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.

If on US soil, US constitution is applicable.

davidmcbeth said:

If on US soil, US constitution is applicable.

Click to expand...

Doesn't answer my question...

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>

eye95 said:

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>

Click to expand...

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"?

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>

Primus said:

Doesn't answer my question...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Nightmare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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>

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.

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>

eye95 said:

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>

Click to expand...

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.

Primus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_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.

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>

eye95 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

NoTolerance said:

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.

Click to expand...

What if you made the change as I've indicated above?