7th Circuit Court: Illegal Immigrants Have Second Amendment Rights Too

Breitbart - Big Government ^ | 8-25-2015 | AWR Hawkins

[Sir Napsalot]

In a case regarding a specific gun control law which bans “unauthorized aliens” (illegal immigrants) from possessing firearms in the United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did the work of a contortionist by upholding the law while also pointing out that they “see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded.”

In a word—illegal immigrants have Second Amendment rights too.

The case was titled United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, and the decision was handed down on August 20.

(snip)

As for the background to the case, Wood explained that “Mariano Meza-Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested in August 2013… [and found to be] carrying a .22 caliber cartridge.” Because he did not have “documentation” to show that he was in the United States lawfully, he was charged as being in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which forbids illegal immigrants from possessing firearms in the United States.

Meza-Rodriquez was indicted. He then challenged the indictment by claiming “§ 922(g)(5) impermissibly infringed on his rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.” The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin rejected Meza-Rodriquez’s claim, thereby upholding the indictment. He appealed the District Court’s decision, thus bringing the case to the 7th Circuit.

In working through the case, Wood indicated that certain aspects of the language in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) support the view “that all people, including non-U.S. citizens, whether or not they are authorized to be in the country, enjoy at least some rights under the Second Amendment.”

[dps.inspect]

The only time the elite care about the constitution is when they want to benefit illegals and disenfranchise legal citizens...

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, the preface of the Second Amendment does provide an argument for treating aliens (even legal immigrants who are not citizens) differently. The militia is the body of armed citizens (not the National Guard as the gun-grabbers would have it), and it is the right of all citizens to be part of the militia — to keep and bear arms — that the Second Amendment protects, not the right of invaders to keep and bear arms. Under ordinary circumstances armed invaders are resisted with force of arms, not coddled by appellate courts.

[impimp]

So do bank robbers have second amendment rights too?

[Old Sarge]

H/T to our FRiend Sir Napsalot for the post.

The 7th Circus Court of Appeals now hammers into the law books that illegal aliens have 2AM rights - and presumably, all Constitutional rights reserved for citizens.

Read that again: invaders are now a protected class.

Could this concievably be another attempt at back-door gun control via judicial activism? Create the conditions for heightened gun violence, thereby turning up the screams for gun control...

For thus has the Lord said unto me:
“Go, set a watchman, Let him declare what he sees.”
Isaiah 21:6

The Watchman Ping List - FReepmail Old Sarge for details!

[Flintlock]

All this over a .22 CARTRIDGE??

a CARRTRIDGE is not a firearm.

[teeman8r]

yes they do

they all have the right to keep and bear arms, it is what they do with them that is illegal...

come on, your arguments should be better than that

[teeman8r]

never said I was an open borders gut... just consistent in my arguments of what the second amendment says... shall not be infringed, and people here, in America, are protected by America’s laws, and the law of the land is the constitution... government protects people, not controls them.

to others on this thread:

armed robbery is not the same as carrying for protection...
there would still be armed robbery, but less prosecution because many would be dead from the guns of righteous and instantaneous justice

think people... this is why politicians have taken away so many of our freedoms... you people cannot formulate a tangible argument.

[teeman8r]

no. you assume.

build the wall. use the illegals caught to build it.

[teeman8r]

this argument is neither logical or an extension of my statement of fact.

everyone has a right to defend themselves with the best means possible. if you cannot see that, I cannot reason with ignorance.

[teeman8r]

you contradict your own argument... God given rights... to all...

prosecute for trespassing... kick them out.

[tanknetter]

My understanding is that it’s illegal to be armed while committing a crime. Even if you dont use the weapon TO commit the crime.

Being in the US illegally is a crime. Being in the US illegally and having a gun is being armed while in commission of a crime.

Is my logic there faulty?

[Sir Napsalot]

You are purposely obtuse.

I'm using your words here: “.....and people here, in America, are protected by America’s laws, and the law of the land is the constitution... “

No they don't enjoy the equal protection by America's laws, just because ‘people are here’.

[lakecumberlandvet]

The black robes are out of control. But remember, just because a batch of black-robed idiots opine that something is constitutional doesn’t make it so.

[762X51]

Now here’s a man who understands the Constitution!

[Amagi]

Another decision from the Bizarro World Court.

[OldMissileer]

Possession of a cartridge, a .22 at that, is enough to be charged for having a firearm? This is layers of absurdity.

In DC they charge people for possession of spent casings and empty shotgun shell hulls..

[teeman8r]

stripping a suspected person of their rights just doesn’t sit well with me... perhaps you should rethink your position as an advocate for the second amendment... and who decides what is criminal behavior...

no thanks.

[Mastador1]

Gosh if illegals get to have 2nd Amendment rights, then why not voting rights too? Just what makes an American Citizen different if you bestow all the rights of citizenship to illegal invaders?

[impimp]

On private property one can restrict someone’s second amendment rights. An illegal immigrant isn’t on public property, because they aren’t entitled to be there. The same 2 amendment right restrictions I impose on you in my house can be imposed by the state on people that shouldn’t be there.

[impimp]

You have zero second amendment rights when you are in my house. I can restrict your gun possession in whatever way I please when you come on my property. Do see the analogy I am about to give you?