OC for ME
Regular Member
What happens if a cop finds a gun on person who is here illegally? All ya need to know. Until that changes we're just using up bandwidth.
-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter hammer6
- Start date
jdholmes
Regular Member
I think Gil's point is that only people born in the United States are really "Americans".
But hey, wait... there are two "United States" in North America: the United States of America, and Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
Gil is going to be sooooo confused now...
I understood what his point was...his point was wrong though at least according to the rest of the world, and their dictionaries and encyclopedias. American can absolutely mean a citizen of the United States (not because it's a proper description of nationality so much as its a word they claimed) or it can also mean any person who lives in the Americas.
That he tried to argue it was futile. I think he just wanted to escape having to respond to the facts that ManInBlack had countered him with.
Last edited:
jdholmes
Regular Member
That is likely going to vary state to state. Some states are much more relaxed when it comes to how they treat illegals especially in the sanctuary states.
Also the question was, should they be able to. Not can they. And if the cop is doing his job ideally he wouldn't even know if they were illegal. And how does he really? If they are a recent illegal they may still have valid ID from their home country. Visiting aliens have the right to carry...
Illegality wouldn't come into question unless for some reason they were required to present some ID but could not and then he would have to contact ICE.
Even then would the charges have anything to do with a gun? Probably not...because I don't think the law specifies anything about it...that I can recall unless.
Last edited:
Gil223
Regular Member
I inadvertantly overlooked the MIB's comments
To satisfy the Canuck -
Clearly, you are wrong again. I have previously stated that the majority of the protections offered by the BoR is "granted" to illegal aliens. Inasmuch as this is a firearms oriented forum, my argument specifically addresses 2A. In the District of Columbia v Heller, the majority opinion, as reported by Justice Antonin Scalia, declares:
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 states:
There are only two ways to become a "Citizen" of the United States - natural birthright or the completion of the naturalization process. Mere presence within our borders does not automatically make a foreign national a "citizen". And, while we're on the subject, Article IV, Section 4, proclaims:
These pathetic counter-arguments are something I would expect from some blinded, contrarian, liberal, left-wing, gun-grabbing Obamabot(s). There are some benefits to being an American citizen that are not extended to those who are not American citizens (we don't have to "take a number" and stand in line to be here legally). To simplify my argument even further, here is the equation: A=(C-ia) or (in plain American English) - "American" equals (Citizens minus illegal aliens). How can you repeatedly fail to understand that rationale? Pax...
To satisfy the Canuck -
Clearly, you are wrong again. I have previously stated that the majority of the protections offered by the BoR is "granted" to illegal aliens. Inasmuch as this is a firearms oriented forum, my argument specifically addresses 2A. In the District of Columbia v Heller, the majority opinion, as reported by Justice Antonin Scalia, declares:
Dictionary definition of the word "American":
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 states:
There are only two ways to become a "Citizen" of the United States - natural birthright or the completion of the naturalization process. Mere presence within our borders does not automatically make a foreign national a "citizen". And, while we're on the subject, Article IV, Section 4, proclaims:
Looks like the feds have, once again, fallen down on their job. The invasion, across our southern border, continues at the rate of 1,000+ per day! A person born in the USA (yes - currently - even the offspring of illegal aliens) cannot be here illegally... unless that person has renounced their citizenship. A naturalized citizen cannot be in the USA illegally (unless they knowingly provided false information on their application in order to preclude the rejection of that application - or they have renounced their citizenship). Anyone who fails to meet either of those standards, is not "a citizen of the USA". If they are visiting the USA on a Visa/Passport, they are considered guests in our country, for a specific reason, and for a specified, limited period of time. The RKBA, and the right to vote in our elections, are the only two protected rights which visitors (non-citizens) are not granted! Even citizens (exception: FFL license holders) can't legally purchase and take delivery of a firearm in another state, much less import guns from another country! Why should guests in our country have more rights than the citizens?
