illegal immigrants not allowed to own guns

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.

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/05/08/4030788/court-says-illegal-immigrants.html#storylink=cpy
​

Click to expand...

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.

Thundar said:

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

Click to expand...

Well, I'm no fan of the NRA, so I'm not sure what your point is?

DocWalker said:

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?

Click to expand...

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? :uhoh:

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.

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.

Beretta92FSLady said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ManInBlack said:

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? :uhoh:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you have written in paragraphs two and three. I am also not a big fan of legal immigration as it is currently employed. I think we need to cap legal immigration for some years until we can assimilate those already here into our society. We have proven we haven't done a very good job of this for some years.

The best and least expensive way to get a handle on both legal and illegal immigration is to institute laws and procedures that actually help legals while reducing illegals. For legal immigrants;

o Must be functionally fluent in English.
o Must have a job offer in hand or a marketable skill.
o Must not have a criminal record.
o No diseases.
o Nothing that would place them or their families on public assistance.
o Cap the numbers at no more than 100,000 a year.

For illegals;

o No public assistance of any kind including educational, medical, food, housing or anything of the like.
o Heavy penalties on individuals and companies who hire illegals, up to and including putting them out of business.
o No driver's licenses.
o No "sanctuary" cities.

There are more but you get the idea. Illegals come here because our nation is more attractive then theirs. Remove the attractions and you diminish their numbers.

Some of these measures may seem harsh to some but I would argue that if we don't do something like this soon, we are in real danger of losing our country to that of a Balkanized silhouette barely resembling its original design.

SouthernBoy said:

I agree with most of what you have written in paragraphs two and three. I am also not a big fan of legal immigration as it is currently employed. I think we need to cap legal immigration for some years until we can assimilate those already here into our society. We have proven we haven't done a very good job of this for some years.

The best and least expensive way to get a handle on both legal and illegal immigration is to institute laws and procedures that actually help legals while reducing illegals. For legal immigrants;

o Must be functionally fluent in English.
o Must have a job offer in hand or a marketable skill.
o Must not have a criminal record.
o No diseases.
o Nothing that would place them or their families on public assistance.
o Cap the numbers at no more than 100,000 a year.

For illegals;

o No public assistance of any kind including educational, medical, food, housing or anything of the like.
o Heavy penalties on individuals and companies who hire illegals, up to and including putting them out of business.
o No driver's licenses.
o No "sanctuary" cities.

There are more but you get the idea. Illegals come here because our nation is more attractive then theirs. Remove the attractions and you diminish their numbers.

Some of these measures may seem harsh to some but I would argue that if we don't do something like this soon, we are in real danger of losing our country to that of a Balkanized silhouette barely resembling its original design.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of the measures you suggest, and I likewise anticipate a Balkanization process due to large pockets of unassimilated foreigners. However, I do disagree with Doc's suggestion that illegals have no protections whatsoever.

The liberal pipe dream has always been that, as soon as foreigners step onto American soil, they immediately adopt the beliefs and values of their new home. Reality shows this just isn't so. It is unreasonable to expect those who come from third-world societies, where the concept of individual rights protected by law has not advanced even to the Magna Carta stage, and participation in government is solely limited to rewarding your friends and screwing your enemies, with no restrictions, to all of a sudden vote for limited, Constitutional government and fiscally-responsible policies. Regardless of what people say, there is a predominant American culture, mostly descended from white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant tradition, which informs our political system (this is from a non-Anglo, non-Protestant). Immigrants must be forced to accept and assimilate into this culture, or else it will be hopelessly diluted for the worse.


I would quibble with the driver's license thing, only because I don't think it is within the purview of government to require one from anybody. That, however, is a small quibble.

How about "persons not in the country by legal means and for lawful purpose are not part of the regulated militia. While they may have a right to self defense from criminal action, it is in the interest of the nation to maintain limits upon the ownership and possession of firearms by fugitives who are subject to immediate arrest and/or deportation. To this end, that is enabling the citizens, through their police and border protection officers, to safely affect such an arrest, these fugitives shall not possess firearms or other weapons"?

BTW, Immigrants, legal and otherwise, are not otherwise involved in criminal acts to a greater extent than the populace as a whole.

Herr Heckler Koch said:

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."

Click to expand...

Which they may pursue in their own country until their paperwork has been processed. Pax...

What law prohibits illegal aliens from defending themselves. I know of no law that prohibits anyone from defending themselves, and I mean anyone.

Resident legal aliens can purchase/own/carry (where legal) firearms, they have more hoops to jump through is all.

ManInBlack said:

It is unreasonable to expect those who come from third-world societies, where the concept of individual rights protected by law has not advanced even to the Magna Carta stage, and participation in government is solely limited to rewarding your friends and screwing your enemies, with no restrictions, to all of a sudden vote for limited, Constitutional government and fiscally-responsible policies. Regardless of what people say, there is a predominant American culture, mostly descended from white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant tradition, which informs our political system (this is from a non-Anglo, non-Protestant). Immigrants must be forced to accept and assimilate into this culture, or else it will be hopelessly diluted for the worse.

Click to expand...

True, and this is what really worries me because it is a real danger to the future existence of our nation. We already have noted people making comments to the effect that traditional U.S. sovereignty should take a back seat to global thinking (Cronkite), that Americans should be ready to accept limitations on their traditional civil liberties (Clinton), that our courts should weigh international and foreign law when deciding cases (O'Connor), and that we should embrace the New World Order (Bush I).

The stirrings in my loins cries for the wisdom of the Founders and their Original Intent. Already, how far we are from that now.

OC for ME said:

What law prohibits illegal aliens from defending themselves. I know of no law that prohibits anyone from defending themselves, and I mean anyone.

Resident legal aliens can purchase/own/carry (where legal) firearms, they have more hoops to jump through is all.

Click to expand...

Please point out to me who it was that said illegal aliens illegally in the United States have, by law, no right to protect themself.

Just to set the record straight, firearms are not the only means of self protection. Harsh looks, harsher words, butter knives (if they do not exceed the lawful size limit), and pointy sticks are some of the other means by which people can defend themselves.

What the court has done in handing down this ruling is to fill in some of the blanks that SCOTUS (probably intentionally) left when they decided Heller and then McDonald. What they have also done is continue a centuries-long tradition of defining just who The People are when using that term to describe persons covered by laws in the United States. To repeat myself, and the court, there are three groups in the United States: 1) persons -that's everybody; 2) The People - that's those who make up the social entity of the USA by participating in activities to further the existence of the country[SUP]1[/SUP]; and 3) citizens.

For all of those who say there should be no barrier to persons entering the United States I say that you need to register with Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that the next batch of illegal aliens can be brought to your house to live. You want to invite them in? Fine. You take care of your guests to make sure they behave themselves while attending the party.

stay safe.

[SUP]1[/SUP] Being part of the social entity of the United States is more than mere physical presence, and more than allowing taxes to be withheld by the employer, and more than learning to speak English, and more than sending your kids to public schools. It's about identifying oneself as "an American" and doing those things that improve the country because that's what Americans do, as opposed to just doing what makes your life better/nicer/more comfortable. Some legally admitted aliens have no intention of becoming a part of the United States and thus remain "persons". Some legally admitted aliens declare, by word and deed, that they wish to become a part of the United States by initiating the process to move from being a legally admitted alien to being a citizen, and thus are among The People. Some folks who were born here and thus citizens only by default and do nothing else to improve the United States, are still citizens.

OK.

Beretta92FSLady - Post #7: So a person ought to be denied the ability to self-preservation....

Click to expand...

DocWalker - Post #8: I think they should NOT be able to defend themselves....

Click to expand...

Semantics or poor choice of words. if words mean things around here, and to coin a phrase used by another citizen, I to "live in literalville".

What you 'say' has meaning and it is incumbent upon us to do our level best to communicate, especially in this particular medium, as effectively as possible. I have my lapses into the realm of not being clearly able to communicate, but I keep plugging along, trying to get better.

skidmark - Post #32: For all of those who say there should be no barrier to persons entering the United States I say that you need to register with Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that the next batch of illegal aliens can be brought to your house to live. You want to invite them in? Fine. You take care of your guests to make sure they behave themselves while attending the party.

Click to expand...

Never said I wanted to invite them in. Unless you are using the 'royal' you.

Your words indicate that more work is yet to be completed to make sure that I fully understand what it is that you are attempting to convey. I got some of it....well, all of it.

skidmark said:

For all of those who say there should be no barrier to persons entering the United States I say that you need to register with Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that the next batch of illegal aliens can be brought to your house to live. You want to invite them in? Fine. You take care of your guests to make sure they behave themselves while attending the party.

Click to expand...

In this thread, who said that?

It always saddens me a little to see those that are in such a hurry to remove the rights a person was born with and that existed before quill touched parchment, while demanding that their own rights be untouchable. I expect it from some, not so much from others.

Oh well. At least this immigrant does get a bit of a chuckle out of some posters.

I retract my posts #30 and 33. Post #30 was not a case of self-moderation. Also for a violation of rule 16 for post #33. To Please accept my humble apologies, Beretta92FSLady, DocWalker, and skidmark.

ManInBlack said:

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? :uhoh:

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.

Click to expand...

If they don't break the law by being here illegally then they have nothing to fear. If they go through the process then they will have rights and protections. It is pretty simple, not a lot of greay area here.

Don't invade the USA and you have nothing to fear.

I agree any employer caught with an illegal working for them should forfit their company and all assets much like the RICO law for drug dealers. That would put a stop to the employers real fast.

So, a young mother crosses the border with her infant child in her arms and is confronted with a large, violent man with nefarious intent, and she does not have the right to defend herself?

I'm definitely against illegal immigration, and I want to axe ALL the incentives they have to come here, but to say that a human being has no rights just because they didn't fill out the proper forms....well sh!t, you guys. I thought we were better then that.

PistolPackingMomma said:

So, a young mother crosses the border with her infant child in her arms and is confronted with a large, violent man with nefarious intent, and she does not have the right to defend herself?

I'm definitely against illegal immigration, and I want to axe ALL the incentives they have to come here, but to say that a human being has no rights just because they didn't fill out the proper forms....well sh!t, you guys. I thought we were better then that.

Click to expand...

Young mother should not invade the USA illegally in the first place....SIMPLE, END OF STORY.

She should go to the embasy and fill out the proper paperwork and come to the USA legally.

I agree with you on that point.

But that's not the world we live in.

So answer my question; does the young mother have the right to defend her life or not?