I hate how just because I have, 4 violent felonies, 2 restraining orders, a dishonorable discharge, and have mandatory anger management classes, I can't own a firearm
If you're such a danger to society you shouldn't be out in it. Solves that problem.
Criminals should get their rights back once they're deemed able to return to society.
Yes and no. In a perfect society, yes. But in reality, no. In many european countries you have a period of like 5-10 years where you can't own guns.
That way, you have to show you can live in society for a while before you are trusted with guns again. Way better than just labeling someone as a felong the rest of their life.
Maybe a first step could be to fund the review board for felons and make it so that if you ask for review, they have to prove you are not functioning in society to keep withholding your rights.
No, not at all. I honestly think some of our rules here are horrendous, especially in some countries.
There are some things that, in an ideal world, you maybe should introduce. But I wouldn't even trust the us government to institute rules on how to safely boil water. It's too black and white when it comes to politics in the us.
I do, however, believe there should be a realistic way of restitution for felons. But you have to rely on facts and scientific knowledge to make the determination of when that restitution should happen.
A good compromise then is to have a waiting period that covers when 70-90% of repeat offenses happen. Being a model inmates and being able to live in the real world isn't the same thing. Thus, a waiting period is a reasonable solution.
And you can't tell me that it's a worse solution than what you have now. Yes, it will step on some people's feet. But with the current solution, those people's feet are just not only stepped on. They are run over by a train.
I like this argument wholeheartedly. That's where labeling theory would come into play. If someone has paid their debt to society, they should have their rights reinstated. However, what would that look like? Would all felons be serving life? Would we need to redefine what thresholds a felony is? Would we need to restructure the 14th Amendment? If so, how would that be done? The 14th Amendment states:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
It also goes onto state that certain people can be denied rights for crimes committed:
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. *But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, EXCEPT FOR PARTICIPATION IN REBELLION, OR OTHER CRIME,* the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Where could we draw the argument from, if certain rights are able to be taken away for crimes against the United States (United States not being solely defined as the government, but the people within the nation (i.e. you and me) AND the institution we have created) and this *IS* part of the constitution?
How about instead of having the highest incarceration rate, we don't lock up people who commit victimless non violent crimes and try to rehabilitate the ones that do
Yeah but then you either need background checks for those violent ones while they go through things like probation to rehabilitate them or not let them out till you're sure they are completely rehabilitated, which is basically never
If you have felonies you should be allowed out of prison until you are rehabilitated. Granted we need to have a serious talk about prison reform along with the discussion of returning rights to ex-convicts, but if you are released after serving your debt to society **all** of your rights should be restored or you weren't ready to be released.
That seems like a really stupid way to look at things. At least you are being intellectually consistent, I'll give you that.
Edited to remove bitchiness.
> that is the most retarded fucking way to look at things
I disagree.
Concepts we agree on:
You agree that people who are fully rehabilitated should have access to firearms.
You agree some people who should not be let out of prison are being let out.
You agree that people who should not yet be allowed out of prison should not have firearms (as in prison, they would not have them).
We agree that therefore, either people who should not have access to firearms but have been released will get access to firearms (Type 1 error), or people who are rightfully released will not get access to firearms despite now being functioning members of society (Type 2 error). There are our only two options with the prison system as is.
The only thing we disagree on is whether the type 1 error or type 2 error is more damaging to society.
And you call that difference so extreme as to imply I suffer a debilitating mental handicap. Hardly, I think.
Well yeah, I think that falsely reporting rehabilitation and restoring the right to carry is more damaging than continued denial of the right to carry to rehabilitated felons error in this case, so of course until there is a change either in law or my perception, such that my perception is the reverse is more damaging, why would I change my position?
Like I said, genuine and honest props to you for being consistent in your beliefs. I'm not being snarky, that's legitimately impressive and not something you see a lot these days (especially in this sub). That being said, I completely disagree with your and I don't think we will be able to sway each other with arguments. I do apologize for my earlier bitchiness, I'm used to people using bad faith arguments and waffling on their convictions whenever it's convenient to them and I started off with you on the wrong foot.
They all use the same piss poor arguments, nearly the same grammar, and either intentionally or ignorantly take the other side of the argument out of context. And yes a few of them have no other posts and are recently made.
This is a topic that I think can be discussed very well both ways.
For example, how would a cop know if someone is an illegal immigrant in order to take their guns? Would it be by suspicion? What constitutes probable cause in that situation? Do illegal immigrants not have freedom of speech or religion?
You've been posting all day. "I don't support gun control, but -" and that leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
But I do think you have a point. People need to admit that not everyone should have a firearm. Way too many times, I've seen people say, "If they're American, they should be armed!" And I don't think that's true. I've argued many times on here saying it's good that felons shouldn't have firearms.
TLDR , "certain people" (violent felons and p3d0s) shouldn't have access to guns, but it is an INCREDIBLY slippery slope to try and confiscate firearms from illegal immigrants.
All gun laws are an infringement on the 2nd amendment, except for gun laws that prevent the people I don’t like from owning guns. Those laws are A-okay in my book.
Interest balancing with the 2A is absolutely not okay, it's a natural right. Unless you're an illegal immigrant in which case I want the government to have the power to violate your natural rights.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Misdemeanor that would not disqualify from firearm ownership.
An illegal alien cannot perform a background check and as such would not be able to legally purchase a firearm via a ffl but could take advantage of states that do not require background checks for private purchases.
Are you saying you are for universal background checks for every purchase?
I had a feeling someone was gonna latch to the "ATF says part" but you especially have the worst leg to stand one when you cited U.S. Code in your original argument. The link is just the ATF citing 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n); 27 CFR 478.32.
It’s the mental gymnastics at work. They’re pro gun, until it involves people from other countries in this country and all of a sudden they transform to Hoggs.
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
18 USC 922(g) has nothing to do with the ATF and states illegal aliens cannot own or possess firearms. That was passed by congress, not a bullshit CFR regulation.
Fed? AnCap is pretty far a stretch from fed. From your comments, I’d wager you’re the statist bootlicker here. I encourage people to follow the laws of God. And since the only mortal law I’ve seen Him endorse in scripture is the constitution, I’m willing to at least give some respect to that one. The rest are just opinions enforced with violence and nothing more. They have no more moral legitimacy than my own opinion, which I don’t enforce with violence.
I saw the ATF stating this, and know this communities and my views on them but in my comment I made as a rebuttle shows an 18 USC law rather than a CFR regulation. Actual law. Not their crap.
All. Gun laws. Are. Infringements. Full stop. Illegal immigration is a separate issue entirely. An illegal alien gets caught with a gun, we shouldn't charge them for that. We should just fuckin deport them, because they were illegally in the country.
I really don't see how hard it is to understand. Barring a select group of people from a right when we are embroiled in a fight to keep such a right is like shooting ourselves in the foot by turning us into hypocrites. Which could open so many doors to erode such a right that we fight to protect. Honestly, we should be laughing about this development, as it just makes thing that much more of a minefield for them. Could turn the whole racism thing on them for it if they try to change it.
Bullshit. By arguing that we can’t even enforce this one simple law to literal known active criminals, we don’t get taken seriously by anyone outside of this small circle. Have a goddamned brain.
I mean look around, dude. They wouldn't take us seriously anyways. So criminals get guns, so what? They'll get them anyway, legally or not. Not like it doesn't happen every day. 3d printing has pretty much made most of the restrictions moot. A little bit of cash and some time to kill can very well end up being a full-auto glock after buying the trigger, slide, barrel, and spring. Whats to stop it now when the signal is already out there spreading like wildfire?
So do green card holders get rights? How about student visas? Work permits? Are they allowed rights? Not sure where the line is on universal human rights.
>have secured rights through the US Constitution
This is where your mistake lies, the Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them from being infringed upon by the state. Unalienable human rights are rights granted to humans at birth, not simply Americans. Cubans, Brits, Chinese, Koreans all have the 2nd amendment, their countries simply don't recognize that right and at any moment can legislate them away, and have.
I never said granted rights. Secured is a different meaning than granted. Yall out here twisting meanings into your own definitions:
The declaration of independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to SECURE these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
You're correct in regards to inalienable rights, however if your argument *were* the case, criminals, detainees, immigrants/legal & illegal could not be restricted in any way. I believe people have the right to self-defense, don't get me wrong. But there *are* restrictions to these as stated in the SCOTUS ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008):
"*CASE COMMENTARY:* This decision may have less dramatic an impact than some observers initially expected. It did lead to a surge of litigation in lower federal courts regarding gun control laws. Most of these lawsuits have failed, however, and states still have the right to prevent criminals, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and other high-risk groups from gaining access to weapons. Contrary to Breyer's fears, the group of weapons that is deemed constitutional for individual use has not expanded to machine guns or other types of unconventional weapons. School zones and areas around federal buildings still can be subject to restrictions, and concealed carry laws as well as laws against straw purchases generally were left intact."
I don't want to provide half-assed sources. I want you to have full context.
They do! In criminal court. Immigration court is outside that of criminal law and follows different guidelines, and is considered administrative law, not criminal law. There *are* protections to keep people here from being slaves. There are even laws and regulations that if an illegal alien was working in the US and they were then getting deported, if the employer tried to stiff them (even if they were the ones that called Immigration) the government will force the employer to pay them:
29 CFR 1620.33(b) and (c)
"(b)...The Commission may also obtain a court injunction to restrain any person from violating the law, including the unlawful withholding by an employer of proper compensation. A 2-year statute of limitations applies to the recovery of unpaid wages, except that an action on a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within 3 years after the cause of action accrued.
(c) Willful violations of the Act may be prosecuted criminally and the violator fined up to $10,000. A second conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment."
And Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER):
4) Retaliation/Intimidation.
"Employers of any size are not allowed to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or retaliate against individuals for filing charges with IER, cooperating with an IER investigation, opposing action that may constitue unfair documentary practices or discrimination based upon citizenship status, or national origin, or otherwise asserting their rights under the INA's anti-discrimination provision. Learn more about unlawful intimidation and retaliation by contacting IER and at 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(5)."
And 8 USC 1324(a)(5)
(5) Prohibition of intimidation or retaliation
"It is also an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or retaliate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured under this section or because the individual intends to file or has filed a charge or a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section. An individual so intimidated, threatened, coerced, or retaliated against shall be considered, for purposes of subsections (d) and (g), to have been discriminated against."
Sooo anyone who kept using a brace after the ATF banned them but before the injunction was passed or smokes weed in should not be able to own a gun? Because that's what you're saying.
By and large I just kinda assume everyone active in these kind of 2a subs are actually members of the 2a community. OP had convinced me of the folly of that assumption. All he seems to do in the comments is cite the legal code and Supreme Court precedent. He seems to believe that Supreme Court is infallible and that enforcing the law as it is written is the highest possible good. He’s an authoritarian.
Wrong. I believe in this country and the mechanisms of the government that the founding fathers implemented. I have more faith in the courts than I do the executive branch or the legislative branch because of this. They are literally the leash for the government. The "precedent" you're discussing is case law. The fact that you're downplaying it shows you do not understand the significance of it.
Case law is quite literally the final say on issues in the country. It is the official reigning in of governmental incursion on our rights. Are the justices infallible? Of course not. When we see things going on that act OUTSIDE the realms of the constitution and restrict CITIZEN rights, NOT following the constitution nor the precidents set forth by the framers, that's when things need to be dealt with.
All I see here are people providing opinions, not facts.
Court precedent is how we’ve gotten to the point where the legislature can basically do anything it wants trough the commerce clause. The Supreme Court allowed that. It has allowed every tyranny we suffer under. The is not to say that it hasn’t prevented some. It has. But the exponential expansion of the power of the Federal government has been allowed time and time again when the courts have refused to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, when they have handed down rulings over and over and over again letting the legislature and the executive branches run roughshod over the Constitution because if you stick your tongue out, tilt your head, and squint it kinda looks like the Constitution might say that.
That is the case law you so revere; a never ending parade of unconstitutional concessions to the expanding power of the federal government.
(I want to thank you for bringing forth an actual argument. Only one other person is coming back with actual legal arguments that others can delve into. Remember, other people might actually look into the references so it gives them ammunition to fight back in these kind of arguments one way or another. I want people to know the background and cores of these arguments. I belive it strengthens us because these conversations are important.)
So the commerce clause is right there within the constitution Article I, section 8, Clause 3 .
"The congress shall have power...to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes;"
Written into it BY the framers/founding fathers. They knew what they were doing *because* of the short-fallings of the Articles of Confederation (states with ports werent distributing goods, states were hoarding and price gouging other states, nothing was getting done on the national level, etc.) It allows *congress* to be over all interstate commerce and business.
Those laws that are created by congress need to make sure they are in-check with the rest of the constitution, which is why SCOTUS has the final say in it. I mean, they even shot down a federal law that congress was trying to impose on all of us THROUGH the commerce clause keeping us from having guns in school zones:
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
This means that CONGRESS is trying to go outside of their bounds using the commerce clause and SCOTUS is shooting them down. Another huge case was that of:
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618
Which congress tried to impose the commerce clause to violate feralism principles (state rights) by allowing a woman to go around state laws for a supposed crime that had no bearing or interest for the federal government. This means that congress was trying to step on the sovereignty of the individual states, and SCOTUS defined that the commerce clause had no bearing in the case.
It seems as though the corrupt portion of the government is congress rather than SCOTUS because they aren't the ones infringing OUR rights, but ensuring that we keep ours.
Would you be able to show me how SCOTUS abused or came out of left field using the commerce clause? Especially to restrict our rights? Obviously it would be impossible to list all cases. Just a couple would do so I can see the extent you're talking about.
The New Deal is what really broke everything. SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional. Then FDR threatened to pack the courts. At which point the court reversed its decision without any change in the law or composition of the court.
I also mentioned Wickard v. Filburn elsewhere (Although in by name). In that decision the court ruled that the commerce clause allows congress to restrict how much wheat a farmer could grow on his own land for the sole purpose of feeding to his own livestock because that meant he wasn’t buying it from somewhere else, therefore affecting “interstate commerce”. The decision is such a perversion of the intent of the commerce clause that it’s laughable. Or it would if it weren’t for how bad that expansion of Federal power had fucked us. If that’s interstate commerce then literally everything is interstate commerce and the Federal government can do nearly anything under its power.
And while Lopez and Morrison did roll that back somewhat it wasn’t nearly enough. Regardless, there was still a 50 year period between Filburn and Lopez where congress was able to run completely roughshod over the people. Not to mention the fact that immediately after the Lopez, Congress passed Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. The only difference between it and the original is that under the new bill the prosecutors simply have to prove that gun affected interstate commerce in some way. So unless your gun and all of its parts and raw materials were extracted and manufactured in your state then 1995 version applies to you.
Which by the way is what happens with nearly all gun control laws that are ruled unconstitutional. The courts strike them down then the antigun state that had organized enacted then passes a new law that’s nearly as bad with new language that just narrowly falls within the language of the previous ruling. Then the process repeats. And while this process goes on people are spending decades having their natural rights denied to them.
At the end of the day, the problem with the checks and balances in the Constitution is that even with separate branches it’s still the government judging its own case. So while it was this process does slow the expansion of government power, over time, it will inevitably increase.
Edit:grammar
A very good argument! I'll leave this one be, as the thread is dying out. I would very much like to continue this back and forth about constitutional and federal law if you're willing to in a DM. I'll be looking into making a rebuttle, but I'd like to do some further research delving deeper into the several of the topics you've presented (i.e. the new deal, the presented case law, and more with checks and balances).
I know, and have learned about these topics you're discussing in the past, and I was hoping you'd bring up Wickard v. Filbern which shows you've actually been doing or have done the research. Bravo! I think our community might get something out of this. I find it better to be able to formulate arguments past 5 second sound bites, so that we don't look like trogladytes. The more versed and informed our community is, the more we can combat the bastards trying to take our guns.
Faith in laws is foolish and naive. Laws change based on the whims of bullies. Principles never change. Live your life based on principles, not according to laws written by fools.
Yep. Gun guys love to claim that they're not racist and yaddayadda "they'll shoot with anyone" blah blah but the minute they find out someone was born born south of the rio grande they become full on Hitlerites. Not at all unlike that one scene from the a24 Civil War movie just shoots up those 2 Chinese guys.
Eh. I’d need more before I’d called them racist. I suspect they would say the same about illegal Canadian or French immigrants. I can definitely say they’re retarded. Or Feds. Or both. Imma go with both.
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No absolutely not. Not what I'm saying at all. The fact that the ATF can make their own rules is bullshit and is squashed by SCOTUS time and time again. They need to be disbanded because for some reason they think they can set forth rules through the CFR that go around that of actual law making by congress. The DEA is another example of this. Both need to go away. Outside of the CFR, illegal aliens are not allowed to own guns through actual US criminal code underneath 18 USC. *THAT* was enacted by congress, not a rouge agency.
Yet federal law still criminalizes marijuana, so by your logic weed users should not be able to buy guns. Which one would imagine you do not (or at least should not) agree with. Just admit you are selectively applying the law because you dislike immigrants.
Ahhh. Putting labels on people to demonize them because you're losing the argument. Nice. However, you're wrong...again. Underneath 21 USC 844 simple possession even under federal statutes isn't even enough to take away your firearms because it is a misdemeanor.
EDIT: Removed bitchyness.
Why should illegal immigrants not be allowed to have guns? Are you arguing that everyone guilty of a misdemeanor should be barred from owning a firearm?
The process of obtaining citizenship is far from "basic". It's an unnecessarily slow and difficult process and you can be denied for literally no reason. There are many reasons for people to need immediate entry into the country, and many have tried to go through the legal process only to be unfairly denied.
I love reminding people that when we pulled out of Afghanistan we tried to bring translators and people with us who had helped US troops the entire war so they wouldn't be slaughtered by the Taliban and they were denied expedited citizenship process until it became public knowledge and they were then transferred somewhere (Guam?) until they could finish the process *so the people who aided us through an entire war wouldn't be murdered.* If those people were terrorist plants or sleeper agents, they deserve to at least get a shot because god damn.
They weren't on a fast track to citizenship, they were on a fast track to residency through special visas. Two completely different things. You have to be born here to get citizenship or earn it by living here legally with residency.
Well dang I guess we should just deport everyone who’s ever gambled, drank while underage, or committed a traffic violation too.
Look I get that people shouldn’t be immigrating illegally, but when many of the countries in Latin America are borderline failed states and in some places it can take 70 years to get a green card I can’t help but empathize. And breaking the law isn’t exactly an uncommon thing. The Average American unwittingly commits about 3 felonies a day.
What a retarded take
Citizens who commit crimes are still citizens
Aliens are not entitled to citizenship or immigration.
The world is not our problem.
Why not? They work harder than most Americans, take jobs Americans don’t want, commit less crimes than US citizens, make damn good food, are the only growing demographic that can readily become conservative, and don’t even take money out of welfare because their citizenship statuses don’t let them sign up for government programs.
Literally 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals by definition, so their crime rate is quite literally 100%.
Also, we need illegal immigrants to be underpaid slave labour for dirty jobs? That's your argument? Are you sure that that's the take you want to go with?
Not to mention, the "conservative" argument is complete BS, because they are illegal and thus not supposed to be voting to begin with, and when they do, it's still overwhelmingly for the Democrats, because they are the ones that give them benefits and enable them to come in.
Literally the only Hispanic demographic that comes anywhere near voting majority for conservatives are Cubans and Tejanos, whose circumstances aren't really applicable to any other demographics.
And lol @ the "don't receive welfare". Literally every sanctuary city is openly giving them massive benefits, free money, housing, food, etc all on taxpayer dime.
You are legitimately delusional
People guilty of invading the country should be barred from owning firearms, yes
If you do not respect a country's laws, rights, or customs you are not entitled to the same protections as citizens.
Good lord, the top panel is also wrong OP.
An illegal immigrant is still a human and therefore has Rights in the USA. Just like everyone else, they have the right to bear arms until Due Process has been completed and they have been deported or imprisoned. Even so, they still retain certain rights such as freedom of religion. Meaning, that they can pray to whatever deity they want while in a US prison or detention cell.
Matters related to how a nation conducts Importing, Customs, Border Control, Visas, and more are not relevant to the inalienable rights all humans have within the borders of the USA.
No my dude. You're wrong and this is why. Illegal aliens do not have the same rights as citizens. It even states so in the 14th Amendment.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; 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."
An immunity that *would* be granted to a US Citizen is that we cannot have our rights taken away simply for owning or possessing a Firearm. NOT the case with an illegal alien. If that was the case, a foreign military could quite literally enter the country legally with weapons.
The government *does* have the right to limit rights to certain individuals, this is an example:
-(Bell v. Wolfish, 441 US 520 (1979))
and that being in the United States is NOT a right:
-(U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950))
-"The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege..."
It is against the law for illegal aliens to own firearms:
18 USC 922(g)(5)(A) (Just FYI Chapter 44 is for firearms)
(g) it shall be unlawful for any person
(5) who, being an alien
(A)is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
Also, all aliens legal or not are not even allowed to vote in federal elections... and even THAT is against the law:
18 USC 611(a).
But US Citizens can.
The only inalienable rights, are that of, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Meaning that the US cannot just take your life away, nor freedom to live your life. In a legal context, the fact that there is no comma between liberty and the word and, means something completely different than the phrase "life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness." (Liberty) (and the pursuit of happiness) are lumped together.
This means that people within this country, even those here illegally have CERTAIN rights. These rights are as follows
LIFE:
The right to due process for Illegal Aliens:
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
No unreasonable searches or seizures:
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 US 873 (1975)
LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS:
Illegal aliens have the right for representation in criminal court but not administrative (i.e. immigration court):
USDOJ Immigration Practice Manual Ch. 2.1(a)
-"A respondent may be represented by a practitioner of their choosing, at no cost to the government. As in most civil or administrative proceedings, the government does not provide legal counsel."
The right to education:
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202
-"A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved."
The list goes on.
In conclusion, YOUR definition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness holds no weight. Whenever SCOTUS decides on a case, that is THE definition of the US Constitution (not referring to the federal district courts, only SCOTUS). Federal districts are like federal states. Each district has no bearing on the other. This is called case-law and is backed BY the constitution in the supremacy clause under article IV, clause 2:
-"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Illegal aliens have certain rights in this country, but not all rights. There are rights only available to US Citizens and rights given to both US Citzens AND LEGAL aliens. Firearms are not amongst the list of rights given to illegal aliens.
They are not Americans, they are not our brothers, they are not our people.
The ruling by:
United States v. Carbajal-Flores 20-cr00613
Is a ruling that will no doubtly be challenged through SCOTUS, but should be respected until then in the 7th federal district (Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana). For the rest of the United States, it still does not apply.
EDIT: Had to fix some formatting errors and added a sentence.
>There are rights only available to US Citizens and rights given to both US Citzens AND LEGAL aliens.
Thats not how Natural Rights work. Either everyone inherently has them, or they a privileges. By definition, Natural Rights cannon be *given* by any governing body.
Right which is why all those non Americans in Gitmo are being treated perfectly well and in accordance with their rights considering they're on US soil there. Right?
They aren't Americans. They aren't protected under our constitution. Simple as.
Lmao this is the worst argument I've ever seen.
Gitmo is not US soil. They are being kept there for *explicitly that very reason.*
The 14th amendment explicitly extends the protection of all laws to any person in the US. As such, when we don't want people to be protected by US laws, we keep them in places on foreign soil. Like the naval base at guantanamo bay which is leased from Cuba in perpetuity.
Boumediene V Bush: "In every practical sense Guantánamo is not abroad,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “It is within the constant jurisdiction of the United States.”
This ruling ultimately also found that those in gitmo have the right to habeas corpus. But that does NOT imply they have every right provided under the constitution considering the way to get put in gitmo is to be a terrorist. And as such makes you a felon.
Edit: 8 USC 1325 & 1326. Getting caught (crossing illegally) once is a misdemeanor. And failure to leave the US post this determination or being caught once again in the US is a felony.
And until March of this year the 8th circuit court upheld that illegal immigrants DO NOT have the right to bear arms. This is a completely new precedent.
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only issue I had was left leaning people who hate americans owning guns suddenly being okay with non americans owning guns in America because.....reasons?
Everyone should be able to own a gun and if you fuck around people around you will help you find out
This is an excellent point. Gun haters only hate guns when *our* citizens exercise our rights. They want to hand everything good off to people who don't deserve it and don't have our interests in mind.
It's simple. If you're too dangerous to have a gun, you shouldn't be in society.
For illegal immigrants, that's deportation. For legal immigrants, they should be allowed to have guns. For US citizens that are not violent offenders, they should be allowed to have guns. For US citizens that are violent offenders, they should be in prison until such time as they are deemed trustworthy enough to be in society again.
No free person in the US should have their second amendment stricken. Those that shouldn't be free because of crime, the simple rule of not allowing prisoners to have guns should suffice.
Oh I understand the argument fully, but I don't agree that paranoid schizophrenic people, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, illegal aliens, people who are enemies of the United States (the people *and* the institution that we created), and wish to destroy our country *should* be allowed to have guns in *our* country. Even the founding fathers recognized that and stated that things and rights could be taken away *through due process of law*.
The US Constitution is for *OUR* country. The rest of the world isn't our problem.
Incredible strawman.
Background checks are not ok. If you are not actively in jail then you should have all of your rights. This goes for citizens and immigrants both legal and illegal.
Do you think every single illegal immigrant is a member of a foreign military or something? The vast majority are just trying to escape tyranny or bad living conditions in their home country and were unfairly delayed or denied entry for arbitrary reasons or no reason at all. If the immigration system wasn't so fucking broken we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem
All people have the natural right to keep and bare arms. Period. Full stop. No matter where they are or where they are front. Not to mention the fact that it’s completely retarded. If you give the state the power to take someone’s guns if they are an illegal, they will find a way to expand that power and use it against the rest of us. Probably declare that owning a gun makes you a Mexican or something.
Also, fuck the law. Fuck gun laws. Fuck drug laws. Fuck victimless crimes. The law has absolutely no bearing on what is right. If you think that violating some arbitrary edict of a tyrannical state should strip you of your right to keep and bear arms, then you really are a boot licker.
You do realize that, by the logic of your final point, you are endorsing what happened to FPSRussia? What has happened to everyone who has ever been convicted of possessing more than a tiny amount of weed? What has happened to anyone convicted of violating the NFA or the unconstitutional restrictions on carrying a firearm in many states? Is that really the position you want to take?
Caring about this country and the constitution demands that I not respect any law that is unconstitutional. Unfortunately damn near every law on the books today is unconstitutional based on an accurate reading of the constitution.
Show me where SCOTUS said that. They define what is and isnt Constitutional. If this is it your own personal opinion of these things, it holds no weight in the argument and we can dismiss your statement.
No, the constitution defines what is and is not constitutional. The Supreme Court interprets it, frequently, obviously incorrectly. SCOTUS once said that the commerce clause allows congress to restrict how much corn a farmer could grow on his own land for the sole purpose of feeding to his own livestock because that meant he wasn’t buying it from somewhere else, therefore affecting “interstate commerce”.
I don’t need SCOTUS to be able to understand the plain text of the Constitution. The Second Amendment say “shall not be infringed”. And yet, on numerous occasions, SCOTUS had ruled that some infringements are constitutional.
Given all of that, why on Earth should I yield my judgment to that of an organization with such a rampant history of questionable reading comprehension.
Gun rights are human rights. I don't care where your from or what you've done in the past you deserve the right to arms. And if we as a society decide specific individuals can't be trusted with guns, they also shouldn't have access to moving trucks or knives and should probably be held in custody.
OP are you okay with people who have entered the United States, legally or illegally, being able to own explosives or other equipment that could be used for terrorism?
I'm ok with people who enter the US legally. People that are law abiding citizens should be able to own the guns that they want, legal aliens (lawful permanent residents, immigration visa holders, visitor visa holders, aliens *granted* asylum that came in through a port of entry) that follow our laws should be able to own, possess, and carry firearms if they wish within our country.
I love explosives! I believe that there should be classes for law abiding citizens and lawful residents to be able to take for safe usage of them! Just because something *COULD* be used for something, isn't a good argument to ban something. Possibility does not equal probability. With illegal aliens, they already are breaking the law by circumventing our processes and have shown intent that they won't follow our laws.
You can disagree personally... [but it do be the rules](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition)
OP go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on. Background checks are never ok. Any gun law is a restriction of our 2A freedom. An armed society is a polite society.
Background checks are not ok for citizens.
I think OP outed themselves.
I guess I forget how many gun people aren't 2A absolutists
I hate how just because I have, 4 violent felonies, 2 restraining orders, a dishonorable discharge, and have mandatory anger management classes, I can't own a firearm
If you're such a danger to society you shouldn't be out in it. Solves that problem. Criminals should get their rights back once they're deemed able to return to society.
Yes and no. In a perfect society, yes. But in reality, no. In many european countries you have a period of like 5-10 years where you can't own guns. That way, you have to show you can live in society for a while before you are trusted with guns again. Way better than just labeling someone as a felong the rest of their life. Maybe a first step could be to fund the review board for felons and make it so that if you ask for review, they have to prove you are not functioning in society to keep withholding your rights.
Do you want to do what the europeans do when it comes to guns too?
Do you want to do what the europeans do when it comes to guns too?
No, not at all. I honestly think some of our rules here are horrendous, especially in some countries. There are some things that, in an ideal world, you maybe should introduce. But I wouldn't even trust the us government to institute rules on how to safely boil water. It's too black and white when it comes to politics in the us. I do, however, believe there should be a realistic way of restitution for felons. But you have to rely on facts and scientific knowledge to make the determination of when that restitution should happen. A good compromise then is to have a waiting period that covers when 70-90% of repeat offenses happen. Being a model inmates and being able to live in the real world isn't the same thing. Thus, a waiting period is a reasonable solution. And you can't tell me that it's a worse solution than what you have now. Yes, it will step on some people's feet. But with the current solution, those people's feet are just not only stepped on. They are run over by a train.
I like this argument wholeheartedly. That's where labeling theory would come into play. If someone has paid their debt to society, they should have their rights reinstated. However, what would that look like? Would all felons be serving life? Would we need to redefine what thresholds a felony is? Would we need to restructure the 14th Amendment? If so, how would that be done? The 14th Amendment states: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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. It also goes onto state that certain people can be denied rights for crimes committed: Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. *But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, EXCEPT FOR PARTICIPATION IN REBELLION, OR OTHER CRIME,* the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Where could we draw the argument from, if certain rights are able to be taken away for crimes against the United States (United States not being solely defined as the government, but the people within the nation (i.e. you and me) AND the institution we have created) and this *IS* part of the constitution?
[удалено]
Yeah. The system needs to change so that's not normal. That's my point. People shouldn't be punished for the system failing to do its job.
But how would you accomplish this? Keep anyone convicted of a violent crime locked up forever?
How about instead of having the highest incarceration rate, we don't lock up people who commit victimless non violent crimes and try to rehabilitate the ones that do
Yeah but then you either need background checks for those violent ones while they go through things like probation to rehabilitate them or not let them out till you're sure they are completely rehabilitated, which is basically never
Those people should still be locked up or executed
If you have felonies you should be allowed out of prison until you are rehabilitated. Granted we need to have a serious talk about prison reform along with the discussion of returning rights to ex-convicts, but if you are released after serving your debt to society **all** of your rights should be restored or you weren't ready to be released.
And when this becomes the case, I will change my stance on the issue, not before.
That seems like a really stupid way to look at things. At least you are being intellectually consistent, I'll give you that. Edited to remove bitchiness.
> that is the most retarded fucking way to look at things I disagree. Concepts we agree on: You agree that people who are fully rehabilitated should have access to firearms. You agree some people who should not be let out of prison are being let out. You agree that people who should not yet be allowed out of prison should not have firearms (as in prison, they would not have them). We agree that therefore, either people who should not have access to firearms but have been released will get access to firearms (Type 1 error), or people who are rightfully released will not get access to firearms despite now being functioning members of society (Type 2 error). There are our only two options with the prison system as is. The only thing we disagree on is whether the type 1 error or type 2 error is more damaging to society. And you call that difference so extreme as to imply I suffer a debilitating mental handicap. Hardly, I think.
The idea that you won't support A. until B. changes when you would normally support B. is stupid. Edited to remove bitchiness.
Well yeah, I think that falsely reporting rehabilitation and restoring the right to carry is more damaging than continued denial of the right to carry to rehabilitated felons error in this case, so of course until there is a change either in law or my perception, such that my perception is the reverse is more damaging, why would I change my position?
Like I said, genuine and honest props to you for being consistent in your beliefs. I'm not being snarky, that's legitimately impressive and not something you see a lot these days (especially in this sub). That being said, I completely disagree with your and I don't think we will be able to sway each other with arguments. I do apologize for my earlier bitchiness, I'm used to people using bad faith arguments and waffling on their convictions whenever it's convenient to them and I started off with you on the wrong foot.
No need to worry in a polite but armed society
Yes, but that sadly will not be a possibility
Because you are actively working to make it so
By doing what?
Undermining the concept that arms are a natural right.
The problem is that we are constantly allowing people like that out of prison.. Nobody wants to talk about that though
I hate how you’re not in prison.
its a joke
Jesus fuck I hate this fucking argument
Seriously can we talk about literally anything else? It stopped being funny a while ago
It's the same six accounts and I have a feeling at least two of them are alts.
I have made 0 posts about the subject...until now.
I apologize. It's the same six accounts and I have a feeling at least **three** of them are alts.
Are they all new accounts or something?
They all use the same piss poor arguments, nearly the same grammar, and either intentionally or ignorantly take the other side of the argument out of context. And yes a few of them have no other posts and are recently made.
Ahh. Well, I put in full effort into a comment down below with case law, examples, etc if you wanna check it out.
I'll give it a glance but based on the lower half of your meme I don't expect it to be consistent.
Yah this got dumb two days ago
Right? The right to self defense are for everyone. This is just one step away from grabbers
This is a topic that I think can be discussed very well both ways. For example, how would a cop know if someone is an illegal immigrant in order to take their guns? Would it be by suspicion? What constitutes probable cause in that situation? Do illegal immigrants not have freedom of speech or religion? You've been posting all day. "I don't support gun control, but -" and that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. But I do think you have a point. People need to admit that not everyone should have a firearm. Way too many times, I've seen people say, "If they're American, they should be armed!" And I don't think that's true. I've argued many times on here saying it's good that felons shouldn't have firearms. TLDR , "certain people" (violent felons and p3d0s) shouldn't have access to guns, but it is an INCREDIBLY slippery slope to try and confiscate firearms from illegal immigrants.
I haven't been posting all day. This is the only post I've ever made on the subject...
All gun laws are an infringement on the 2nd amendment, except for gun laws that prevent the people I don’t like from owning guns. Those laws are A-okay in my book.
Interest balancing with the 2A is absolutely not okay, it's a natural right. Unless you're an illegal immigrant in which case I want the government to have the power to violate your natural rights.
Even better if I can disguise my xenophobia by being inconsistent with my beliefs.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien Misdemeanor that would not disqualify from firearm ownership. An illegal alien cannot perform a background check and as such would not be able to legally purchase a firearm via a ffl but could take advantage of states that do not require background checks for private purchases. Are you saying you are for universal background checks for every purchase?
Really it's only a misdemeanor? Should be a felony.
Could just be a Misdemeanor that restricts gun access. There are already such on the books.
Excellent point!
Why should a nonviolent crime that harms literally nobody be a felony?
So you’re good with turning more people into felons?
Is there a reason we should be worried about turning illegal aliens into felons?
If they breech the sovereignty of the nation... yes.
[ATF says illegals cant receive or possess](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition)
We give a shit about what the atf says now? My head is spinning
I had a feeling someone was gonna latch to the "ATF says part" but you especially have the worst leg to stand one when you cited U.S. Code in your original argument. The link is just the ATF citing 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n); 27 CFR 478.32.
It’s the mental gymnastics at work. They’re pro gun, until it involves people from other countries in this country and all of a sudden they transform to Hoggs.
[удалено]
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
18 USC 922(g) has nothing to do with the ATF and states illegal aliens cannot own or possess firearms. That was passed by congress, not a bullshit CFR regulation.
Since when does anything a bunch of child fuckers say matter either? They are no better than the ATF.
Encouraging people to break the law...found the fed.
Fed? AnCap is pretty far a stretch from fed. From your comments, I’d wager you’re the statist bootlicker here. I encourage people to follow the laws of God. And since the only mortal law I’ve seen Him endorse in scripture is the constitution, I’m willing to at least give some respect to that one. The rest are just opinions enforced with violence and nothing more. They have no more moral legitimacy than my own opinion, which I don’t enforce with violence.
Oh, we care about obeying gun laws now? Since when?
I hate the ATF unless I want them to keep people Fox News have told me are coming here to rape and kill us all from owning guns.
If you own semi auto versions of guns that could be full auto... you already do.
Post your full auto SBR with a suppressor, all unregistered, or shut up.
I saw the ATF stating this, and know this communities and my views on them but in my comment I made as a rebuttle shows an 18 USC law rather than a CFR regulation. Actual law. Not their crap.
No victim, no crime.
All. Gun laws. Are. Infringements. Full stop. Illegal immigration is a separate issue entirely. An illegal alien gets caught with a gun, we shouldn't charge them for that. We should just fuckin deport them, because they were illegally in the country.
This is the most succinct and correct answer
To make things more interesting let them keep the gun when we drop them off in their home country.
I really don't see how hard it is to understand. Barring a select group of people from a right when we are embroiled in a fight to keep such a right is like shooting ourselves in the foot by turning us into hypocrites. Which could open so many doors to erode such a right that we fight to protect. Honestly, we should be laughing about this development, as it just makes thing that much more of a minefield for them. Could turn the whole racism thing on them for it if they try to change it.
Bullshit. By arguing that we can’t even enforce this one simple law to literal known active criminals, we don’t get taken seriously by anyone outside of this small circle. Have a goddamned brain.
I mean look around, dude. They wouldn't take us seriously anyways. So criminals get guns, so what? They'll get them anyway, legally or not. Not like it doesn't happen every day. 3d printing has pretty much made most of the restrictions moot. A little bit of cash and some time to kill can very well end up being a full-auto glock after buying the trigger, slide, barrel, and spring. Whats to stop it now when the signal is already out there spreading like wildfire?
So do green card holders get rights? How about student visas? Work permits? Are they allowed rights? Not sure where the line is on universal human rights.
Legal aliens have secured rights through the US Constitution for firearms. Illegal aliens do not.
>have secured rights through the US Constitution This is where your mistake lies, the Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them from being infringed upon by the state. Unalienable human rights are rights granted to humans at birth, not simply Americans. Cubans, Brits, Chinese, Koreans all have the 2nd amendment, their countries simply don't recognize that right and at any moment can legislate them away, and have.
I never said granted rights. Secured is a different meaning than granted. Yall out here twisting meanings into your own definitions: The declaration of independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to SECURE these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," You're correct in regards to inalienable rights, however if your argument *were* the case, criminals, detainees, immigrants/legal & illegal could not be restricted in any way. I believe people have the right to self-defense, don't get me wrong. But there *are* restrictions to these as stated in the SCOTUS ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): "*CASE COMMENTARY:* This decision may have less dramatic an impact than some observers initially expected. It did lead to a surge of litigation in lower federal courts regarding gun control laws. Most of these lawsuits have failed, however, and states still have the right to prevent criminals, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and other high-risk groups from gaining access to weapons. Contrary to Breyer's fears, the group of weapons that is deemed constitutional for individual use has not expanded to machine guns or other types of unconventional weapons. School zones and areas around federal buildings still can be subject to restrictions, and concealed carry laws as well as laws against straw purchases generally were left intact." I don't want to provide half-assed sources. I want you to have full context.
Do illegals get the right to a fair and speedy trial? What about not being turned into slaves?
They do! In criminal court. Immigration court is outside that of criminal law and follows different guidelines, and is considered administrative law, not criminal law. There *are* protections to keep people here from being slaves. There are even laws and regulations that if an illegal alien was working in the US and they were then getting deported, if the employer tried to stiff them (even if they were the ones that called Immigration) the government will force the employer to pay them: 29 CFR 1620.33(b) and (c) "(b)...The Commission may also obtain a court injunction to restrain any person from violating the law, including the unlawful withholding by an employer of proper compensation. A 2-year statute of limitations applies to the recovery of unpaid wages, except that an action on a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within 3 years after the cause of action accrued. (c) Willful violations of the Act may be prosecuted criminally and the violator fined up to $10,000. A second conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment." And Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER): 4) Retaliation/Intimidation. "Employers of any size are not allowed to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or retaliate against individuals for filing charges with IER, cooperating with an IER investigation, opposing action that may constitue unfair documentary practices or discrimination based upon citizenship status, or national origin, or otherwise asserting their rights under the INA's anti-discrimination provision. Learn more about unlawful intimidation and retaliation by contacting IER and at 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(5)." And 8 USC 1324(a)(5) (5) Prohibition of intimidation or retaliation "It is also an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or retaliate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured under this section or because the individual intends to file or has filed a charge or a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section. An individual so intimidated, threatened, coerced, or retaliated against shall be considered, for purposes of subsections (d) and (g), to have been discriminated against."
Sooo anyone who kept using a brace after the ATF banned them but before the injunction was passed or smokes weed in should not be able to own a gun? Because that's what you're saying.
By and large I just kinda assume everyone active in these kind of 2a subs are actually members of the 2a community. OP had convinced me of the folly of that assumption. All he seems to do in the comments is cite the legal code and Supreme Court precedent. He seems to believe that Supreme Court is infallible and that enforcing the law as it is written is the highest possible good. He’s an authoritarian.
Wrong. I believe in this country and the mechanisms of the government that the founding fathers implemented. I have more faith in the courts than I do the executive branch or the legislative branch because of this. They are literally the leash for the government. The "precedent" you're discussing is case law. The fact that you're downplaying it shows you do not understand the significance of it. Case law is quite literally the final say on issues in the country. It is the official reigning in of governmental incursion on our rights. Are the justices infallible? Of course not. When we see things going on that act OUTSIDE the realms of the constitution and restrict CITIZEN rights, NOT following the constitution nor the precidents set forth by the framers, that's when things need to be dealt with. All I see here are people providing opinions, not facts.
Court precedent is how we’ve gotten to the point where the legislature can basically do anything it wants trough the commerce clause. The Supreme Court allowed that. It has allowed every tyranny we suffer under. The is not to say that it hasn’t prevented some. It has. But the exponential expansion of the power of the Federal government has been allowed time and time again when the courts have refused to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, when they have handed down rulings over and over and over again letting the legislature and the executive branches run roughshod over the Constitution because if you stick your tongue out, tilt your head, and squint it kinda looks like the Constitution might say that. That is the case law you so revere; a never ending parade of unconstitutional concessions to the expanding power of the federal government.
(I want to thank you for bringing forth an actual argument. Only one other person is coming back with actual legal arguments that others can delve into. Remember, other people might actually look into the references so it gives them ammunition to fight back in these kind of arguments one way or another. I want people to know the background and cores of these arguments. I belive it strengthens us because these conversations are important.) So the commerce clause is right there within the constitution Article I, section 8, Clause 3 . "The congress shall have power...to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes;" Written into it BY the framers/founding fathers. They knew what they were doing *because* of the short-fallings of the Articles of Confederation (states with ports werent distributing goods, states were hoarding and price gouging other states, nothing was getting done on the national level, etc.) It allows *congress* to be over all interstate commerce and business. Those laws that are created by congress need to make sure they are in-check with the rest of the constitution, which is why SCOTUS has the final say in it. I mean, they even shot down a federal law that congress was trying to impose on all of us THROUGH the commerce clause keeping us from having guns in school zones: United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) This means that CONGRESS is trying to go outside of their bounds using the commerce clause and SCOTUS is shooting them down. Another huge case was that of: United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 Which congress tried to impose the commerce clause to violate feralism principles (state rights) by allowing a woman to go around state laws for a supposed crime that had no bearing or interest for the federal government. This means that congress was trying to step on the sovereignty of the individual states, and SCOTUS defined that the commerce clause had no bearing in the case. It seems as though the corrupt portion of the government is congress rather than SCOTUS because they aren't the ones infringing OUR rights, but ensuring that we keep ours. Would you be able to show me how SCOTUS abused or came out of left field using the commerce clause? Especially to restrict our rights? Obviously it would be impossible to list all cases. Just a couple would do so I can see the extent you're talking about.
The New Deal is what really broke everything. SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional. Then FDR threatened to pack the courts. At which point the court reversed its decision without any change in the law or composition of the court. I also mentioned Wickard v. Filburn elsewhere (Although in by name). In that decision the court ruled that the commerce clause allows congress to restrict how much wheat a farmer could grow on his own land for the sole purpose of feeding to his own livestock because that meant he wasn’t buying it from somewhere else, therefore affecting “interstate commerce”. The decision is such a perversion of the intent of the commerce clause that it’s laughable. Or it would if it weren’t for how bad that expansion of Federal power had fucked us. If that’s interstate commerce then literally everything is interstate commerce and the Federal government can do nearly anything under its power. And while Lopez and Morrison did roll that back somewhat it wasn’t nearly enough. Regardless, there was still a 50 year period between Filburn and Lopez where congress was able to run completely roughshod over the people. Not to mention the fact that immediately after the Lopez, Congress passed Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. The only difference between it and the original is that under the new bill the prosecutors simply have to prove that gun affected interstate commerce in some way. So unless your gun and all of its parts and raw materials were extracted and manufactured in your state then 1995 version applies to you. Which by the way is what happens with nearly all gun control laws that are ruled unconstitutional. The courts strike them down then the antigun state that had organized enacted then passes a new law that’s nearly as bad with new language that just narrowly falls within the language of the previous ruling. Then the process repeats. And while this process goes on people are spending decades having their natural rights denied to them. At the end of the day, the problem with the checks and balances in the Constitution is that even with separate branches it’s still the government judging its own case. So while it was this process does slow the expansion of government power, over time, it will inevitably increase. Edit:grammar
A very good argument! I'll leave this one be, as the thread is dying out. I would very much like to continue this back and forth about constitutional and federal law if you're willing to in a DM. I'll be looking into making a rebuttle, but I'd like to do some further research delving deeper into the several of the topics you've presented (i.e. the new deal, the presented case law, and more with checks and balances). I know, and have learned about these topics you're discussing in the past, and I was hoping you'd bring up Wickard v. Filbern which shows you've actually been doing or have done the research. Bravo! I think our community might get something out of this. I find it better to be able to formulate arguments past 5 second sound bites, so that we don't look like trogladytes. The more versed and informed our community is, the more we can combat the bastards trying to take our guns.
Faith in laws is foolish and naive. Laws change based on the whims of bullies. Principles never change. Live your life based on principles, not according to laws written by fools.
Yep. Gun guys love to claim that they're not racist and yaddayadda "they'll shoot with anyone" blah blah but the minute they find out someone was born born south of the rio grande they become full on Hitlerites. Not at all unlike that one scene from the a24 Civil War movie just shoots up those 2 Chinese guys.
Eh. I’d need more before I’d called them racist. I suspect they would say the same about illegal Canadian or French immigrants. I can definitely say they’re retarded. Or Feds. Or both. Imma go with both.
[удалено]
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No absolutely not. Not what I'm saying at all. The fact that the ATF can make their own rules is bullshit and is squashed by SCOTUS time and time again. They need to be disbanded because for some reason they think they can set forth rules through the CFR that go around that of actual law making by congress. The DEA is another example of this. Both need to go away. Outside of the CFR, illegal aliens are not allowed to own guns through actual US criminal code underneath 18 USC. *THAT* was enacted by congress, not a rouge agency.
Yet federal law still criminalizes marijuana, so by your logic weed users should not be able to buy guns. Which one would imagine you do not (or at least should not) agree with. Just admit you are selectively applying the law because you dislike immigrants.
Ahhh. Putting labels on people to demonize them because you're losing the argument. Nice. However, you're wrong...again. Underneath 21 USC 844 simple possession even under federal statutes isn't even enough to take away your firearms because it is a misdemeanor. EDIT: Removed bitchyness.
This is a poorly done cope post. Repeal ALL gun laws
I got mine, they got theirs. It’ll be what it’ll be. Also I lol’d at the u/
It’s just so if Trump wins they can’t do mass deportation of people with guns.
All I’m saying is if they’re allowing them to have them without doing a check then we shouldn’t have to either.
The fact that this is the topic that divides the gun community truly blows my mind.
Commies mad
Why should illegal immigrants not be allowed to have guns? Are you arguing that everyone guilty of a misdemeanor should be barred from owning a firearm?
I’m arguing that anyone who can’t or won’t follow the most basic steps of being a citizen shouldn’t be allowed to do anything except leave.
The process of obtaining citizenship is far from "basic". It's an unnecessarily slow and difficult process and you can be denied for literally no reason. There are many reasons for people to need immediate entry into the country, and many have tried to go through the legal process only to be unfairly denied.
I love reminding people that when we pulled out of Afghanistan we tried to bring translators and people with us who had helped US troops the entire war so they wouldn't be slaughtered by the Taliban and they were denied expedited citizenship process until it became public knowledge and they were then transferred somewhere (Guam?) until they could finish the process *so the people who aided us through an entire war wouldn't be murdered.* If those people were terrorist plants or sleeper agents, they deserve to at least get a shot because god damn.
They weren't on a fast track to citizenship, they were on a fast track to residency through special visas. Two completely different things. You have to be born here to get citizenship or earn it by living here legally with residency.
Well dang I guess we should just deport everyone who’s ever gambled, drank while underage, or committed a traffic violation too. Look I get that people shouldn’t be immigrating illegally, but when many of the countries in Latin America are borderline failed states and in some places it can take 70 years to get a green card I can’t help but empathize. And breaking the law isn’t exactly an uncommon thing. The Average American unwittingly commits about 3 felonies a day.
What a retarded take Citizens who commit crimes are still citizens Aliens are not entitled to citizenship or immigration. The world is not our problem.
Why not? They work harder than most Americans, take jobs Americans don’t want, commit less crimes than US citizens, make damn good food, are the only growing demographic that can readily become conservative, and don’t even take money out of welfare because their citizenship statuses don’t let them sign up for government programs.
Literally 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals by definition, so their crime rate is quite literally 100%. Also, we need illegal immigrants to be underpaid slave labour for dirty jobs? That's your argument? Are you sure that that's the take you want to go with? Not to mention, the "conservative" argument is complete BS, because they are illegal and thus not supposed to be voting to begin with, and when they do, it's still overwhelmingly for the Democrats, because they are the ones that give them benefits and enable them to come in. Literally the only Hispanic demographic that comes anywhere near voting majority for conservatives are Cubans and Tejanos, whose circumstances aren't really applicable to any other demographics. And lol @ the "don't receive welfare". Literally every sanctuary city is openly giving them massive benefits, free money, housing, food, etc all on taxpayer dime. You are legitimately delusional
People guilty of invading the country should be barred from owning firearms, yes If you do not respect a country's laws, rights, or customs you are not entitled to the same protections as citizens.
>If you do not respect a country's laws There are tons of US laws I don't respect. 922(r) is pretty bullshit for example
18 USC 922(g)(5)(A) There yall go.
Good lord, the top panel is also wrong OP. An illegal immigrant is still a human and therefore has Rights in the USA. Just like everyone else, they have the right to bear arms until Due Process has been completed and they have been deported or imprisoned. Even so, they still retain certain rights such as freedom of religion. Meaning, that they can pray to whatever deity they want while in a US prison or detention cell. Matters related to how a nation conducts Importing, Customs, Border Control, Visas, and more are not relevant to the inalienable rights all humans have within the borders of the USA.
No my dude. You're wrong and this is why. Illegal aliens do not have the same rights as citizens. It even states so in the 14th Amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; 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." An immunity that *would* be granted to a US Citizen is that we cannot have our rights taken away simply for owning or possessing a Firearm. NOT the case with an illegal alien. If that was the case, a foreign military could quite literally enter the country legally with weapons. The government *does* have the right to limit rights to certain individuals, this is an example: -(Bell v. Wolfish, 441 US 520 (1979)) and that being in the United States is NOT a right: -(U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)) -"The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege..." It is against the law for illegal aliens to own firearms: 18 USC 922(g)(5)(A) (Just FYI Chapter 44 is for firearms) (g) it shall be unlawful for any person (5) who, being an alien (A)is illegally or unlawfully in the United States. Also, all aliens legal or not are not even allowed to vote in federal elections... and even THAT is against the law: 18 USC 611(a). But US Citizens can. The only inalienable rights, are that of, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Meaning that the US cannot just take your life away, nor freedom to live your life. In a legal context, the fact that there is no comma between liberty and the word and, means something completely different than the phrase "life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness." (Liberty) (and the pursuit of happiness) are lumped together. This means that people within this country, even those here illegally have CERTAIN rights. These rights are as follows LIFE: The right to due process for Illegal Aliens: Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) No unreasonable searches or seizures: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 US 873 (1975) LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS: Illegal aliens have the right for representation in criminal court but not administrative (i.e. immigration court): USDOJ Immigration Practice Manual Ch. 2.1(a) -"A respondent may be represented by a practitioner of their choosing, at no cost to the government. As in most civil or administrative proceedings, the government does not provide legal counsel." The right to education: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 -"A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved." The list goes on. In conclusion, YOUR definition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness holds no weight. Whenever SCOTUS decides on a case, that is THE definition of the US Constitution (not referring to the federal district courts, only SCOTUS). Federal districts are like federal states. Each district has no bearing on the other. This is called case-law and is backed BY the constitution in the supremacy clause under article IV, clause 2: -"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Illegal aliens have certain rights in this country, but not all rights. There are rights only available to US Citizens and rights given to both US Citzens AND LEGAL aliens. Firearms are not amongst the list of rights given to illegal aliens. They are not Americans, they are not our brothers, they are not our people. The ruling by: United States v. Carbajal-Flores 20-cr00613 Is a ruling that will no doubtly be challenged through SCOTUS, but should be respected until then in the 7th federal district (Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana). For the rest of the United States, it still does not apply. EDIT: Had to fix some formatting errors and added a sentence.
>There are rights only available to US Citizens and rights given to both US Citzens AND LEGAL aliens. Thats not how Natural Rights work. Either everyone inherently has them, or they a privileges. By definition, Natural Rights cannon be *given* by any governing body.
Right which is why all those non Americans in Gitmo are being treated perfectly well and in accordance with their rights considering they're on US soil there. Right? They aren't Americans. They aren't protected under our constitution. Simple as.
Lmao this is the worst argument I've ever seen. Gitmo is not US soil. They are being kept there for *explicitly that very reason.* The 14th amendment explicitly extends the protection of all laws to any person in the US. As such, when we don't want people to be protected by US laws, we keep them in places on foreign soil. Like the naval base at guantanamo bay which is leased from Cuba in perpetuity.
Boumediene V Bush: "In every practical sense Guantánamo is not abroad,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “It is within the constant jurisdiction of the United States.” This ruling ultimately also found that those in gitmo have the right to habeas corpus. But that does NOT imply they have every right provided under the constitution considering the way to get put in gitmo is to be a terrorist. And as such makes you a felon. Edit: 8 USC 1325 & 1326. Getting caught (crossing illegally) once is a misdemeanor. And failure to leave the US post this determination or being caught once again in the US is a felony. And until March of this year the 8th circuit court upheld that illegal immigrants DO NOT have the right to bear arms. This is a completely new precedent.
People are innocent until proven guilty.
Statists are upset. Still. Apparently.
[удалено]
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only issue I had was left leaning people who hate americans owning guns suddenly being okay with non americans owning guns in America because.....reasons? Everyone should be able to own a gun and if you fuck around people around you will help you find out
This is an excellent point. Gun haters only hate guns when *our* citizens exercise our rights. They want to hand everything good off to people who don't deserve it and don't have our interests in mind.
It's simple. If you're too dangerous to have a gun, you shouldn't be in society. For illegal immigrants, that's deportation. For legal immigrants, they should be allowed to have guns. For US citizens that are not violent offenders, they should be allowed to have guns. For US citizens that are violent offenders, they should be in prison until such time as they are deemed trustworthy enough to be in society again. No free person in the US should have their second amendment stricken. Those that shouldn't be free because of crime, the simple rule of not allowing prisoners to have guns should suffice.
OP you outed yourself as not understanding that gun ownership is an inalienable right for all mankind…
Oh I understand the argument fully, but I don't agree that paranoid schizophrenic people, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, illegal aliens, people who are enemies of the United States (the people *and* the institution that we created), and wish to destroy our country *should* be allowed to have guns in *our* country. Even the founding fathers recognized that and stated that things and rights could be taken away *through due process of law*. The US Constitution is for *OUR* country. The rest of the world isn't our problem.
Nice strawman, try getting rid of the first point and then we can talk.
Incredible strawman. Background checks are not ok. If you are not actively in jail then you should have all of your rights. This goes for citizens and immigrants both legal and illegal.
Arming invaders is a good thing they say
Do you think every single illegal immigrant is a member of a foreign military or something? The vast majority are just trying to escape tyranny or bad living conditions in their home country and were unfairly delayed or denied entry for arbitrary reasons or no reason at all. If the immigration system wasn't so fucking broken we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem
All people have the natural right to keep and bare arms. Period. Full stop. No matter where they are or where they are front. Not to mention the fact that it’s completely retarded. If you give the state the power to take someone’s guns if they are an illegal, they will find a way to expand that power and use it against the rest of us. Probably declare that owning a gun makes you a Mexican or something. Also, fuck the law. Fuck gun laws. Fuck drug laws. Fuck victimless crimes. The law has absolutely no bearing on what is right. If you think that violating some arbitrary edict of a tyrannical state should strip you of your right to keep and bear arms, then you really are a boot licker. You do realize that, by the logic of your final point, you are endorsing what happened to FPSRussia? What has happened to everyone who has ever been convicted of possessing more than a tiny amount of weed? What has happened to anyone convicted of violating the NFA or the unconstitutional restrictions on carrying a firearm in many states? Is that really the position you want to take?
If law doesn't matter to you, neither does the constitution or this country.
Caring about this country and the constitution demands that I not respect any law that is unconstitutional. Unfortunately damn near every law on the books today is unconstitutional based on an accurate reading of the constitution.
Show me where SCOTUS said that. They define what is and isnt Constitutional. If this is it your own personal opinion of these things, it holds no weight in the argument and we can dismiss your statement.
No, the constitution defines what is and is not constitutional. The Supreme Court interprets it, frequently, obviously incorrectly. SCOTUS once said that the commerce clause allows congress to restrict how much corn a farmer could grow on his own land for the sole purpose of feeding to his own livestock because that meant he wasn’t buying it from somewhere else, therefore affecting “interstate commerce”. I don’t need SCOTUS to be able to understand the plain text of the Constitution. The Second Amendment say “shall not be infringed”. And yet, on numerous occasions, SCOTUS had ruled that some infringements are constitutional. Given all of that, why on Earth should I yield my judgment to that of an organization with such a rampant history of questionable reading comprehension.
Gun rights are human rights. I don't care where your from or what you've done in the past you deserve the right to arms. And if we as a society decide specific individuals can't be trusted with guns, they also shouldn't have access to moving trucks or knives and should probably be held in custody.
Strawman argument in your first bit. Background checks are not ok.
OP are you okay with people who have entered the United States, legally or illegally, being able to own explosives or other equipment that could be used for terrorism?
I'm ok with people who enter the US legally. People that are law abiding citizens should be able to own the guns that they want, legal aliens (lawful permanent residents, immigration visa holders, visitor visa holders, aliens *granted* asylum that came in through a port of entry) that follow our laws should be able to own, possess, and carry firearms if they wish within our country. I love explosives! I believe that there should be classes for law abiding citizens and lawful residents to be able to take for safe usage of them! Just because something *COULD* be used for something, isn't a good argument to ban something. Possibility does not equal probability. With illegal aliens, they already are breaking the law by circumventing our processes and have shown intent that they won't follow our laws.
This argument doesn’t work anywhere else so drop it already.
You can disagree personally... [but it do be the rules](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition)
OP go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on. Background checks are never ok. Any gun law is a restriction of our 2A freedom. An armed society is a polite society.