Posted on 12/19/2011 1:37:20 PM PST by neverdem
Illegal immigrants do not have a right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, based in Missouri, rejected an appeal brought by Joaquin Bravo Flores, who was charged with possessing a firearm. Agreeing with the 5th Circuit, the court concluded that the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to undocumented immigrants.
Executing a search warrant in 2010, police uncovered a semi-automatic handgun in Bravo Flores' Minneapolis apartment. A grand jury indicted him for being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. He was sentenced to three years in prison.
Bravo Flores tried to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the criminal law barring illegal immigrants from possessing guns is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 recognized an individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment. Bravo Flores argued that the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" also applied to him and other illegal immigrants.
His lawyer argued in a court filing that Bravo Flores is a member of "the people," having come to the country as a teenager and now living with his American citizen partner and their two citizen children.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights in criminal cases, including a Sixth Amendment right to trial and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 8th Circuit declined to extend the right to bear arms to illegal immigrants. The appeals court has previously upheld other criminal laws that prohibit convicted felons and narcotics addicts from possessing firearms.
Federal defender Andrea George, who represents Bravo Flores, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The U.S. Attorney was not immediately available for comment.
In June, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge brought by a Mexican citizen arrested in Texas for carrying a firearm, which he said he used to kill coyotes. The appeals court quoted language from the Supreme Court's 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, finding that the phrase "the people" referred to "law-abiding citizens" and "members of the political community."
One judge dissented, finding that the 5th Circuit decision in that case meant that "millions of similarly situated residents of the United States are non-persons who have no rights to be free from unjustified searches of their homes and bodies and other abuses, nor to peaceably assemble or petition the government."
The 8th Circuit case is U.S. v. Joaquin Bravo Flores, No. 11-1550.
For the government: Michael Dees, formerly with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
For Bravo Flores: Andrea George of the Federal Public Defender's Office.
If illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they cannot be punished for crimes they commit here (like foreign diplomats, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and have diplomatic immunity for crimes they commit here).
I agree, but does that foreigner (illegal though he may be) not have the same God-given inalienable rights as all men, as expressed in our Declaration of Independence (whether protected by man's law or not)?
I fully agree that all illegal immigrants are breaking our laws by their very presence on our soil, and that every one of them should be returned to their country of origin, but this seems to be a philosophical question.
Believe me, I'd much prefer that this man return to his own country and fight alongside his countrymen to implement their own Bill of Rights equal to our own.
He's a lawbreaker, and shouldn't expect (or receive) any protections under our laws.
The "all men" in that sentence... to whom do you think it refers?
The Hitman Cometh: America to be 'War Zone'
A Humanitarian Catastrophe at Ashraf Spells Political Catastrophe for the White House
Back to Bachmann Check the link in comment# 7, a Bloomberg.com story about Newt and Freddie Mac. I'm still partial to Bachmann, although it's Anybody But Obama, ABO! If I have to hold my nose, and vote for Romney over Obama, then so be it. ABO!
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
that judge should immediatly resign as he/she/it is not advocating law but relativist agenda.
******************
One judge dissented, finding that the 5th Circuit decision in that case meant that "millions of similarly situated residents of the United States are non-persons who have no rights to be free from unjustified searches of their homes and bodies and other abuses, nor to peaceably assemble or petition the government."
I'll have to read that case and see who that judge is. The dissent almost reads more like a deliberate effort to "connect the dots" for the rest of the federal judiciary than a true objection to the majority opinion.
Yes and no. IMHO, what it would mean it they don’t necessarily rate a trial... Just like the troops of an invading army.
is this a severability clause situation? Does it appear that the Constitution has no severability clause?
Interesting verdict. US Constitution does not apply to illegals while simultaneously the left claims citizen rights for foreigners, in particular terrorists.
>Yes! I have long contended that the US Constitution offers no protections or rights to anyone other than US citizens.
>
>Glad to see it explicitly called out in court precedent - now let’s go after the voter ID opponents, since most if not all of their objections actually fit non-citizens rather than citizens.
I agree with you in-principal. However, I am loathe to grant this a “good decision” stamp for the simple reason that there is only a little step from here to just “citizens” and from there there it would be relatively easy for the government to add to it’s list of “how to lose your citizenship” items which people do on a daily basis. (Summed-up: I do not trust my government as far as I can throw it.)
