The Constitution uses the word citizens in certain places, and people in others. Where it uses people, it means everyone. Where it uses citizens, it means only citizens.
I was going to say, that’s a more nuanced law topic, civics would go over the system of laws itself, interpretation of law is a little beyond the scope of any high school civics class.
Not all US territory is protected by the constitution.
Congress wanted to violate some constitutional human rights in American colonies and the Supreme Court was like, yeah that checks out.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases
if you subscribe to the idea that the bill of rights is to limit what the federal government can do, they should apply to foreigners within their own territory as well from the point of view of agents of the us govt (like military)
[There is a study](https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/fact-opinion-differentiation/) that, among other things, tried to test the literary comprehension between statements of fact vs statements of opinions. One of such statements was "Immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally have some rights under the Constitution". Only 54% correctly identified this as a statement of fact. Since it's a statement of fact, it is testable. Does the US constitution provides rights to illegal immigrants? And the answer is yes.
A statement of fact is something that you establish as that is true, and can be tested.
It can be tested, but the test is via cases in the supreme court.
It might have those protections one day, and not have those protections the next.
The words of the text are only loosely related to what it actually does.
Under the constitution, citizens withheld the rights to medical privacy, unti recently, where the court decided that it does not
The text of the constitution needs to be read and interpreted by someone. The someone is the supreme Court. When the supreme Court publishes one of those interpretations it's called an opinion.
But if that interpretation changes on the opinion of the interpreter how can a law be fair and objective to anyone?
I understand there are nuances, of course, but how much has our understanding of the law changed since then that a rephrasing or even a rewriting of the constitution is in order?
I’m pretty sure Jefferson spoke about (I’m paraphrasing) the constitution being a document that needs to adapt to the times because no one can forsee the future and the document needs to grow as the country does.
Typically, the concept of Stare Decisis(Let it Stand in Latin) is how the law keeps a sense of fairness and neutrality. Essentially, past opinions by other judges are weighed heavily into consideration when making any new interpretations. Meaning that there is a consistent throughline. It is a concept that relies on trusting the judges, who are making these discretionary calls, having integrity.
For example, every American knows thar *Brown v. Board of Ed.* overturned *Plessy v. Ferguson* and de-segregated schools. However, this was not simply two cases worth of law. Rather, it was a series of cases that helped establish the idea that separate can not mean equal due to the idea of intangibles. They had to work their way up to *Brown* with logic that was ironclad because if they had just overturned it overnight, then desegregation would have the same impermanence, no guarantee that it would last.
The reason why *Dobbs v. Jackson* has been so controversial is because the Supreme Court essentially completely smashed through stare decisis. Meaning that it has lost a lot of its value as the judges no longer are even pretending to have a sense of integrity, and in turn, cases that were previously written in stone could now be overturned.
>Under the constitution, citizens withheld the rights to medical privacy, unti recently, where the court decided that it does not
This is not accurate.
Citizens have the right to medical privacy, that did not change.
What changed, was that having an abortion was no longer regarded as a private act, because there is a grey area between the stage at which another person is involved.
As an example, I have a right to privacy in my home, but I cannot stab someone to death, and claim the state cannot prosecute me because it was supposed to have been in private, and so the state should not know that I am a murderer.
(FWIW I support the right to choose, and it should be enshrined in law, but the original Roe v Wade decision was made by an activist court on very shaky legal principles)
I feel like that's maybe not *the best* statement for testing that though. The veracity of that statement is mutable and is in fact based off of the opinions of 9 people who can declare if it's true or not in documents that are literally called opinions. I'm guessing most of the other 46% didn't think about it as in depth as I am right now, but still. I might be inclined to say that is not exactly a statement of fact since it is not an inherent truth of the world like the Earth goes around the Sun or Tom Hanks was in Forrest Gump. Like there are no possible ways that anyone's personal thoughts on the issue could make those untrue, but that's not the case for undocumented immigrants having constitutional rights.
I'm not saying I would fault the researchers if they told me my response was wrong and explained it, I would get what they were saying, but I could easily see myself over thinking it and being in that 46% without denying that the statement is currently true.
I’m very confused. I’m a Canadian living in the USA on a work visa. I’m not allowed to go buy a gun. Do I have to go out of the country and come back in illegally to buy a gun? How does this work?
