Posted on 05/08/2012 10:37:18 AM PDT by SandRat
A conicted illegal's lawyer claimed that the prior conviction should be overturned because of the 2nd Ammendment,
(Excerpt) Read more at azstarnet.comnews ...
Forgot the second part of the message as long as they are here legally. If not they have only the right to be shot, for invading our country.
The default conservative interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that they are natural rights and that the purpose of those amendments are to specifically prohibit the government from usurping them. In that light, anyone — resident or not — should be allowed to be bear arms in the United States.
The problem isn’t that an illegal immigrant should or shouldn’t be allowed to bear arms, it’s that there’s a known illegal immigrant who isn’t being transported to the nearest border in the first place.
>The constitution is for legal and Natural born citizens. Not for those who come here illegally and break our laws.
Not quite; the Constitution is for the formation of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights to further clarify the restraints of the federal government.
Directly from the preamble to the Bill of Rights:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The problem that I see arising from a stance of “the Bill of Rights only applies to Citizens”, is that the government could conceivably unilaterally declare people’s citizenship void and then act on that.
However, a conviction on the person’s presence (being an illegal alien) is another matter entirely.
No gun rights for illegals!
Legal aliens are allowed to buy, own and carry guns so I don't think the issue is citizenship. Criminal behavior comes with sanctions.
Has Obama sued the 10th Circuit yet?
Nope, not yet, but you know it’s coming.
Now if that same kind of reasoning can be applied to welfare “entitlements” we’d be on our way to sanity.
Criminals should be in jail. As far as uncaught practicing criminals are concerned how are you going to convince them that they should not carry or own a piece? It’s against the law? how silly. Freed felons the same. What is the point? If they are now law-abiding people then there is no reason to prevent. If they are not no law will prevent them. Murder is a crime. the murder can be arrested and convicted for that crime. If he also possessed a gun what of it? No law is going to keep him from possessing a gun. Nor does a law against possession make the murder any less murdery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.