These pathetic counter-arguments are something I would expect from some blinded, contrarian, liberal, left-wing, gun-grabbing Obamabot(s). There are some benefits to being an American citizen that are not extended to those who are not American citizens (we don't have to "take a number" and stand in line to be here legally). To simplify my argument even further, here is the equation: A=(C-ia) or (in plain American English) - "American" equals (Citizens minus illegal aliens). How can you repeatedly fail to understand that rationale? Pax...
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
If you're going to cite Heller, may I do the same?
Any person who has settled here and established themselves here certainly has "developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” Regardless of how they got here, legally or not, "the people" does not mean "US citizens". Indeed, a person here on temporary visa may seek to purchase a firearm their first day here, and they may bear that arm according to the laws of their state.
Additionally, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to all persons, as well as protection against deprivation of rights without due process. You ignore that and what it entails.
Any person who has settled here and established themselves here certainly has "developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” Regardless of how they got here, legally or not, "the people" does not mean "US citizens". Indeed, a person here on temporary visa may seek to purchase a firearm their first day here, and they may bear that arm according to the laws of their state.
Additionally, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to all persons, as well as protection against deprivation of rights without due process. You ignore that and what it entails.
Gil223
Regular Member
Well, here we go again... Nowhere does any federal law - or the Constitution - say "Regardless of how they got here, legally or not...". Such an assumption on your part is totally ridiculous! Undocumented occupiers are still not citizens, nor are they a part of "we the people".
Apparently, "the people" does not include illegal occupiers of our country.(SCOTUS subsequently upheld the 5th Circuit Court)
As for "purchasing a firearm their first day here"... indeed they may not! This is what the ATF has to say about it:
If those are the requirements for "An alien legally in the U.S.", why in the world would you suppose an illegal alien is granted some kind of unwritten exemption, to own/carry?
I "ignored" nothing. The Constitution only affirms our rights as citizens. It does not, in any fashion, extend ALL those rights to any others. But... the government can grant certain of those rights to others, as the government sees fit. School is out now, you may go outside and play. Pax...
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
The Constitution does not extend any rights to anyone at all.
The government grants privileges, not rights. And if you trust the government, well...:uhoh:
I think you might need to stay after class.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Yes, because ATF regulations supercede the Constitution...
Tell me, what does a boot taste like?
The Constitution affirms rights held by human beings. It is not as if the Founders didn't believe they possessed those same rights when they were subjects of the British Crown.
jdholmes
Regular Member
I like how in his "dictionary definition of an American" he left out the second line of the definition. That's how you win arguments isn't it? LOL. Foolish.
The English language has many defitions for words sometimes. That is like me saying because the dictionary defines a pitcher as a guy that plays baseball, that can be the only definition. So a pitcher plant, and a water pitcher cannot be defined as pitcher.
Winner.
The English language has many defitions for words sometimes. That is like me saying because the dictionary defines a pitcher as a guy that plays baseball, that can be the only definition. So a pitcher plant, and a water pitcher cannot be defined as pitcher.
Winner.
Last edited:
jdholmes
Regular Member
W
This exactly.
Human rights. To deny them denies the very spirit with which the constitution was written.
And FYI you do not need state residency to purchase a firearm...now admittedly I could be wrong but I know Canadians can buy guns from the states, and I know folks from out of state that have purchased at gun shows...not to mention the fact that MaNY illegal aliens possess valid state ID and have residence.
Yes, because ATF regulations supercede the Constitution...
Tell me, what does a boot taste like?
The Constitution affirms rights held by human beings. It is not as if the Founders didn't believe they possessed those same rights when they were subjects of the British Crown.
This exactly.
Human rights. To deny them denies the very spirit with which the constitution was written.
And FYI you do not need state residency to purchase a firearm...now admittedly I could be wrong but I know Canadians can buy guns from the states, and I know folks from out of state that have purchased at gun shows...not to mention the fact that MaNY illegal aliens possess valid state ID and have residence.
