Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 139

Thread: Non-Citizen 2a?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216

    Non-Citizen 2a?

    Here's a doozy....

    How do non-citizens have the same rights has citizens?(2a) STOP.... not asking if it's ok or cool or if they SHOULD have rights. Asking a straight legal question. I've been doing some research and google shows alot of opinions and a few pieces of case law. The case law I've seen shows more that non-citizens are withheld some rights (voting, running for office, can be booted from the country, can be withheld indefinitely prior to booting) and have others, but doesn't say where those others come from.

    Is it just assumed that because the Con. doesn't specify that they only apply to Citizens? To include State Con. as well.

    I started thinking about this because another guy posted a thread/question about having non-citizen inlaws come to town and he wanted to take them shooting. Also, I saw all threads blowing up about the Miranda rights of the BB. I know some of you keyboard kung foo guys are pretty smart and have alot of case law stashed in your favorites, so please share on this if you could. Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Here's a doozy....How do non-citizens have the same rights has citizens? ...
    "Non-citizens" have the same natural rights as all men. US citizens' natural rights are declared in the Declaration of Independence, and enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    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.
    See Natural Rights and Declarationism.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-09-2013 at 07:59 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    If on US soil, US constitution is applicable.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If on US soil, US constitution is applicable.
    Doesn't answer my question...

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Non-citizens have the same right to carry as we citizens do. The 2A says "the Right of the People...," not "the Right of the Citizens..."

    That is not to say that the courts would see a State law restricting carry to citizens to be unconstitutional. They'd be wrong, though.

    Furthermore, I have no problem barring illegal aliens from carry. They are breaking the law and should be barred from carry.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Non-citizens have the same right to carry as we citizens do. The 2A says "the Right of the People...," not "the Right of the Citizens..."

    That is not to say that the courts would see a State law restricting carry to citizens to be unconstitutional. They'd be wrong, though.

    Furthermore, I have no problem barring illegal aliens from carry. They are breaking the law and should be barred from carry.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    I'm talking about the whole constitution. Obviously the 2a particular, but the question still applies. Again, does anyone actually have a case law or cite or anything other then "it just is, because it is"?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Case law will probably violate the intent of the Framers. I only spoke to what the Framers penned, not to how the courts bastardized it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Doesn't answer my question...
    Actually, it does. I see that you did ask for case law but I am just too busy to do paralegal work today.

    And non-citizens can run for office and win and serve...in many states, if an objection to their nominating petitions are not filed by a certain date in the election process then they are golden and can hold office. Many people unqualified to hold office have won elections and when people file suits to kick them out of office, they win (mostly felons come to mind ~ like DC mayor position!) and remain in office even though they were not qualified to even be on the ballot.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,164
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Actually, it does. I see that you did ask for case law but I am just too busy to do paralegal work today.
    I doubt OP knows what is and how case law is developed. OP, those walls of books that attorneys like to be photographed with, that's case law. There about a million cases cited as precedential.

    We had a good chuckle the other day when someone asked, what's the difference between a lawyer and an attorney? An attorney is working.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-10-2013 at 07:53 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    You confused rights with privileges.

    Voting and running for office are not rights, they are privileges created by the constitution, rights are not dependent on a constitution.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,164
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You confused rights with privileges. Voting and running for office are not rights, they are privileges created by the constitution, rights are not dependent on a constitution.
    Will you make explicit the process by which voting is a privilege created by the Constitution per se?

    We see the results of universal enfranchisement in our enlightened illiberal tyranny.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Will you make explicit the process by which voting is a privilege created by the Constitution per se?

    We see the results of universal enfranchisement in our enlightened illiberal tyranny.

    The constitution creates the government and the aspects pertaining to its operation. Voting or partaking in this operation wouldn't exist without the constitution or the government, hence a created privilege, not a right. Which interestingly enough isn't mentioned until the 14th and 15th amendments, as "rights".....the start of the "progressive" era.

    Universal enfranchisement has caused many problems, leading to the rule of the majority and the costs to liberty by voting of themselves the property of others.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You confused rights with privileges.