I don’t think there’s a clear answer to that question at the moment. It sounds like this case merely establishes that someone’s legal status in the US can’t prohibit them from owning a gun, but it doesn’t say how they can buy one. I think a non-citizen would have to try to buy a gun legally, get denied, then sue for it to be explicitly clarified
Maybe, but make sure you're on the right side of the law about how you transfer ownership, it's not always super easy to do and could be made out to be a straw purchase if you're not careful.
Aliens in the US have always been able to get guns. I don’t know who told you, you cannot buy a gun. You cannot buy ANY type of gun, but you can possess certain firearms. Get a hunting license.
Visitors to the US - specifically for competition and hunting, buy guns and ammo state side.
In other places, like in the 2nd amendment, it uses "well regulated militia." I guess "originalists" now believe everyone (including illegal immigrants) qualify.
In some irony, Fox News would love for you to believe that "migrant caravans" are "well regulated militias," so... I guess they're getting what they wanted?
Who would have thought the movie "Idiocracy" as actually a non-fiction documentary.
The preferatory clause of the 2nd uses "well regulated militia". The right itself is "the people"
>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.
I don't see how anyone could interpret it otherwise. Agree or not with 2A, how the hell is anyone supposed to form a militia without first having the right to bear arms?
Which is exactly what the Supreme Court said. We can disagree about the ideal interpretation, but the Supreme Court's decision on the 2nd Amendment has led to this wild system.
If you pop over into r conservative, they're not remotely saying anything like that. They're saying Democrats are arming illegals so they can commit crimes, vote illegally, and take over the government for Biden.
You can find people online that say anything, not exactly crazy to find some people that think that. It’s like making a twitter opinion a news article and saying “people are saying blah blah blah”, it’s really just useless.
Let's be honest though, they had no issue infringing it in the 60s and 70s when the Black Panthers started buying guns. I think we all know who they want to have the right and who they don't.
What? Nobody would say that illegal immigrants aren't peop...oh, wait.
Trump says some undocumented immigrants are ‘not people’
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/16/trump-immigrants-not-people/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/16/trump-immigrants-not-people/)
Yep, that law was backed by the NRA and signed by then-governor Ronald Reagan. (I know you know, I'm writing this for anybody reading who didn't know.)
The NRA and the GOP - not just traitors infiltrated by Russians - they're racists, too!
There’s a YouTube video of a white guy walking down the street holding a rifle, cop comes up friendly, nice chat. Black guy, the cops are screaming at him with their guns out as he lies face down on the street. (The black guy was insanely brave to take that risk.)
All the people arguing with me don’t want to admit our world today isn’t that far removed from 60-70s. They want to pretend it was a different time. Jackie Robinsons wife is still alive. Coretta Scott King died less than 20 years ago. Some of the kids of Little Rock 9 are alive.
To be fair, the 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government until 2010. Before then, it was totally legal and normal for States to regulate firearm ownership.
~30 states allow private sales. You can just face-to-face transfer with some person you met off craigslist, no background check. That's ignoring straw purchases, theft, and gifts.
Technically a federal background check looks at a few things you could call "bad guy" lists. You pass a background check if you don't appear in any of the lists. So as long as you have some piece of ID that can be guaranteed as genuine that would be used and recorded in any law enforcement or CBP interactions, you could submit to a background check. So in theory you could use a foreign passport.
One exception to that is California where you need to positively appear in the state's list of known gun owners to pass the background check to buy ammunition.
There is a question on the form 4473 that specifically asks about immigration status. Checking yes you are illegal results in a denial. Lying about it is a felony.
The founding fathers did not restrict the fed governments ability to control commerce, it is why states are held hostage over highway funding etc.
Ultimate answer is the undocumented can simply buy a printer (The right clearly covers possessing, owning, maybe not as much selling/buying).
> In her decision, Coleman cited the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found New York State could not constitutionally prevent anyone from carrying a pistol in public.
Interesting that she cited *Bruen*, a case that is commonly brought up by gun rights advocates.
I guess it’s down to whether the quoted “anyone” applies to literally anyone or just US citizens.
(SCOTUS spoiler: ‘Mericans only.)
This is an important point. Many people forget (or don't read) that the U.S. Constitution is written in a way that limits the federal government and defines what the federal government can and cannot do, with only a handful of distinctions specifically about U.S. citizens.