Little Ray is correct in post 29. They are not subject to the jurisdiction and thus are not entitled to the full protections enjoyed by bona fide citizens.
Resident Aliens are entitled to the full protection of the constitution, that we should deny to those whose first act upon entering this country is to break the law.
Once they enter the country illegally they are essentially on their own, and in my opinion not entitled to any protections under the constitution. It was postulated by Lib Lurker that they could be executed with out trial or gang raped...this is simply a straw man argument as they will be adjudicated at their deportation hearing for violating immigration law and will also be adjudicated for other crimes at that time, and rape is already against the law.
In general, non-immigrant aliens are forbidden to possess any firearms or ammunition. Illegal Aliens cannot purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.
See Title 18, USC Chapter 44, Section 922, part (y)(2).
I am a Citizen of The State of New Mexico.
But where does 14th amd replace rights with privileges?
A sudden breakout of common sense in the courts.
I would like to see this judge's opinion giving his legal justifications before saying whether the decision sounds right or wrong. I agree with you that everyone's basic human rights are to be protected under our Constitution.
Well if the Constitution doesn’t allow illegals to own guns then the rest of the Constitution does not pertain to them either!
Nope not to them!
Because it is another limit on RKBA, I would assumed most RKBA folk would not like it.
So there's no reason for the government to "equip them with weapons" (the meaning of that militia clause's "regulate" expression) so there's no rational for them arming themselves either.
BTW, I'm still waiting on Obama to give me my M-60 with about 10 pallets of ammo ~ those suckers cook it off like nobody's business!
So, as illegal as any alien is you can't just kill him, or steal his stuff, or trick him out of his posessions, and so on.
That's as far as the courts seem to want to go in this business of granting rights to illegal aliens.
It's up to the government to protect you from these guys ~ unless they break in your house and you have to defend yourself. That's different. But, in general, you cannot simply hunt them down and kill them, or even beat them up.
They also have a right of self-defense ~ just not with a gun.
Granted the term "keep and bear arms" in Old Norman French means self-defense, but it also meant you had a right to serve in a nobleman's army, or the king's army, and carry a blade.
Those with a right to "service" (that is "bear arms") also had an OBLIGATION ~ they'd have to pledge fealty to someone, or a king, and then when the tocsin was sounded and the enemy approached, they could be called out to defend themselves, their families, their stuff, and their liege lord AND the king and church!
In modern society we usually don't regulate personal possession of knives. Americans have all sorts of knives in their homes that would send them to prison for life in China (which has been regulating knife possession for thousands of years).
We also recognize that those who bring a knife to a gun fight are probably at a serious disadvantage ~ hence, we've elevated our understanding of "arms" from knives and clubs to FIREARMS.
Simultaneously we continue to support the idea of self-defense for anyone, even illegals and other visitors. Just the term "arms" has had its meaning adjusted. Plus, we don't ordinarily draft illegals into our military although we do draft legal immigrants.
Good question ~ I’m sure they’ve got a couple of judges in Chicago who would do that.
Obviously they continue to be within the jurisdiction of their homelands UNTIL they get legal permission to be here. Without that legal permission, they are somebody else's problem.
The government of Mexico claims the illegals here are UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION and retain a number of rights that derive from treaties Mexico has signed with, e.g. the United Nations.
Happens every day, just not the government doing it. 1900 unclaimed bodies were buried in a mass grave last week in LA, CA.
Nope, still not seeing how this amounts to any sort of legal limitation on the RKBA for any American.
Now, as to whether other countries should change their laws to be more like ours - that's a topic for another day.
I submit that in the eyes of the Founding Fathers the words citizen and people are one in the same. It was never intended to be all encompassing. Did the original include specifically women? They couldn't vote. Could they arm themselves absent a male in the household? Not sure if there are any specific writings on this but the intent in another direction is plainly clear: It did not apply to slaves. Even after the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments passed to: #1 Ban slavery, #2 Make former slaves citizens and #3 Give the new citizens the right to vote -- even after all that, the right to vote still did not extend to blacks in individual states until incorporation in the 1960's. All that did was to extend certain Amendments in the BOR (Bill Of Rights) down to the local levels and STILL it didn't include the 2nd Amendment! That had to wait until 2010 with Heller and the Chicago case! I think the Founders meant for Amendments 4,5,6 & 8 all to apply to everybody as a way to keep the gov't in check when criminal rules are being applied but that #'s 1,2,3,7,9 & 10 (obviously on the last) do not attach to non-citizens.