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
I point to the case law ManInBlack quoted. Case law is considered part of the law, and since it was decided at a federal level, it most certainly says that illegal aliens are "persons":
Additionally, in Mapp v. Ohio, it was held that the protection against unreasonable search and seizure (the 4th amendment, which states "the people" just like the second) applies to all persons, in which illegal immigrants are included, per the above quote:
Also, you really should tone down with the random bold and italics. It makes you look a bit nutters (plus makes reading your quoted posts difficult).
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Agreed. And for god's sake, cut out the blue!
Gil223
Regular Member
Learn the difference between the words "extend" and "grant".
The government grants access to those rights to those who do not - by accident of birth or the naturalization process - otherwise qualify to enjoy them.
I don't think you think, or that I really care if you think. Be sure to let us all know when you complete your ESL classes.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Fail.
Wrong again. The Constitution forbids the government from infringing on rights. Quite a different thing from "granting access to rights" (got a cite for that phraseology, or do you prefer to insist on speaking from a position of total ignorance?).
Last edited:
Gil223
Regular Member
I hesitate to quote 116 year old rulings, since they may be outdated by successive findings on the same subject, often within the same decade. Read (assuming you can read) your own citation - "in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments". First, it does not reference 2A at all - it simply says that 5A and 6A are "citizenship-blind".
And, again, selective inclusion of a specific class of persons by the government to what we enjoy as "rights". The government can do that - they make the rules... and they make them conflicting and confusing, unfortunately. We cannot play "connect-the-dots" and just assume that any amendment-specific interpretation of a word or phrase will necessarily carry over to any or all of the others:
Another 4A case, in a 2A forum. If you are eventually able to differentiate between apples and oranges, feel free to get back to me.
When I try to dictate how you communicate here, I will - at that time - take any guidance offered by you under advisement.
The bold and italics are not "random". They are used in an attempt to insure numb-nuts don't miss the point. Apparently, that strategy failed in your case.
I am not responsible for the font readability of posts of mine that have been quoted (and frequently misquoted). You'll have to take that up with the powers-that-be.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
"MAY BE"
But aren't. We provide cites; you provide bullsh*t. See the pattern here?
Again, the Bill of Rights cannot be cherrypicked with regards to certain classes of people, as that leads to an equal protection issue. If certain people are allowed to exercise their full suite of natural rights, but another group is only allowed the exercise of limited rights, that is a problem.
This isn't the legislative branch passing a law. This is the judicial branch interpreting that the Constitution itself affirms pre-existing rights in all people. There is no granting or extending or selective inclusion at all; merely recognition.
See equal protection.
Your style sucks.
Last edited:
Gil223
Regular Member
Then perhaps you can explain this: On June 29, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Portillo-Muñoz, upheld a federal statute prohibiting firearms possession by undocumented immigrants by concluding that undocumented immigrants are not part of “the people” granted Second Amendment rights. (On appeal, SCOTUS subsequently upheld the 5CC ruling.)
I speak from the position most likely to be understood by those who I am addressing.
Pax...
Gil223
Regular Member
See post #217, you micro-focused contrarian.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
^You really need to learn how to properly use the quote function.
It was not, in fact, the last of the defined usages of the term "extend." I just stopped at #8 because I didn't want to make your little head explode with too much knowledge.
It was not, in fact, the last of the defined usages of the term "extend." I just stopped at #8 because I didn't want to make your little head explode with too much knowledge.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Then perhaps you can explain this: On June 29, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Portillo-Muñoz, upheld a federal statute prohibiting firearms possession by undocumented immigrants by concluding that undocumented immigrants are not part of “the people” granted Second Amendment rights. (On appeal, SCOTUS subsequently upheld the 5CC ruling.)
I speak from the position most likely to be understood by those who I am addressing.
Easy statist judges ruling for more estatism........
.....To me constitutional law is far more important than case law.