It's Legal for Illegals to Own Guns Now

[gun sane]

Believe it or not, even the DOJ argued against gun ownership for "newcomers," but a fed judge shot them down.  No word yet if they'll start giving them firearms as they cross the border.

Gun Ban for Non-Violent Illegal Immigrant Found Unconstitutional | The Reload

[RED333]

So on the 4473, question 12c will null and void?

[BigK]

This question?

[AuEagle]

These criminals have more rights than we do.

 

[krunchnik]

I highly doubt that this will be left to stand-

Considering the Constitution only protects legal citizens-

I think that this judge just stepped in a whole lotta horse crap-

[Pain103]

12 hours ago, krunchnik said:

I highly doubt that this will be left to stand-

Considering the Constitution only protects legal citizens-

I think that this judge just stepped in a whole lotta horse crap-

I believe you are wrong on that part. I've never read or been told that constitutional rights only apply to citizens. I only know it from the criminal side, such as the 4th Amendment expectation of privacy applies regardless. I'm interested to see how this plays out; it may lead to some bigger SCOTUS decisions later. 

[krunchnik]

6 minutes ago, Pain103 said:

I believe you are wrong on that part. I've never read or been told that constitutional rights only apply to citizens. I only know it from the criminal side, such as the 4th Amendment expectation of privacy applies regardless. I'm interested to see how this plays out; it may lead to some bigger SCOTUS decisions later. 

I am referring to the 2ND only-

If the 2ND does then why is the question of legal residency even on the 4473 questionnaire-

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, krunchnik said:

I am referring to the 2ND only-

If the 2ND does then why is the question of legal residency even on the 4473 questionnaire-

That’s the subject of debate being decided in the litigation. The 4473 questionnaire has been having a real rough go of it since Bruen. Question after question has been struck down by district courts. 

It’s there because the ATF decided it wanted it there, but should it be there?

Many folks, myself included, have long been of the opinion that the entire premise of the 4473 is illegitimate. Piece by piece, it appears that the courts are finding that to be the case in a post Bruen world. 

Edited March 17 by Chucktshoes

[BigK]

2 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

That’s the subject of debate being decided in the litigation. The 4473 questionnaire has been having a real rough go of it since Bruen. Question after question has been struck down by district courts. 

It’s there because the ATF decided it wanted it there, but should it be there?

Many folks, myself included, have long been of the opinion that the entire premise of the 4473 is illegitimate. Piece by piece, it appears that the courts are finding that to be the case in a post Bruen world. 

I despise the mere existence of the ATF and think almost everything they do is illegitimate, however I'll let my hypocrisy show a little on these points:

1. It's none of the AFT's business if I buy a gun for someone as a gift, but I do want it to be illegal to make straw purchases.
2. I don't think every felony should keep someone from buying a gun, but I do want it to be illegal for violent felons to buy guns.
3. I don't think smoking pot should keep you from buying a gun when people who drink alcohol are free to do so.
4. I believe in "shall not be infringed", but I do want it to be illegal for crazy people, stalkers, and people with restraining orders against them to buy guns.
5. I don't think illegals are entitled to any inalienable rights under our Constitution.

[Chucktshoes]

34 minutes ago, BigK said:

I despise the mere existence of the ATF and think almost everything they do is illegitimate, however I'll let my hypocrisy show a little on these points:

1. It's none of the AFT's business if I buy a gun for someone as a gift, but I do want it to be illegal to make straw purchases.
2. I don't think every felony should keep someone from buying a gun, but I do want it to be illegal for violent felons to buy guns.
3. I don't think smoking pot should keep you from buying a gun when people who drink alcohol are free to do so.
4. I believe in "shall not be infringed", but I do want it to be illegal for crazy people, stalkers, and people with restraining orders against them to buy guns.
5. I don't think illegals are entitled to any inalienable rights under our Constitution.

Well, I understand the reasoning on some of them, and number three is slightly different in that it doesn’t have any inconsistency so we will set that one aside. that said, by the Bruen standard 1, 2 and 4, all face an extremely uphill battle to survive court testing. 

I strongly suspect that it is going to force the hand of the government to make it easier to forcibly confine folks who cannot be trusted in public with a firearm.

The the amusing thing to me is that the anti-gun crowd defending these laws has consistently reached back to laws from the founding era, prohibiting groups, such as black folks, and native Americans from purchasing or possessing firearms. Those laws, all have one thing in common, they were exclusions, based upon certain folks not being included in “the people”.  Thus far, the court has not found any merit to that position. The folks in point number five are the only ones for whom that delineation could apply.

 

[HKfanTN]

When it comes to Form 4473 and the ATF in general, do not ever believe the ATF has any regard for the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.  

[RED333]

21 hours ago, BigK said:

This question?

Yep, we must be look at the same form of different dates of print.

[Pain103]

8 hours ago, krunchnik said:

I am referring to the 2ND only-

If the 2ND does then why is the question of legal residency even on the 4473 questionnaire-

I understand, I'm not saying I agree or disagree but how do you determine if one is guaranteed one right versus the other? To muddy it up even more a few years back a border patrol agent shot and killed someone across the border that was pelting him with rocks, the family filed a lawsuit in the USA for violation of the rights of the deceased. They tried arguing the rights under the US Constitution didn't apply because he was physically outside the USA, it didn't fly. They did end up with dismissing the case but not because of the rights issue. When I first heard about that case I immediately thought if you're not in the boundaries of the USA how could this even apply. I think until a SCOTUS decision district courts will apply their own opinions and keep everything clear as mud.

[gun sane]

On 3/16/2024 at 10:00 PM, krunchnik said:

I highly doubt that this will be left to stand-

Considering the Constitution only protects legal citizens-

I think that this judge just stepped in a whole lotta horse crap-

You may be right, per this follow-up:

Analysis: SCOTUS is Unlikely to Agree Second Amendment Protections Extend to People Unlawfully in the US | The Reload

[krunchnik]

38 minutes ago, gun sane said:

You may be right, per this follow-up:

Analysis: SCOTUS is Unlikely to Agree Second Amendment Protections Extend to People Unlawfully in the US | The Reload

They quite possibly will consider the wording Illegal Alien-

The working key word is that they are already here illegally which means they already have committed a crime-

[Sleep profit]

If there here illegally they are criminals and the only right they should have is the right to get out of the.  USA  they walked here they can walk back 

[E4 No More]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:55 PM, AuEagle said:

These criminals have more rights than we do.

 

As long as libtards are in charge.

[gun sane]

That illegal social media influencer is now "under investigation" for a gun charge.  It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Migrant influencer Leonel Moreno investigated for gun charges (nypost.com)

[gun sane]

Update on everyone's favorite "newcomer"...He's in the jailhouse complaining that his first amendment rights are being violated.  Welcome to the club, pal.

'Migrant influencer' Leonel Moreno whines that he's a victim of 'persecution' in jailhouse interview (nypost.com)

[-boatman-]

On 4/4/2024 at 1:21 AM, gun sane said:

That illegal social media influencer is now "under investigation" for a gun charge.  It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Migrant influencer Leonel Moreno investigated for gun charges (nypost.com)

He's been asking for it but now complaining about it.

[hipower]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:55 PM, AuEagle said:

These criminals have more rights than we do.

 

We have to be proven "Innocent beyond a shadow of doubt." Criminals have to be proven guilty beyond all forms of measurement. Even then many get released!