Fed Appeals Court Says Illegal Aliens Have 2A Rights

[Omega]

That's not entirely accurate. We don't allow non-citizens to vote, so obviously not all the rights are "human rights." So the constitution is not fully applied even to a lot of people who are here legally. 
 
The problem is that those "certain people in our society" are actually criminals. We don't trust criminals with guns here, so why should we trust those criminals with guns? I understand where you are coming from with your argument, but the fact that they broke our, I believe justified, immigration laws, shows lack of good judgement.

Voting is reserved for citizens but the rest are allowed to be applied, specifically, to all. And we only deny rights, such as gun possession, to those CONVICTED of a felony.

[macville]

Voting is reserved for citizens but the rest are allowed to be applied, specifically, to all. And we only deny rights, such as gun possession, to those CONVICTED of a felony.

 

Actually, the constitution doesn't say non citizens can't vote ("reserved" as you say.) It only states that a citizen can't be denied that right.

 

The key here is the 14th amendment and I can't find anything in it that gives any other rights other than, "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." Notice that it also only says "state" and nothing about federal government. It's written with very interesting language considering it's talking about states treating people equal. There's also the consideration that "illegal immigration" in the late 1700's was really unheard of because there was no immigration control, at least that I can find. I am not sure there can be a clear picture taken of if the men who wrote the 14th amendment meant for it to apply to only people here legally (which is why they didn't use the word "citizen") or if they truly meant for absolutely everyone here. I think even illegal aliens should get some protections, but only with regards to treatment with arrest and court hearings.

What gets me is why this even went to court. If they caught an illegal alien, why wouldn't that take precedent over this?

[Glenn]

The use of firearms for self defense is not a basic human right, it is a privilege given to us by our fellow man and that privilege can easily be taken away by those who gave it to us. A right is something that cannot be legally taken away which firearms can and are being taken away. No one can legislate away a man's right to self defense but they can take away that man's privilege of using a firearm for self defense.

 

Self defense is a basic human right but the tool you use is not part of it.

 

Illegal aliens, even if they are murdering psychopaths here illegally, still have the right to self defense but their right to use a firearm in THIS country should not, and is not, allowed. When they decide to break the law by entering the country illegally they forfeit all rights afforded to citizens of this country. Now if they want to enter legally then they should have all the same rights as any other person here legally.

YES, YES, YES. 1,000 times yes

[Omega]

The use of firearms for self defense is not a basic human right, it is a privilege given to us by our fellow man and that privilege can easily be taken away by those who gave it to us. A right is something that cannot be legally taken away which firearms can and are being taken away. No one can legislate away a man's right to self defense but they can take away that man's privilege of using a firearm for self defense.

 

Self defense is a basic human right but the tool you use is not part of it.

 

Illegal aliens, even if they are murdering psychopaths here illegally, still have the right to self defense but their right to use a firearm in THIS country should not, and is not, allowed. When they decide to break the law by entering the country illegally they forfeit all rights afforded to citizens of this country. Now if they want to enter legally then they should have all the same rights as any other person here legally.

I beg to differ, I see the right of Self Defense as the basis for the Second Amendment.  If the threat is such that a tank is needed to preserve one's own life then so be it; no one should be allowed to keep anything away from you that is required for self defense.  If we concede that having a gun is a privilege, we are in deep trouble with those that want to take that "privilege" away.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Nowhere does it state you need to be a citizen.  It's one of those things that seems counterintuitive, but every human has the right to self defense, no matter what soil their feet are standing on at the moment.  

[macville]

I beg to differ, I see the right of Self Defense as the basis for the Second Amendment.  If the threat is such that a tank is needed to preserve one's own life then so be it; no one should be allowed to keep anything away from you that is required for self defense.  If we concede that having a gun is a privilege, we are in deep trouble with those that want to take that "privilege" away.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Nowhere does it state you need to be a citizen.  It's one of those things that seems counterintuitive, but every human has the right to self defense, no matter what soil their feet are standing on at the moment.  

 

But who are "the people"? Does people mean citizens? Anyone here legally? Anyone period? Seems like reading of the entire constitution it would imply more to at least here legally.

[gun sane]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Nowhere does it state you need to be a citizen. 

 

That's sort of a "depends upon what the definition of is, is" statement.  The framers of the Constitution had the people of this country in mind when they laid the legal framework, not the huddled masses yearning to be free.  Nowhere does the Constitution mention abortion or birth control, but that doesn't stop activists from declaring those to be God-ordained entitlements.  True rights don't cost taxpayers anything.  Nobody has to foot the bill for you to stand on a soapbox and talk your head off.  We don't have to pay to build others a church, synagogue or mosque to worship in.  If I own a firearm, it's because I plunked the money down, not some unrelated family that's trying to put food on their table.  But now the cries go up for the "right to healthcare," even though it means the taxpayers all have to dig deep to pay the doctors, nurses, and whoever else dons a lab coat, not counting the insurance companies who send their bills to Washington.  In the beginning, the U.S. Treasury wasn't pilfered by every Tom, Dick and Harry who believed that this country owed them a living.  Originally we were offered only the pursuit of happiness; today many demand it.

Edited August 29, 2015 by gun sane

[Omega]

Looking across the web it's hard to avoid anti government sites, this one does a decent job at at least trying to describe the two:

 

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=273 

 

One can slip off the far right side of this cliff if you are not careful.

[Defender]

Well...to me its a moot point...illegal immigrants should be deported.  As far as I'm concerned, they can take any guns they have with them.  The rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution apply to citizens, not to the English, the Spanish, Mexicans, Argentinians, Australians, etc...

 

We may have fought wars to, partially, liberate other countries, but by and large, I believe the only right an illegal immigrant has is to go home.

[Dolomite_supafly]

If you have to pay for it, get permission to do it or if your fellow man can be take it away it is NOT a God given or natural right. Carrying a firearm is not a God given right, it is a right that our fellow man has decided to allow us to have. Those that gave it to use can just as easily outlaw it and take that right away. The right of self defense, with is a God given or natural right, cannot be taken away. You can be searched 1,000 times for weapons and despite the fact you have no firearm you still have a means to fight even though you do not have a gun and that means to fight back is a God given right that no one can take from you no matter what. As long as a person is breathing and conscience they still have a means to defend themselves.

 

A felon has no right to own a firearm yet he can still defend himself. It is our fellow man that has chosen to take away that felon's right to use of a firearm not God. If owning firearms for self defense is a God given right then why are those in prison not allowed to have firearms. Plenty of evidence to say that the prisons are dangerous places to be where the inmates are attacked regularly. So if there is a much stronger need to defend themselves than we do then why are we all not demanding that those in prison have firearms for self defense?

 

If self defense with a firearm is a God given right then why are we not claiming it is a religious freedom? After all it was OUR God that gave us that right and any infringement is an infringement on our freedom of religion. The first amendment deals with freedom of speech and freedom of religion so why are our rights to use a firearm, that is supposedly a God given right, not protected under the only amendment that specifically mentions religious freedoms. Forget about the second amendment as the justification for firearms ownership, lets use the first amendment so all the antis who use freedom of speech to spread their hate cannot say anything without affecting themselves.

 

Some are making it sound as though they would cower at the feet of their masters the second they do not have a firearm. Me personally I would drown them in my own blood if that is what it took to fight back without a gun. I can assure you that if all I have are hands, feet and my mind I would at least try defend myself.

 

The amendments of the Constitution are rights but those rights are not given to us by the creator they were given to us by our fellow man. And there is in place ways to add, remove or change the amendments. That means it is not a God given right but a privilege given to us by man. Anything written by man is not a God given right, anything that can be changed by man is not a God given right and as I said before if it can be taken away by man it is not a God given right.

 

If carrying a firearm is a God given right then what about those who don't believe in God? Did they suddenly give up their right to self defense using a firearm? And because the right of self defense is a God given right does that mean anyone who does not believe a God, or the popular God, cannot defend themselves? What about those who are in countries where firearms are outlawed? Does that mean the entire country does not believe in God? Of course all of that is crazy talk because we all know the right of self defense is a right EVERYONE has regardless to where they live, who or what they are or what they believe in.  

 

Now I wish everyone could have a firearm but not everyone can. But everyone, even those without firearms, has the right to defend themselves.

 

As far as illegals go they should, and do, have the right of self defense because that is a right given to them by the creator. Beyond that I do not believe they are entitled to anything here in the United States if they are here illegally. As far as determining who is a citizen and who is not I believe that one should look at the parents of the person claiming to be a citizen. If one or both parents are US citizens or if one or both parents were born in the US or if one or both parents became naturalized citizens BEFORE the birth then the child born here should be granted citizenship. Now if both parents are here illegally any child born to those here illegally should not be a citizen and should be deported along with the parents.

[bersaguy]

Like I have said many times, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer so my question is, when a person enters our country illegally is he committing a felony or is it a misdemeanor? If it is a felony that automatically disqualifies him or her of being allow to legally obtain and own a firearm. If it is a misdemeanor does that also mean he/she cannot own a gun?.............just curious and not trying to take sides on this issue...................... :shrug: :shrug: 

[Omega]

If you have to pay for it, get permission to do it or if your fellow man can take it away it is NOT a God given or natural right. Carrying a firearm is not a God given right, it is a right that our fellow man has decided to allow us to have. Those that gave it to use can just as easily outlaw it and take that right away. The right of self defense, with is a God given or natural right, cannot be taken away. You can be searched 1,000 times for weapons and despite the fact you have no firearm you still have a means to fight even though you do not have a gun and that means to fight back is a God given right that no one can take from you no matter what. As long as a person is breathing and conscience they still have a means to defend themselves.

 

A felon has no right to own a firearm yet he can still defend himself. It is our fellow man that has chosen to take away that felon's right to use of a firearm not God. If owning firearms for self defense is a God given right then why are those in prison not allowed to have firearms. Plenty of evidence to say that the prisons are dangerous places to be where the inmates are attacked regularly. So if there is a much stronger need to defend themselves than we do then why are we all not demanding that those in prison have firearms for self defense?

 

If self defense with a firearm is a God given right then why are we not claiming it is a religious freedom? After all it was OUR God that gave us that right and any infringement is an infringement on our freedom of religion. The first amendment deals with freedom of speech and freedom of religion so why are our rights to use a firearm, that is supposedly a God given right, not protected under the only amendment that specifically mentions religious freedoms. Forget about the second amendment as the justification for firearms ownership, lets use the first amendment so all the antis who use freedom of speech to spread their hate cannot say anything without affecting themselves.

 

Some are making it sound as though they would cower at the feet of their masters the second they do not have a firearm. Me personally I would drown them in my own blood if that is what it took to fight back without a gun. I can assure you that if all I have are hands, feet and my mind I would at least try defend myself.

 

The amendments of the Constitution are rights but those rights are not given to us by the creator they were given to us by our fellow man. And there is in place ways to add, remove or change the amendments. That means it is not a God given right but a privilege given to us by man. Anything written by man is not a God given right, anything that can be changed by man is not a God given right and as I said before if it can be taken away by man it is not a God given right.

 

If carrying a firearm is a God given right then what about those who don't believe in God? Did they suddenly give up their right to self defense using a firearm? And because the right of self defense is a God given right does that mean anyone who does not believe a God, or the popular God, cannot defend themselves? What about those who are in countries where firearms are outlawed? Does that mean the entire country does not believe in God? Of course all of that is crazy talk because we all know the right of self defense is a right EVERYONE has regardless to where they live, who or what they are or what they believe in.  

 

Now I wish everyone could have a firearm but not everyone can. But everyone, even those without firearms, has the right to defend themselves.

 

As far as illegals go they should, and do, have the right of self defense because that is a right given to them by the creator. Beyond that I do not believe they are entitled to anything here in the United States if they are here illegally. As far as determining who is a citizen and who is not I believe that one should look at the parents of the person claiming to be a citizen. If one or both parents are US citizens or if one or both parents were born in the US or if one or both parents became naturalized citizens BEFORE the birth then the child born here should be granted citizenship. Now if both parents are here illegally any child born to those here illegally should not be a citizen and should be deported along with the parents.

Let's take deities out of the equation; I mistakenly used it as an example of what I always hear as an argument.  I personally am not a believer of any deities.  I believe everyone has a natural right to self defense, and any tool which may be used to defend one's self is therefore an extension of that right.  I never said I, or anyone, should lay down due to the lack of weapons.  But at the same time there should be no limit to what weapons one can use.  Allowing these restrictions only emboldens them to make more restrictions until we no longer have access to any weapons. 

 

Felons in prison have forfeited certain rights, this is what we have come to agree upon to be a civilized society. They have the right to self defense with whatever their opponents have, and since they attempt to keep all weapons away from all parties that leaves guns out.

 

As far as citizenship goes, I agree with you to a point.  But currently we would need to change the Constitution in order to change that, and that should not be taken lightly because they may change more than that.

[Oh Shoot]

Like I have said many times, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer so my question is, when a person enters our country illegally is he committing a felony or is it a misdemeanor?...

 

First time illegal entry is a misdemeanor, subsequent times are felonies. (8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien)

 

Which makes all this talk about making it a mandatory 5 year sentence for entry after a deportation rather stupid. It's already up to a two year sentence for doing it, but obviously never enforced.

 

However, note that this is not for illegal presence, but illegal entry. Meaning, the legal system has come to regard illegal presence as a separate issue. Started with folks who did not enter the US illegally, but say overstayed an expired visa, now seems to be applied to anyone caught after the fact of entry.

 

- OS

[Chucktshoes]

Those of you defending the abrogation of rights by government by claiming that rights are, or can be, granted by others make my head hurt. You do the work of those you say you oppose. While an entity may have the physical ability to prevent one from exercising their rights through violence or the threat thereof, it does not make that action legitimate. The illegitimacy of those acts of violence is what provides the justification to act in self defense. To claim that rights are granted by others grants legitimacy to their violent acts to remove those rights.

TLDR: if you think government grants rights, you don't understand what a right is. Edited August 29, 2015 by Chucktshoes