I would posit that the "clean hands" doctrine would imply that illegal aliens have to either acknowledge the jurisdiction of the U.S. (and leave), or else not claim any benefits, rights, or privileges that would arise from such jurisdiction.
I would submit that "the people" refers to "all free persons". Not all persons are free.
Okay, think of this: During the post revolutionary American era there were people of many nationalities on American soil, like the French. Did the right to vote in AMERICAN elections extend to them? I think not. The same can be said for illegal aliens in both voting and guns.
Illegal aliens have the right to get out of our country and return home, never to annoy us again.
Period.
Did the phrase "right to vote" even exist in the English lexicon? The notion of universal suffrage is comparatively recent, and I don't think the Founding Fathers would have particularly approved of it.
"The People" are "We the People of the United States ..."
Illegal aliens are NOT part of "We the People of the United States ...". They are "people of some other country" who have illegally invaded our country. Illegal is criminal.
Illegal aliens by definition have no right to be in the USA, period.
Illegal aliens have the right to humane treatment while in custody (as any other criminal would have), and until they are deported. Criminals have no right to possess firearms during the commission of their crimes. They do have the right to surrender and be returned to their own country.
Once in their own country, they are welcome to enjoy whatever God-given rights their own government wishes to allow them.
Wrong. Criminal invaders have not "subjected themselves to the jurisdiction thereof" by following our legal procedures to enter the United States legally.
They are subject to capture and deportation, and punishment for any additional crimes they have committed prior to their capture.
Actually, it may have, as IIRC it was rather unusual when Thomas Paine, a British born man, was denied the right to vote due to a political disagreement with the local poll workers following his publishing of The Age of Reason.
I would imagine that at that time, if one had proved to be a productive member of society, and otherwise met the requirements, franchise was extended to them.
Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution. The Constitution protects the right, it doesn't create it.
But for better or worse, the Supreme Court ruled in Verdugo-Urquidez that the Fourth Amendment doesn't encompass a Mexican citizen living in Mexico, so we'll see how they decide about a Mexican citizen living in the US.
And you would be wrong.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1). The offense is a felony. The law provides the following:
It shall be unlawful for any person-
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
***
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
See 18 USC 922(g).
So, anyone who crosses our country illegally is afforded the same rights as US Citizens?
So, if a boat of armed invaders/terrorists come ashore, and we confront them prior to an attack, they are afforded every right and consideration due a US citizen?
Notice, this same ‘right’ exists practially no where else in the world. Get caught illegally in Mexico, sporting a semi-automatic pistol and let me know how it works out of you. Seems ridiculous to me, to allow illegal aliens the same rights and priviledges afforded US citizens, while exempting them from every duty demanded of a US citizen.
Really, if a band of armed invaders show up and we confront them prior to an attack we are going to tell them to put down their weapons and surrender.
If they don't we will kill them. If you attempt to interfere under those circumstances we will kill you as well.
People who come into our country illegally or otherwise are afforded certain rights ~ but not the full rights citizens have.
We also have agreed to treaties regarding holding trials, etc. We should, of course, repudiate them and go door to door in the Los Angeles Barrio dragging them out and executing them.
Right? /s
“Do illegal aliens have a right to freedon of speech? What about assembly? It should be the same way with firearms! Guns are a HUMAN right, not a political privledge.”
Nope. They have aright to be deported. Their rights exist within their ountry. We reserve the right to deny them any and all actions within this country. They are invaders and should be treated as such.
No, I am not wrong. I said that I believe Felons regain the right to own and carry guns, NOT that the “law” says they do. I also believe that a concealed carry permit is NOT required to carry a gun, open or concealed...regardless of what the “law” says.
You are stating YOUR beliefs. But the Courts HAVE ruled that illegals DO have the right to assemble, and freedom of speech, the press, habeas, corpus, etc. So, they must ALSO have the right to own and carry guns, to be consistant. We need a Constitutional Amendment to put illegals back to where many of us would like them to be.
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.