Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 05/01/2025 Vol.507, Q Day 2742

Let me do some searches on this.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms

May aliens legally in the United States purchase firearms?
An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit.

[18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5), (g)(5) and (y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32(a)(5) ]

THis is a pdf, very complex, I’ll leave to my betters to figure it out! ;-)

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nics/federal-firearms-licensees/quick-reference-sheet-for-non-u.s.-citizens-purchasing-a-firearm.pdf

Go, Trump!

How can non-citizens have rights?

By having the Constitution protect the rights of "all persons."

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep345206/

Shaughnessy v. U.S., ex rel Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 212 (1953)

It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49-50 (1950); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 598 (1953).

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep426067/

Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976)

There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep457202/

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982)

Opinion of the Court at 210:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 77 (1976).

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep533678/

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693-694 (2001)

But once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all "persons" within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 210 (1982); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 77 (1976); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 596-598, and n. 5 (1953); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 (1886); cf. Mezei, supra, at 212 ("[A]liens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law"). Indeed, this Court has held that the Due Process Clause protects an alien subject to a final order of deportation, see Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238 (1896), though the nature of that protection may vary depending upon status and circumstance, see Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U. S. 21, 32-34 (1982); Johnson, supra, at 770.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep118356/

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 (1886)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep163228/

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238 (1896)

And in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, it was said: "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.' These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Applying this reasoning to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep189086/

The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903)

Now, it has been settled that the power to exclude or expel aliens belonged to the political department of the Government, and that the order of an executive officer, invested with the power to determine finally the facts upon which an alien's right to enter this country, or remain in it, depended, was "due process of law, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, was at liberty to reexamine the evidence on which he acted, or to controvert its sufficiency." Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 713; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 13. S. 651, 659; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 547. But this court has never held, nor must we now be understood as holding, that administrative officers, when executing the provisions of a statute involving the liberty of persons, may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in "due process of law" as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
One of these principles is that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without opportunity, at some time, to be heard, before such officers, in respect of the matters upon which that liberty depends-not necessarily an opportunity upon a regular, set occasion, and according to the forms of judicial procedure, but one that will secure the prompt, vigorous action contemplated by Congress, and at the same time be appropriate to the nature of the case upon which such officers are required to act. Therefore, it is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer, at any time within the year limited by the statute, arbitrarily to cause an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States. No such arbitrary power can exist where the principles involved in due process of law are recognized.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep339033/

Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49-50 (1950)

But the difficulty with any argument premised on the proposition that the deportation statute does not require a hearing is that, without such hearing, there would be no constitutional authority for deportation. The constitutional requirement of procedural due process of law derives from the same source as Congress' power to legislate and, where applicable, permeates every valid enactment of that body. It was under compulsion of the Constitution that this Court long ago held that an antecedent deportation statute must provide a hearing at least for aliens who had not entered clandestinely and who had been here some time even if illegally. The Court said:
"This is the reasonable construction of the acts of Congress here in question, and they need not be otherwise interpreted. In the case of all acts of Congress, such interpretation ought to be adopted as, without doing violence to the import of the words used. will bring them into harmony with the Constitution." The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 101.
We think that the limitation to hearings "required by statute" in § 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act exempts from that section's application only those hearings which administrative agencies may hold by regulation, rule, custom, or special dispensation; not those held by compulsion. We do not think the limiting words render the Administrative Procedure Act inapplicable to hearings, the requirement for which has been read into a statute by the Court in order to save the statute from invalidity. They exempt hearings of less than statutory authority, not those of more than statutory authority. We would hardly attribute to Congress a purpose to be less scrupulous about the fairness of a hearing necessitated by the Constitution than one granted by it as a matter of expediency.
Indeed, to so construe the Immigration Act might again bring it into constitutional jeopardy. When the Constitution requires a hearing, it requires a fair one, one before a tribunal which meets at least currently prevailing standards of impartiality. A deportation hearing involves issues basic to human liberty and happiness and, in the present upheavals in lands to which aliens may be returned, perhaps to life itself.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep344590/

Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 597, 598 (1953).

Although it later may be established, as respondents contend, that petitioner can be expelled and deported, yet before his expulsion, he is entitled to notice of the nature of the charge and a hearing at least before an executive or administrative tribunal. Although Congress may prescribe conditions for his expulsion and deportation, not even Congress may expel him without allowing him a fair opportunity to be heard. For example, he is entitled to a fair chance to prove mistaken identity. At the present stage of the instant case, the issue is not one of exclusion, expulsion or deportation. It is one of legislative construction and of procedural due process.

😊

MarQ

Rand Paul gives a fiery update on COVID investigations: “There WILL be hell to pay”

Not a Rick Roll

Thank you for your good link work.

However, the Gouveia “Memorandum” of Ed Saur’s latest and current complaint.

Saur: 1) seeks Emergency behavior from the SC commiserate with what was submitted to them three weeks ago, in the form of an Emergency appeal; and
2) seeks relief from the Court “Stay”, causing Deportations to be halted, while the Court engages in its delay.
~~~

I think the American judicial system now plays, intentionally, fast and loose with the security of Americans, leaving no assurance that Courts can even be predictable any longer. That was seldom an issue in the past. Everyone was basically on the same side for good and against any unbridled wickedness.

Appreciate the link tracking very much.

If you watch the vidya, she’s having a little puppy dream.

Competence is hawt.

in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court in 2020 held that an alien detained shortly after entering the United States could not constitutionally challenge a federal statute limiting judicial review of his “expedited removal” proceedings (a streamlined removal process applicable to aliens apprehended at or near the border).16 Although the alien had physically entered the United States, the Court determined that he could be “’treated’ for due process purposes ‘as if stopped at the border’” because he was encountered only twenty-five yards inside the United States and essentially remained “on the threshold” of entry.17

104-208
, 110 Stat. 3009–546). According to the Court, the “century-old rule” that aliens seeking initial entry into the United States lack due process rights “would be meaningless if it became inoperative as soon as an arriving alien set foot on U.S. soil.” 18

The Court observed, moreover, that only aliens “who have established connections in this country” have due process protections in their removal proceedings.19

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence indicates that, although aliens present within the United States generally have due process protections, the extent of those constitutional protections may depend on certain factors, including whether the alien has been lawfully admitted or developed ties to the United States, and whether the alien has engaged in specified criminal activity. Therefore, even with regard to aliens present within the United States, the Court has sometimes deferred to Congress’s policy judgments that limit the ability of some classes of aliens to contest their detention or removal.

This is why Trump has to be VERY careful about the deportations, and have a dang good reason (he does) for removing habeas corpus even for illegals. If it was me I'd set up an AI adjudication rubber stamped by human judges, but that's just me. 10's of thousands could be processed per day. Oh, and I remember someone saying "the only way is the military".

Let's ask Grok this question:

If Trump were to suspend habeas corpus for illegals, and especially illegals that have committed other crimes in America, would the military be able to capture and process the illegals without violating possee comitatus?

Here is Grok's conclusion:

If Trump suspended habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants, including those with crimes, the military could not legally capture and process them without violating Posse Comitatus unless Congress authorizes it or the Insurrection Act is validly invoked with proof of insurrection or invasion. Current judicial skepticism, the Act’s strict limits, and lack of congressional support make this improbable without significant legal and political shifts.

::: sniff sniff :::: Ew. Do y’all smell that? Somebody stinks.

Researching whales. Makes sense.

I forgot to give a link to the vidya:
https://x.com/numberonepal/status/1922715443564773788

That is a little puppy dream going on

Some of those decisions sound bad to me. But my .02 doesn’t matter.

THanks for the additional.

Many come here to read dispatches from the War between Good and Evil, to red-pill and encourage.....and to pray and give thanks to the God who fights for us.

Where We Go 1, We Go All