Posted on 08/26/2015 3:47:18 AM PDT by 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 wordillegal 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-Rodriquezs claim, thereby upholding the indictment. He appealed the District Courts 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
i still have my second amendment rights... you cannot take them from me. if i am let in... i will be able to protect myself... i will be carrying. you will not know it. it will not be illegal for me to do so. you may not like it, but do you see the analogy i am painting.
it’s not a bad thought process, but you equate being armed with being bad... which intent has everything to do with that...
That being said, only Americans are protected by our constitution...
...... the uninvited are criminals and to be treated as such
The Supreme Court held long ago that aliens have Constitutional rights. i.e., You're visiting America on holiday. You still can speak, assemble, are free from unreasonable searches, etc.
Now, that doesn't mean that you still can't arrest illegals and deport them. (Gotta admit, I'm starting to lean towards more permanent methods of making sure they never come back)
It would be nice if the Second Amendment were actually honored in this country for citizens as well.
So you're saying, like the gun-grabbers always do, that your Second Amendment right depends on whether or not you're recognized by the government as being in the US militia?
I submit that the right to armed self-defense depends on absolutely NOTHING, except removal of rights as punishment for a crime under the due process of law.
There should be NO laws pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carry of guns. NONE WHATSOEVER, if the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's written on. They didn't say "unduly burdened," they said "infringed."
My intent there was if someone has been arrested as a suspect in a crime - they could, for example, have their right to arms restricted as a bail condition. Due process.
I can put a sign on my house that anybody with a gun is a trespasser. You would be liable in court.
No. Bad reporting. The law also forbids possession of ammunition.
Not at all. The militia as the Founders understood it exists independent of government recognition -- as the militias that fought the British existed independent of recognition by either the British Crown or the Continental Congress.
While there is a general human right to self-defense, the armed person who is in another country not his own, unless there on terms agreeable to the government of that country, is an invader, and as I observed, in normal times subject to armed resistance, rather than being coddled by the courts.
Uh, no they don’t. Non-citizens have NO rights in our country unless granted through a Visa or green card.
“All” are citizens. They are not citizens. Even liberals can understand that.
Why? Importing them wasn’t impractical. Please explain how it’s so deporting them? There are many ways to deport...pick them up or just turn off the magnet.
The constitution does not apply to non-citizens. Someone from another county can’t get through customs with a gun unless they have permits and a reason like a law enforcement officer.
Amazing how many here do not understand the constitution and how it applys to everyone here. Many here embrace leftists interpretation to deny rights without thought to what they are doing. It saddens me that my end will come from one of these individuals will just be following orders...
How about this then? I believe that the states have the right to restrict guns all that they want. I believe the constitution protect us from a federal government from taking away our gun rights.
A bunch of black robes say that some amendments have been “incorporated” such that they apply to all governments. I disagree.
I would disagree with your definition of freedom as to our rights not being incorprated. I feel they are. I believe the constitution is a contract between the governing and the governed...
It’s amazing that someone who believes they are a conservative thinks the constitution applies to everyone on the planet.
You need to read the Federalist Papers.
An absurdity contest?
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.