    Voting and running for office are not rights, they are privileges created by the constitution, rights are not dependent on a constitution.
    So are 5a and 4a and 1a rights or privileges?

    I asked this because I'm assuming your referring to Natural Rights "Life liberty pursuit of happiness". Well those are pretty broad.

    I asked for case law/ examples, because guys are just responding with "it just is". I was looknig for an actually cite to something a court decision, a section in the Con. I haven't read or something.

    I get it, if your human your supposed to have natural rights. We look to and quote the Bill of Rights and the Con. as the list of rights/priveleges we have. For example, with guns, we say 2a rights. Not Natural Rights. When we get searched we quote 4a, etc. etc. We do this because the Con. provides a pretty clear and concise chain of rules against the .gov. And case law, further DEFINES those rules.

    Again, I asked because there are examples of illegals/immigrants getting their "rights" taken away and it appears to be legal. I was just looking for more clarification on that. I appreciate the help, I'll keep looking and let you know if I find the answer.

  14. #14
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    What is not expressly against the law, or limited in the constitution is legal. It is up to you the OP to provide cites if you do not agree with the answers you have received. Non citizens unless there is law or case law have the same rights as all people. I do believe 4473 asks whether a buyer is a citizen, but I do not know if that would exclude a person from a purchase.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    That is unreasonable. If someone makes an assertion about the law, it is up to him to support the assertion, not up to the person who disagrees with it to provide cites!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    What part of what is NOT illegal is legal do you not understand? HOW the hell can a person provide cites to what does not exist. That is past unreasonable, it is stupid!

    There is no where in the BOR that citizen is used, a person cannot cite what is not there. If you wish to jump on this foolery then YOU provide a cite.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 11-10-2013 at 06:45 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    You said that he should provide cites if he does not agree with an answer he has received. It is the person who makes the assertion about what the law says who needs to provide the cite.

    Yes, if someone says that a law does not exist, no cite is possible, let alone necessary. If he were then to assert that one does exist, now he is the one making the claim of what the law says and will have garnered the responsibility to cite. However, you posted a broad "if he doesn't agree," which would include any posts that mentioned law.

    I have made my point and don't wish to go round and round with you, therefore, moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  18. #18
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You said that he should provide cites if he does not agree with an answer he has received. It is the person who makes the assertion about what the law says who needs to provide the cite.

    Yes, if someone says that a law does not exist, no cite is possible, let alone necessary. If he were then to assert that one does exist, now he is the one making the claim of what the law says and will have garnered the responsibility to cite. However, you posted a broad "if he doesn't agree," which would include any posts that mentioned law.

    I have made my point and don't wish to go round and round with you, therefore, moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    He was challenging that there is no law or BOR that limits non citizens rights! The only way for such a dumb idea is a law or amendment to the constitution. If it is there he or YOU need to cough it up. It is downright stupid to make claims that was does not exist, does in your mind. Go ahead beat your chest, you are full of it, as usual.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    So are 5a and 4a and 1a rights or privileges?

    I asked this because I'm assuming your referring to Natural Rights "Life liberty pursuit of happiness". Well those are pretty broad.

    I asked for case law/ examples, because guys are just responding with "it just is". I was looknig for an actually cite to something a court decision, a section in the Con. I haven't read or something.

    I get it, if your human your supposed to have natural rights. We look to and quote the Bill of Rights and the Con. as the list of rights/priveleges we have. For example, with guns, we say 2a rights. Not Natural Rights. When we get searched we quote 4a, etc. etc. We do this because the Con. provides a pretty clear and concise chain of rules against the .gov. And case law, further DEFINES those rules.

    Again, I asked because there are examples of illegals/immigrants getting their "rights" taken away and it appears to be legal. I was just looking for more clarification on that. I appreciate the help, I'll keep looking and let you know if I find the answer.
    5A, 4A and 1A are rights. The constitution is a simple law that tells the government what it can or can't do.

    The reliance on "case law" is very faulty case law is not constitutional law, in fact case law has shredded the constitution in favor of statism. Tell me where in the constitution it is up to oligarchs wearing black robes to "define" those rules.

    So instead of citing case law, tell me where in the BOR it limits these rights to a geographical boundary? People need to stop relying on the decisions of politically connected lawyers and read the damn thing for themselves and try to make their own arguments based on the actual document.

    The constitution doesn't list rights we have the 9th basically says our rights are endless. The only privileges are really those associated with participation in the government the document created.

    We quote the 4th, the 2A, 1A etc, because the government forces us to remind them of the laws that specifically restricts them, this does not necessarily mean the government provides these rights.

    Of course the courts rule for positive law, they have long ago abandoned common law and natural law which is was the basis for the founding of this country and it's legal system. The sad thing is they did this right from the start especially from the actions of the "federalist" and their like minded appointed judges.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Well I did a little more research, it appears they fall in because of the 14th Amendment because it states : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Apparently, it's because the term "person" is used, not citizen. But if you read that, it says a "person" can't be deprived those things without due process of law. That's kind of a blank check to deny anything they want? I guess because the last line just says can't deny any person protection under the laws, i.e. Constitution. I guess that makes sense.

    Thanks for those who tried, I know some other guy did mention something about the "person" part. Be safe.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    That would be me who mentioned "person." Persons have rights. Citizens have rights and privileges.

    It is not a blank check. The law clearly prescribes the due process involved in the government taking a life, Liberty, or some property. Sometimes the state gets out of line in what it will consider to be due process. It is up to the People to put it back into check through the courts, at the ballot box, or (worst case scenario) by the full use of the 2A as intended by the Framers.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  22. #22
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Furthermore, I have no problem barring illegal aliens from carry. They are breaking the law and should be barred from carry.
    I don't have a well-formed opinion on the issue as I haven't really considered it before, but let me pick your brain for a minute:

    Illegal entry into the US is a non-violent crime. Why do you feel someone should be stripped of their natural right to self-defense as a result?

    Illegal entry into the US is a misdemeanor. Is it your belief that anyone who commits a misdemeanor should be barred from carry, or just those here unlawfully?

    Do you feel anyone that breaks *any* law forfeits the right to carry? I only ask because of your statement, "They are breaking the law and should be barred from carry," which seems overly broad to me.

    My initial gut reaction was to agree with you. Illegal aliens shouldn't be afforded the same rights as legal aliens or lawful citizens. But I find myself reconsidering. While I don't approve of illegal immigration at all, I'm not convinced that it's a crime that warrants sacrificing a natural right. That said, I'm not sure there's any way an illegal alien could own a gun legally while in this country, so I'm wondering if it's all a moot point.

    I guess in my view at this particular moment, I believe the set of circumstances in which we, as a society, should strip someone of a natural right should be *very* limited.

  23. #23
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    My initial gut reaction was to agree with you. Illegal aliens shouldn't be afforded the same privileges as legal aliens or lawful citizens. But I find myself reconsidering. While I don't approve of illegal immigration at all, I'm not convinced that it's a crime that warrants sacrificing a natural right. That said, I'm not sure there's any way an illegal alien could own a gun legally while in this country, so I'm wondering if it's all a moot point.

    I guess in my view at this particular moment, I believe the set of circumstances in which we, as a society, should strip someone of a natural right should be *very* limited.
    What if you made the change as I've indicated above?
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  24. #24
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The constitution creates the government and the aspects pertaining to its operation. Voting or partaking in this operation wouldn't exist without the constitution or the government, hence a created privilege, not a right. Which interestingly enough isn't mentioned until the 14th and 15th amendments, as "rights".....the start of the "progressive" era.

    Universal enfranchisement has caused many problems, leading to the rule of the majority and the costs to liberty by voting of themselves the property of others.
    no, universal enfrachisement increased liberty by taking away the monopoly of the wealthy few to decide government. you can look to this day, the states that practiced voter suppression and limiting franchise are far more strict, their courts uphold searches that would never be considered anywhere else, they have strict gun laws, and felony charges for victimless offenses, Texas being a prime example of this......
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  25. #25
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    What if you made the change as I've indicated above?
    To answer your question literally, no, I don't think illegal aliens should be afforded the same privileges as legal aliens or lawful citizens. I'm not sure what the point of the question is.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •