Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Do illegal aliens enjoy Second Amendment right? No.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Do illegal aliens enjoy Second Amendment right? No.

    Illegal Immigrants and the Bill of Rights

    Do illegal immigrants have a Second Amendment right to own guns? In the case of United States v. Portillo-Munoz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that illegal immigrants are not part of the “people” protected by the Second Amendment and have no constitutional right to bear arms.

    Defendant-appellant Armando Portillo-Munoz was arrested by a Dimmit, Texas police officer who found a .22 caliber handgun in the center console of a four-wheeler driven by Portillo. Portillo indicated to officers that the handgun was used to shoot coyotes at a ranch he worked at. Portillo admitted to being a native and citizen of Mexico and illegally present in the United States.
    Also, see here:

    The Constitutional Rights of Illegal Aliens, Under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Complete bullshiat decision, and one that should be overturned on SC appeal. It clearly violates previously established precedent:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=118&invol=356
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=163&invol=228
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=457&invol=202
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    The scary part is that the 5th circuit labels the 2A as an "affirmative" right as opposed to a "protective" right.

    Making the 2A different from other rights will not end well for RKBA.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Translation of Court-speak: The 2A prohibits (sorta) the government from infringing on the basic human right of self-defense of its own subjects; but it does not prohibit at all the government infringing on the basic human right of self-defense of others.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    A quick reading suggests that the Court has taken the political bit firmly in its mouth and intends to run as far and as fast as it can with the notion that "the People" means different groups of folks at different times and for different Amendments. Whatever else SCOTUS looks at and considers, that notion will not fly for a number of reasons.

    As usual, bad cases make the best law. As much as I'd like to see the defendant placed on a catapault and sent back where he came from, there is a reason the folks who wrote the Constitution differentiated between "the People" and "Citizens". Some stuff applies to everybody, while some stuff is reserved for those belonging to a smaller and (somewhat) more elite club. Stuff applying to everybody is why folks with Green Cards legally can have most of the same toys as the rest of us law-abiding citizens.

    stay safe.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    There is a fundamental difference between the People and this group, one which makes differences in treatment reasonable: Illegal aliens are...well...illegal.

    One more thing: The RKBA is an enumerated right. The natural right is for self-defense. The enumerated right exists as an individual right for the sake of the individuals and for the sake of the collective. Personally, I wonder about the wisdom of illegals having guns when the People end up having to defend all of us from Heaven-knows-who.

    It is reasonable that the enumerated right does not apply to illegals. It is also wise that it does not. Of course, individual States can make their own decisions as to whether their constitutions or their laws allow ownership and carry by illegals. The folly of arming those who are here illegally will be revealed by the different reactions of the States creating yet one more marketplace of ideas.

    Illegals still have the natural right to defend themselves. But by being here without permission, they have chosen to place themselves in a class of individuals that can reasonably be denied an enumerated right.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    There is a fundamental difference between the People and this group, one which makes differences in treatment reasonable: Illegal aliens are...well...illegal.

    One more thing: The RKBA is an enumerated right. The natural right is for self-defense. The enumerated right exists as an individual right for the sake of the individuals and for the sake of the collective. Personally, I wonder about the wisdom of illegals having guns when the People end up having to defend all of us from Heaven-knows-who.

    It is reasonable that the enumerated right does not apply to illegals. It is also wise that it does not. Of course, individual States can make their own decisions as to whether their constitutions or their laws allow ownership and carry by illegals. The folly of arming those who are here illegally will be revealed by the different reactions of the States creating yet one more marketplace of ideas.

    Illegals still have the natural right to defend themselves. But by being here without permission, they have chosen to place themselves in a class of individuals that can reasonably be denied an enumerated right.
    On the flip side, the constitution gives no power to congress to regulate immigration, merely naturalization.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    I view it as the illegal have trespassed upon the US and as such they have given up much of their rights just as how when we go onto another's property we have to potentially give up certain rights while on it. Examples would be not being able to carry into certain places or how the talk of long gun carry isn't allowed here.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    If you all care about limited government power, regulated by the constitution, tell me how you can justify the existence of "illegal immigration". No, I'm not talking about the people who are freely traveling here, but the fact we have laws saying they can't, in spite of the long-recognized freedom to travel. As I hinted earlier, Article 1 Section 8 grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization ("To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"). This is different than an immigration policy:
    immigration- To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native.
    naturalization - To grant full citizenship to (one of foreign birth).

    As such, why are so many of you willing to say "yeah, but those darn foreigners, gotta keep em out" and thus give Congress further footholds to restrict your freedom of movement? The Constitution clearly refers to depriving "any person" of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or equal protection of the law. This does not refer to "the People", but "any person" and it's an important distinction. This is supported by the earlier SUPREME COURT decisions I linked:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356
    These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=163&invol=228
    Applying this reasoning to the fifth and sixth amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202
    Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.
    The fifth circuit erred grievously in this decision. The fact so many of you are cheerleading the decision indicates your actual care about Constitutional concerns: only when they affect you.
    Last edited by Tawnos; 07-07-2011 at 11:00 AM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Sorry, Charlie!

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but all enumerated rights are are the ones specifically mentioned. And, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but both enumerated and unenumerated rights apply to "the People" unless the Founders or their progeny specifically said differently in the ratified statement of those rights.

    The argument that enumerated rights do not apply to illegal citizens would mean that they do not have the established right to be advised of their rights to not incriminate themselves and their right to representation by an attorney before and during custodial interrogation. I've got a crisp one-dollar bill here for the first person who can show me a court decision saying that's the way life is here in these United States.

    Now, being as the illegal aliens are here illegally they may may be disqualified from possession of firearms under any of the federal and/or state laws that have withstood 2A challenge on the regulation of possession of firearms. But that is different than saying they have absolutely no 2A rights whatsoever.

    It is beginning to feel like it's time to remind ourselves that as much as we hate Illinois Nazis and illegal aliens we must defend their rights as vigorously as we do the rights of nuns and orphans, or else we will all lose our rights.

    stay safe.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    The question is, how do you define "the People?" It obviously didn't include slaves, and weren't women not included for most things as well until the women's rights movement.

    Also you state "illegal citizens" in your second paragraph, but they're not citizens so they can't be illegal citizens. They're illegal aliens or illegal immigrants.

    As for your comment about your $1 challenge. The courts might have decided that everyone is entitled to those things, but that doesn't mean that all rights are extended to everyone. You have to look at how it's worded. None of the amendments in the BoR use the word "citizen." Instead they either say "the People" or "person/persons" (with a few not using either and instead being written in a way that is open to everyone). So until it is shown exactly what "the people" refers to I don't see why it would apply to illegals when in the past it hasn't applied to everyone before.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    The question is, how do you define "the People?" It obviously didn't include slaves, and weren't women not included for most things as well until the women's rights movement.

    Also you state "illegal citizens" in your second paragraph, but they're not citizens so they can't be illegal citizens. They're illegal aliens or illegal immigrants.
    Illegal citizens makes no sense. Illegal immigrant also makes no sense under our Constitution. We allowed free travel to this country until the 1920s. Ideally, we should return to that, as freedom of travel is part of the liberty which no person may be deprived under the 14th amendment.

    As for your comment about your $1 challenge. The courts might have decided that everyone is entitled to those things, but that doesn't mean that all rights are extended to everyone. You have to look at how it's worded. None of the amendments in the BoR use the word "citizen." Instead they either say "the People" or "person/persons" (with a few not using either and instead being written in a way that is open to everyone). So until it is shown exactly what "the people" refers to I don't see why it would apply to illegals when in the past it hasn't applied to everyone before.
    Bullshiat, it's been very clearly stated before. Look at the earlier supreme court citations above, or here, again:
    all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality;

    Is that at all unclear to you?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  13. #13
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I have no problem with illegals defending themselves, just not with a gun. That places a burden on us regular folks cuz their illegal status and possible future illegal activities with a gun harms all of us regular folks gun rights. We all know that the anti-gun crowd can not win the false argument of gun control if a person is the issue. When the gun is the issue it does not matter who uses that evil gun.
    One problem with that is the 2nd does not specify firearms, it says arms. That means clubs, swords, knives, spears, bows and a whole lot of other items, including firearms.

    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    So much for those who argue the Fundamental Right to 'bear arms' for the purposes of self-defense.

    Seriously. Yes, they are illegal, then again, they are human, and have Fundamental Rights...or maybe they don't. Maybe Fundamental Rights are merely Rights for Americans. How ironic that I would read some individuals supporting the denial of purported Fundamental Rights that are merely affirmed by the Constitution.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Natural (or God-given) rights apply to everyone at all times. That governments impinge your rights does not mean they don't exist.

    Your sister is here visiting on a student visa. She intends to leave 3 days before time expires but gets very ill. Wakes up in the hospital too late, illegal. Janitor tries to rape her in her hospital room, can she defend herself with anything available? Of course she can.

    No crime's punishment is to be thrown to society's wolves and told not to engage in self defense. Even jail, theoretically, should be physically safe.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Illegals are not denied access to or prevented from buying shovels, hammers, knives, machetes, chainsaws, vehicles or any other sort of tool than can be used to kill, maim, injure or be used for any sort of violent crime.

    I would prefer they were arrested upon detection and transported back to the border. The second offense resulting in prison, the third in death. Their having purchased a gun along the way is irrelevant to me. Guns are defensive tools and recreational items no more dangerous than motorcycles or lawn darts. (which are illegal now I think) I have no problems with illegals having them for self defense. My problem is that they're here with little effort to remove them.

    I wouldn't even care if the government had "open borders" so that more of them could cross it more freely as long as we knew who the hell they were, and if they had the character and ethics that made them productive people. As it stands any sort of scumbags can enter at will unless caught, and even then far too many seem to be able to stay.

    It is a far different situation than 100 years ago when people were over crowding every boat available just to have a chance at survival here. They didn't just land on the beach and walk in. They all went through an ID and other screening at entry points like Eliis Island where my ancestry came through. The "open borders" clown posting here lacks the independent and critical thinking skills to recognise it though.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    In Georgia...no.


    O.C.G.A. § 1-2-6
    Rights of citizens generally

    (a) The rights of citizens include, without limitation, the following:
    (1) The right of personal security;
    (2) The right of personal liberty;
    (3) The right of private property and the disposition thereof;
    (4) The right of the elective franchise;
    (5) The right to hold office, unless disqualified by the Constitution and laws of this state;
    (6) The right to appeal to the courts;
    (7) The right to testify as a witness;
    (8) The right to perform any civil function; and
    (9) The right to keep and bear arms.
    (b) All citizens are entitled to exercise all their rights as citizens, unless specially prohibited by law.


    Not saying that the Georgia Code's followed; like the Pirate's Code, it's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 07-08-2011 at 11:45 PM.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    SNIP (right to travel post)
    Not criticizing so much as using it as a jumping off point.

    Currently, I'm of the opinion that freedom of association includes the concept of right to not associate.

    I'm thinking that as a group, Texans or Arizonians, etc. have a right to limit the presence or number of new members of the group.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    An abject apology - mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maximus culpa

    I just got a PM informing me through a third party that Master Doug read my comments in Post #12 above and agrees with them.

    Some of you folks may not know who Master Doug was, and some of you may have been through/are still in therapy because of him, and I hope bringing him up will not cause a relapse/setback.

    But any time I say something and he agrees with it one needs to "duck and cover."

    I'm not changing my stance. No way in H-E-double-hockey-sticks that will ever happen.

    But I suppose I owe the universe an apology for whatever it was that got Master Doug's attention.

    stay safe.

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Illegal Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    The question is, how do you define "the People?" It obviously didn't include slaves, and weren't women not included for most things as well until the women's rights movement.

    Also you state "illegal citizens" in your second paragraph, but they're not citizens so they can't be illegal citizens. They're illegal aliens or illegal immigrants.

    As for your comment about your $1 challenge. The courts might have decided that everyone is entitled to those things, but that doesn't mean that all rights are extended to everyone. You have to look at how it's worded. None of the amendments in the BoR use the word "citizen." Instead they either say "the People" or "person/persons" (with a few not using either and instead being written in a way that is open to everyone). So until it is shown exactly what "the people" refers to I don't see why it would apply to illegals when in the past it hasn't applied to everyone before.
    Would not "Illegal Citizens" be those CITIZENS that are fugitives?

    Just a little thread drift. LOL

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    In Georgia...no.


    O.C.G.A. § 1-2-6
    Rights of citizens generally

    (a) The rights of citizens include, without limitation, the following:
    (1) The right of personal security;
    (2) The right of personal liberty;
    (3) The right of private property and the disposition thereof;
    (4) The right of the elective franchise;
    (5) The right to hold office, unless disqualified by the Constitution and laws of this state;
    (6) The right to appeal to the courts;
    (7) The right to testify as a witness;
    (8) The right to perform any civil function; and
    (9) The right to keep and bear arms.
    (b) All citizens are entitled to exercise all their rights as citizens, unless specially prohibited by law.


    Not saying that the Georgia Code's followed; like the Pirate's Code, it's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
    All I can get from that is that "citizens" have certain enumerated rights. I cannot see anything in that which says persons who are not citizens do not have any of those rights. Now, I would expect that there would be something saying non-citizens do not get #4 and #5. But saying non-citizens are denied all of the rest as well pertty much flies in the face of legal reasoning ever since the 14th Amendment.

    If in fact Georgia denies all 9 to non-citizens I'd be interested in seeing the statute/case law that says so.

    stay safe.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The right to keep and bare arms is not a right granted by our constitution or government. It is a humans natural right. Much like the right to be clothed, the right to eat, the right to sleep, etc.

    Me I don't have a probably with any person arming themselves, since it is a the natural disposition of man. I don't care if the person came here "illegally" was a convicted felon in the past, etc.
    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)

  23. #23
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The right to keep and bare arms is not a right granted by our constitution or government. It is a humans natural right. Much like the right to be clothed, the right to eat, the right to sleep, etc.

    Me I don't have a probably with any person arming themselves, since it is a the natural disposition of man. I don't care if the person came here "illegally" was a convicted felon in the past, etc.
    Agreed

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    Natural (or God-given) rights apply to everyone at all times. That governments impinge your rights does not mean they don't exist.

    Your sister is here visiting on a student visa. She intends to leave 3 days before time expires but gets very ill. Wakes up in the hospital too late, illegal. Janitor tries to rape her in her hospital room, can she defend herself with anything available? Of course she can.

    No crime's punishment is to be thrown to society's wolves and told not to engage in self defense. Even jail, theoretically, should be physically safe.
    And the RKBA is not a natural right. The natural right is to defend one's life (and other rights). The RKBA is how the Framers chose to make it harder to wrest the natural right from the People who might need to defend themselves from the government trying to take the natural right of defense, among others. It is not required for the protection of the people in general from the government that those who are illegally in the country have the enumerated right. They have already demonstrated a willingness to break the law, and it is reasonable to take rights from lawbreakers. Therefore, laws that prohibit possession of firearms by illegals are quite reasonable.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    I am glad the court ruled that an illegal alien doesn't have a 2nd amendment right. I'm not glad that the court is making distinctions as to what rights they get. The illegals should be treated as per treaties that exist between their respective countries and the US. I'm confused over the interpretation of the different rights as applied to illegals, and also fearful as to how that might extend to citizens in the future.
    One of the problems we have that results in abuses of our immigration laws at present is that we do grant rights to illegals. If we treated each person found in the country illegally as a foreign invader, they would be tried in military courts and believe me, illegal entry would come to a near halt.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •