• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Do illegal aliens enjoy Second Amendment right? No.

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

matt2636

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
201
Location
cedar rapids
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.


you hit the nail right on the head there.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356 said:
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.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=163&invol=228 said:
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.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202 said:
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:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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?
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
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.

:cool:
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 
Top