Do illegal aliens enjoy Second Amendment right? No.

Illegal Citizens

Aknazer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Would not "Illegal Citizens" be those CITIZENS that are fugitives?

Just a little thread drift. LOL

Fallschirmjäger said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Jim675 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe the Founders did indeed hold that all men should be armed. Many of them plainly said so.

Look at the country during and after the revolution. There were a great many people who were not "processed" by the gov as they entered and were armed before, during, and after said entry.

Armed Mexicans have been coming across the border for for a long time before the US gov started to try to regulate it (excepting military units).

Jim675 said:

I disagree. I believe the Founders did indeed hold that all men should be armed. Many of them plainly said so.

Look at the country during and after the revolution. There were a great many people who were not "processed" by the gov as they entered and were armed before, during, and after said entry.

Armed Mexicans have been coming across the border for for a long time before the US gov started to try to regulate it (excepting military units).

Click to expand...

It occurs to me that by Eye95's logic, the French who helped us during the American Revolution had no right to arms.

Also, Eye's logic is a little strained, I think. Directly contradicted by Heller, no? Even though the pre-amble to the 2A talks about fighting off tyrannical government, the operative clause is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". By Eye's logic, Heller shouldn't have been decided the way it was because handguns are for self-defense and are not really needed for defense against a tyrannical government. You're not going to win a revolution with handguns, you know.

All these twists and turns go away if we just refuse government the power to prohibit anybody's natural right to self-defense. Geez, even ex-con felons were allowed to own guns until the Nazi-sourced GCA1968, no?

Jim675 said:

I disagree. I believe the Founders did indeed hold that all men should be armed...

Click to expand...

Really?? All?? They didn't want any crazy people disarmed? They didn't want any criminals disarmed? They didn't want any enemy soldiers disarmed?

Rationally speaking, there is no question that some folks should not be armed. The question is merely, "Who does not retain the enumerated RKBA?" Due process will make the determination whether folks fall into a category that is disallowed the RKBA. Due process is (and should be) routinely used to determine that some rights (both natural and enumerated) are forfeit based on behavior and/or mental incapacity.

Ya gotta watch out for those absolutes. All absolutes are false.

eye95 said:

Really?? All?? They didn't want any crazy people disarmed? They didn't want any criminals disarmed? They didn't want any enemy soldiers disarmed?

Rationally speaking, there is no question that some folks should not be armed. The question is merely, "Who does not retain the enumerated RKBA?" Due process will make the determination whether folks fall into a category that is disallowed the RKBA. Due process is (and should be) routinely used to determine that some rights (both natural and enumerated) are forfeit based on behavior and/or mental incapacity.

Ya gotta watch out for those absolutes. All absolutes are false.

Click to expand...

Can you cite a document written by one of the Founders that places the limitations you declare?

Yes. The Constitution. We cannot be deprived of our rights without due process. The implication is clear: People can be deprived of their rights with due process.

Jim675 said:

Can you cite a document written by one of the Founders that places the limitations you declare?

Click to expand...

Not saying I agree either way, but..."due process" seems as though it is a process that is due to individual who believe they have been 'wronged', and through the process of the Fourteenth Amendment the individual is allotted a Constitutional avenue to pursue recourse. Here is the sticker though...the individual might be Found to have not been denied "due process" as the process that is due to them is the process of determining a law or Law is not-Constitutional. So, the individual has a 'fundamental Right' until that so-called 'right' is Found to not apply to them, or its application rendered 'limited' in its extent to which all individuals are of the 'right' to having.

A bunch of B.S., IMO. There are no 'rights'. Here we go again, huh! There are only 'privileges' that are served as 'rights' (concept v. application) on a platter that is called The Constitution of the United States. All of this Fundamental Right hoopla.

The Founding Fathers, by writing the Constitution (through compromise) obviously inadvertently created what is inherent in the Document, which is a Concept v. Application issue. The Concept (wishful thinking) is that "We" (whomever 'we' may be) have Fundamental Rights. But the Founding Fathers missed the Application of those Concepts.

Beretta92FSLady said:

A bunch of B.S., IMO. There are no 'rights'. Here we go again, huh! There are only 'privileges' that are served as 'rights' (concept v. application) on a platter that is called The Constitution of the United States. All of this Fundamental Right hoopla.

Click to expand...

