other country.

    It is like inviting your mother-in-law over to stay the night and she moves in permently. Soon you find your bags packed on the front porch.

    CRIMINALS HERE ILLGALLY SHOULD GET NOTHING AND HAVE NO PROTECTION>>>>

    IF THEY NEW THEY WOULD NOT GET PERTECTION OR HANDOUTS HOW MANY WOULD STILL COME HERE?
    Other States are irrelevant, IMO. This is America, not Russia.

    So, you agree that Rights are contingent then? Can we at least agree on that?

    So a person ought to be denied the ability to self-preservation because they crossed the border illegally, rather than legally? Just trying to clear a couple of things up.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Other States are irrelevant, IMO. This is America, not Russia.

    So, you agree that Rights are contingent then? Can we at least agree on that?

    So a person ought to be denied the ability to self-preservation because they crossed the border illegally, rather than legally? Just trying to clear a couple of things up.
    I think they should NOT be able to defend themselves if they are here ILLEGALLY. If they are worried about self-preservation they shouldn't be her ILLEGALLY in the first place.

    Just because you cross a border (doesn't matter what county) doesn't give you that countries rights and protections. We can't save the whole world and we need to stop trying.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    I think they should NOT be able to defend themselves if they are here ILLEGALLY. If they are worried about self-preservation they shouldn't be her ILLEGALLY in the first place.

    Just because you cross a border (doesn't matter what county) doesn't give you that countries rights and protections. We can't save the whole world and we need to stop trying.
    Thank you for clearing that up for me.

    So, you, as with I, agree that Rights are contingent. You are one of the only individuals on here that have admitted to agreeing with me, regarding Rights. Again, thank you.

    By extension then, all Rights outlined within the Constitution are also contingent, and only offered to certain individuals, mainly, American citizens or those here legally; am I correct in understanding that that is also your position?
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-08-2012 at 05:03 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The crime, any crime is irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty. If the offense is barrable then I am for the most part in agreement with it. Crossing a border, or THE border, is not a felony, nor is it a violent crime.
    They broke a federal law by crossing illegally, so how could it not be a felony?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk001 View Post
    They broke a federal law by crossing illegally, so how could it not be a felony?
    Not all Federal Laws are a Felony--I could be wrong about this.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk001 View Post
    They broke a federal law by crossing illegally, so how could it not be a felony?
    Felony is a condition of punishment, that is liable to more than 365 days incarceration. That precludes someone not (yet) convicted from being a felon.

    This stupid argument is predicated on natural rights versus constitutional rights and never will tweedledumb and tweedledumber meet.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    [snippers]

    This stupid argument is predicated on natural rights versus constitutional rights and never will tweedledumb and tweedledumber meet.
    Don't rob me of playing!

    BTW, I thought that Constitutional Rights were derived from Natural Rights.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-08-2012 at 05:20 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Thank you for clearing that up for me.

    So, you, as with I, agree that Rights are contingent. You are one of the only individuals on here that have admitted to agreeing with me, regarding Rights. Again, thank you.

    By extension then, all Rights outlined within the Constitution are also contingent, and only offered to certain individuals, mainly, American citizens or those here legally; am I correct in understanding that that is also your position?
    Technically this part is correct. The Preamble to the Constitution begins with the following seven words;

    "We the People of the United States"

    This means that all which follows only applies to We the People of the United States. Now in contemporary vernacular you would be hard pressed to find anything which might back this up. I am simply reading words and following their written meaning. I do understand that others have differing opinions and like to "interpret" both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (some do so to death it would seem). I prefer to accept the Original Intent of their meaning (which some may also claim is a form of interpretation).

    Anyway, just a thought.

    Now as to the matter of opinion regarding whether or not illegal aliens should be allowed to own and carry firearms, my position is a firm 'no'.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 05-08-2012 at 05:21 PM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    The sway of natural rights was declared in the Declaration of Independence with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    The sway of natural rights was declared in the Declaration of Independence with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
    ...if your American.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    The sway of natural rights was declared in the Declaration of Independence with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    ...if your American.
    Uh huh.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 05-08-2012 at 05:39 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Every person has the right to self defense, regardless of their ethnicity or origin of birth. Rights are NOT contingent, and they are not defined by geography, no matter how the world works.

    I thought that was part of what made America great; that we recognized the rights of people, unlike Iran, China or Russia?

    I thought we believed in liberty for all?

    I do believe if we remove the incentives for illegal aliens to immigrate here, then this wouldn't be an issue. So let's work on that, rather than on whether or not they have unalienable human rights.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Every person has the right to self defense, regardless of their ethnicity or origin of birth. Rights are NOT contingent, and they are not defined by geography, no matter how the world works.

    I thought that was part of what made America great; that we recognized the rights of people, unlike Iran, China or Russia?

    I thought we believed in liberty for all?
    You were on point until the SOB Negotiate Rights Away bastages helped the gun grabbers pass the gun control act of 1968. The anti immigrant part was added later, just like the misdemeanor removal of gun rights, but have no doubt, this is all the fault of the NRA. REMEMBER THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU NEGOTIATE WITH THE TYRANNICAL GUN GRABBERS, TYRANNY

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Illegals ought to be able to carry. They may have broken the Law crossing the border, but no Law breaking ought to deprive an individual the Right to have, and carry a firearm(s).
    That is why once a felon is released they should have their rights restored right away.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Lightbulb

    An attorney for Huitron-Guizar appealed the case, saying illegal immigrants are not excluded from possessing firearms like felons and people who are mentally ill, and should have the same rights as U.S. citizens to buy a gun for hunting and protection.
    Those exclusions are only in effect because of unconstitutional laws, so the exclusions would cover whatever the laws say they cover. The exclusions themselves are not constitutional.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    You were on point until the SOB Negotiate Rights Away bastages helped the gun grabbers pass the gun control act of 1968. The anti immigrant part was added later, just like the misdemeanor removal of gun rights, but have no doubt, this is all the fault of the NRA. REMEMBER THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU NEGOTIATE WITH THE TYRANNICAL GUN GRABBERS, TYRANNY

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    Well, I'm no fan of the NRA, so I'm not sure what your point is?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    CRIMINALS HERE ILLGALLY SHOULD GET NOTHING AND HAVE NO PROTECTION>>>>

    IF THEY NEW THEY WOULD NOT GET PERTECTION OR HANDOUTS HOW MANY WOULD STILL COME HERE?
    Hold on, Doc. Do you really believe a free Republic should have a class of people within it with ZERO protections? Should they be able to be enslaved? How about held indefinitely without trial? Should they be subject to bills of attainder, corruption of blood, and cruel and unusual punishment? What about the children of those who come over illegally, who are brought here with no free will? Should they have no protections under the law?

    I am against illegal immigration (also most legal immigration, in fact), and I am 100% with you on the "no handouts" rule. However, after much thought and contemplation, I have come to believe that a handle can be gotten on this problem only from the demand side. If North Korea, a fully authoritarian nation with a militarized border, cannot prevent its citizens from illegally escaping to China, another "control" society, how can we expect to keep out the millions of Mexican and other migrants? If maximum security prisons cannot keep drugs out, or fully guarantee against escapes, how can we expect to even attempt to achieve 100% border security without instituting a 24/7 surveillance society? Do we really need to try it to find out?

    We need to crack down on employers who hire illegals, and take away benefits, as you suggest. Beefing up the security apparatus will not reduce the impetus or the inflow, and will necessarily erode our freedoms.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Illegal re-entry, or being found in the country after having previously been deported, are felonies. Simply illegal entry is a only a misdemeanor.

    To support the man in this case being denied the right to carry without due process, you must also support suspension of your own gun rights when speeding, or any of the other dozens of misdemeanor crimes we all commit daily.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The crime, any crime is irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty. If the offense is barrable then I am for the most part in agreement with it. Crossing a border, or THE border, is not a felony, nor is it a violent crime.
    Actually illegals (who by definition are criminals, and have already shown a complete disregard to the law simply by being here) are far more likely to commit violent crimes than anyone else, and are almost always guilty of other crimes in addition to being here illegally, like drug dealing, drug possession/use (which is also a NICS dis-qualifier), assault, home invasion, breaking, and entering, identity theft, rape, etc., not to mention retail theft, unlicensed, and reckless driving, tax evasion, and other crimes. I would wager that better than 90% of illegals are guilty of multiple other felonies, many of them violent.

    All that is beside the point though, if you are here ILLEGALLY you should have no constitutional protections whatsoever, the constitution is for citizens, legal immigrants, and legal visitors, not ILLEGALS, you come across the border ILLEGALLY you should be taking your chances. One wonders how this case even got to the courts, as soon as he ADMITTED to being an illegal he should have been deported, no hearing, nothing, get on the plane. Clearly he felt no fear of repercussions for openly admitting to being illegal, as it would be politically incorrect to deport him.

    If an illegal is caught in this country, as soon as their illegal status becomes known they should be stripped of ALL of their rights (which they never had to begin with), all their property, real, and otherwise seized, and turned over to the state (to compensate for unpaid taxes, increased welfare, insurance costs, and crime rate, etc.), and imprisoned for the maximum term for there crimes, including being here illegally, hard labor, then as soon as they have completed there sentences be deported to SOUTHERN Mexico (in the case of Mexican illegals). Additionally whoever hired them if it can be shown knowingly hired an illegal, should be charged with criminal conspiracy, aiding, and abetting, and as an assessory in any crimes the illegal committed, as well as RICO, and enterprise corruption, and additional fines, and jail time for hiring them in the first place.

Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •