• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

illegal immigrants not allowed to own guns

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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).
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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:
H

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."
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
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.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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
 
Top