So you have no right to be clothed? No right to eat? No right to sleep? The court itself has ruled it as a right that would exist with or without the second amendment. What you are saying is a positivist view point that is very contradictory to liberty and freedom.

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)

When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, it is at once understood that they are not created or conferred by the constitution, but that the constitution only guaranties that they shall not be impaired by the state, or the United States, as the case may be

Click to expand...

Honestly, if you're arguing that illegals have the right to bear arms and travel freely within our country without check, would you have allowed the Japanese Army in WWII to land in California and travel across our country at will? After all, all people have the right to bear arms and travel freely to our country?

I call BS. The government does have a duty to prevent foreign invasion. A foreign armed entity constitutes and invasion. An illegal immigrant constitutes an illegal invasion of our land. The right to free travel applies to American Citizens traveling freely throughout our country and does not apply across our borders.

boyscout399 said:

Honestly, if you're arguing that illegals have the right to bear arms and travel freely within our country without check, would you have allowed the Japanese Army in WWII to land in California and travel across our country at will? After all, all people have the right to bear arms and travel freely to our country?

I call BS. The government does have a duty to prevent foreign invasion. A foreign armed entity constitutes and invasion. An illegal immigrant constitutes an illegal invasion of our land. The right to free travel applies to American Citizens traveling freely throughout our country and does not apply across our borders.

Click to expand...

Why are you trying to compare illegal immigration to armed invasion for the purpose of violently overthrowing the existing government? Or are you suggesting that illegal immigration is, in fact, armed invasion?

And since when does the right to free travel between and among the several states apply only to citizens, and not to, for instance, persons sojourning? If you have some case law backing up that notion I'd enjoy learning about it.

Now I do not question the right of the state (national or parochial) to limit the travel of citizens and non-citizens for certain specific reasons (usually under the rubric of "national security") and often to more strictly limit the travel of non-citizens. But then I'd also be happy with the federal government setting up a system where legal visitors to this country (visa in hand, etc.) get to go to the front of the line ahead of citizens at certain locations of historic importance - Liberty Hall, the Capitol, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, Arlington Cemetery to name a very few - because they are not citizens and for no other reason. (Don't hurt your head trying to figure out why. It's propoganda, pure and simple.)

But getting back to te original question - why is it so difficult to understand why the Second Amendment uses the words "The People" as opposed to "Citizens"?

stay safe.

When I build a fence around my property (or otherwise establish that it is mine), I do so not only as a signal to violent intruders that I will defend my property from them, but to tell other uninvited persons, regardless of the "harmlessness" of their intent that they are not welcome and that I will use all legal and necessary means to remove them. I further am communicating to all who will come onto my property that I
will set the conditions on their presence.

When we form together as a collective, that collective must be endowed with the power to protect the general property rights of the collective. Of course, if that collective is a Republic, it is incumbent upon the representative leadership to follow the wishes of the membership of the collective (in a way that does not violate their individual rights).

It is absolutely reasonable for the US government to set the rules that determine who is welcome in this country and the conditions to which all visitors, welcome and unwelcome, must abide.

While it can be argued that the right to self-defense is a natural right and that no government should remove that right from anyone, the RKBA is not the natural right, but an enumerated one that the government has no moral or legal responsibility to protect for unwelcome guests and upon which it can infringe freely for those who are not part of the People who could be thought of as the militia.

Bottom line, it would be downright foolish to allow an unwelcome interloper in your home to be armed. Likewise, it is downright foolish to allow unwelcome interlopers in our nation to be armed--regardless of their intent.

So, while an invading army is quite different from millions of invading illegal aliens, so is a burglar quite different from a trespasser. However, I'd want neither of those to be armed in my home. We should not want illegal aliens armed in our country, even if they are not combatants. It is quite reasonable to make the act of being armed while breaking the law (even by mere presence) a crime.

boyscout399 said:

Honestly, if you're arguing that illegals have the right to bear arms and travel freely within our country without check, would you have allowed the Japanese Army in WWII to land in California and travel across our country at will? After all, all people have the right to bear arms and travel freely to our country?

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between an invading military sanctioned by the State (Japan), and illegals running across the border with a gallon of water, in hopes of making it, and getting a job that pay eight bucks an hour.

I don't think that any person on here is arguing that illegals should be free to come-and-go as they please, that is a separate issue. The issue being discussed here is whether they are here legally or not, do they have the so-called 'fundamental right' to have arms for self-defense purposes? The answer is, yes.

I call BS. The government does have a duty to prevent foreign invasion. A foreign armed entity constitutes and invasion. An illegal immigrant constitutes an illegal invasion of our land. The right to free travel applies to American Citizens traveling freely throughout our country and does not apply across our borders.

Click to expand...

They are not coming to the U.S. to overthrow the government or kill Americans. I will acknowledge that there are some (few) that come here, and commit acts of violence against Americans, for that sake.

sudden valley gunner said:

So you have no right to be clothed? No right to eat? No right to sleep? The court itself has ruled it as a right that would exist with or without the second amendment. What you are saying is a positivist view point that is very contradictory to liberty and freedom.

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)

Click to expand...

As a Concept, yes. In application, no. At least that is the road Republicans are headed down (for example), and if they have their way, it will be the case. Republicans want to cut social services - I am not stating whether I agree or not. When 'have-not' services are cut, because they 'have-not', well, their ability to cloth, and feed themselves is quite limited wouldn't you say? Basically, Government programs are the Government (by the people or not) giving to those who 'have-not' because the Capitalist system which we function under demands that individuals work for food, clothing, and shelter, and if they are unable to, or refuse to they do not eat, have clothing, or shelter.

Please, don't make statements such as me being a Positivist, and then asserting that it runs contradictory to Liberty and Freedom. Please, elaborate, I'm eager to read this one.

eye95 said:

When I build a fence around my property (or otherwise establish that it is mine), I do so not only as a signal to violent intruders that I will defend my property from them, but to tell other uninvited persons, regardless of the "harmlessness" of their intent that they are not welcome and that I will use all legal and necessary means to remove them. I further am communicating to all who will come onto my property that I
will set the conditions on their presence.

When we form together as a collective, that collective must be endowed with the power to protect the general property rights of the collective. Of course, if that collective is a Republic, it is incumbent upon the representative leadership to follow the wishes of the membership of the collective (in a way that does not violate their individual rights).

It is absolutely reasonable for the US government to set the rules that determine who is welcome in this country and the conditions to which all visitors, welcome and unwelcome, must abide.

While it can be argued that the right to self-defense is a natural right and that no government should remove that right from anyone, the RKBA is not the natural right, but an enumerated one that the government has no moral or legal responsibility to protect for unwelcome guests and upon which it can infringe freely for those who are not part of the People who could be thought of as the militia.

Bottom line, it would be downright foolish to allow an unwelcome interloper in your home to be armed. Likewise, it is downright foolish to allow unwelcome interlopers in our nation to be armed--regardless of their intent.

So, while an invading army is quite different from millions of invading illegal aliens, so is a burglar quite different from a trespasser. However, I'd want neither of those to be armed in my home. We should not want illegal aliens armed in our country, even if they are not combatants. It is quite reasonable to make the act of being armed while breaking the law (even by mere presence) a crime.

Click to expand...

How Socialistic of you, some would write.

Beretta92FSLady said:

As a Concept, yes. In application, no. At least that is the road Republicans are headed down (for example), and if they have their way, it will be the case. Republicans want to cut social services - I am not stating whether I agree or not. When 'have-not' services are cut, because they 'have-not', well, their ability to cloth, and feed themselves is quite limited wouldn't you say? Basically, Government programs are the Government (by the people or not) giving to those who 'have-not' because the Capitalist system which we function under demands that individuals work for food, clothing, and shelter, and if they are unable to, or refuse to they do not eat, have clothing, or shelter.

Please, don't make statements such as me being a Positivist, and then asserting that it runs contradictory to Liberty and Freedom. Please, elaborate, I'm eager to read this one.

Click to expand...

Cutting social programs does not affect the ability of them to have the right to cloth and feed themselves. There is no right to force others to cloth and feed you. No matter how bad your plight is. So the example does not apply to what I am saying.

We are no longer under a "capitalist" system there are thousands upon thousands of regulations governing everything we do. I can no longer own a few acres and support my self and family, the government makes that impossible. I believe in "anarcho capitalism" over other forms of market style.

Positivist is contrary to liberty and freedom, positivist don't believe in natural rights and believe that rights are given to us by others or a government. A ridiculous notion in my mind. Positivism will always end in tyranny.

lib·er·ty /ˈlibərtē/Noun The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.