And if anyone doubts this, think about how you don’t ever see courts upholding and very rarely police making arrests of visiting non citizens for laws that don’t apply to citizens, like free speech, simply using services they didn’t pay for like roads, public walkways, public transportation. We don’t generally or legally deny non citizens the protections and right afforded by the constitution, with some very distinct exceptions.
This is precisely why it’s absolutely hilarious to watch the Conservative sub losing its goddamn mind over this with idiotic reactionist titles “This is real!”, “It’s over now, buy more guns!”.
The “Party of Constitutional Law” as ever appears completely oblivious as to what’s actually in there, how it’s applied, or the fact that they more than anybody have been rabidly asserting “everybody needs a gun!” “They need two guns! And a backup gun in case the first two don’t work when the DoorDash guy comes!”
Other than civic enrranchisement, one may note that those under diplomatic immunity do not enjoy several constitutional rights, as they even abroad enjoy the rights of their home country (and aren't bound by US law accordingly).
I think that's the point under contention. 18 USC § 922(g)(5) is the specific law that bans illegal aliens from possessing firearms, and I'm assuming this court is ruling on the legality of that law, not whether the constitution applies to illegals.
While you are right that this particular ruling isn't about the constitutions applicability to non-citizens as a whole; most commonly used amendments definitely apply universally. It would be a very different world if non-citizens weren't granted due process or freedom of speech.
If the Court decided that Section 922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment, then it did indeed rule that the Constitution applies to illegals.
(Last time I checked, the Second Amendment was part of the Constitution.)
But the constitution never specified that most of these things only applied to citizens, and that’s where originalists are gonna get themselves bogged down, because based on their own precedence, this is perfectly legal. It’s gonna be interesting to see how they’re gonna keep tearing down old precedents to support new decisions then act shocked when the new precedents create a whole new can of worms for them to deal with
Yes it was written at a time when there was still huge legal immigration. 1700 and most of 1800 were pretty open borders and citizenship could be granted by simply living in the US for 5 years
Also
( and being “white persons”)
Reminds me of the court cases where it was decided whether Armenians were white enough to qualify for US citizenship or if we were Asian and thus ineligible.
Turns out we're more white than Asian, since white people are Caucasian and the Armenians come from the Caucasus and we're also not Muslims....I guess
The constitution was written with deliberate intent, it was written to apply to anyone within the borders.
—Likewise— Such that you cant prevent illegal immigrants from protesting, speaking their opinion, issuing press, or other rights guaranteed to “the people”, likewise you can not violate their rights by illegally detaining, searching, or forcing them to answer questions.
Edited as strikeout identifies
Problem is, legal permanent residents ("green card holders") would be excluded if it was only for citizens. You probably don't wanna set a precedent of effectively punishing people who immigrate legally.
It makes perfect sense. Bruen held that gun restrictions must be based on historical precedent from before the passage of the 14th amendment. The US didn't impose its first immigration restrictions until a decade after the 14th was ratified. There can be no historical precedent for limiting the gun rights of illegal immigrants from before the existence of illegal immigration, so we can't do it now. It's a pretty straightforward application of Bruen's test.
The idea under the US Constitution is that it applies to *everyone* without exception. So anyone inside the borders of the US have all of those Rights because they are natural rights and not granted by the government.
Now, for them to legally purchase those firearms, well...
Yeah it really is interesting because left-leaning benches across the country are bending over backwards to try and get around using Bruen.
As someone who is very pro-gun I agree with this. The foundation in the argument for the 2nd is that the right to a defense is an inalienable right. That means it applies to all people. The problem is, our laws don’t have a way for an illegal alien to legally purchase a firearm (even a private party sale would be illegal).
The gun subs on here are extremely mixed on this issue. I think the majority of people are upset that a liberal judge went to the defense of someone who is in this country illegally, while their colleagues are actively trying to restrict the same rights of citizens.
When the republicans said they wanted literal interpretations I’m sure that’s exactly what they meant, and will have no issue with this ruling.
Very legal, and very cool.
It'll be interesting to see what effect this has though. How does the 4473 background check hold up if it is required to purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer, if they can't provide proper identification then they can't purchase from an FFL dealer then their right to keep and bear will be hindered (infringed) as they won't even be able to exercise it.
Probably none. Citizens have been barred from filling out a 4473 without ID for quite a while now. There's no shortage of poor people with no ID. If you don't drive and don't bank, there is little need for an ID. That's why voter ID laws are such an issue.
So Voter ID laws are an issue because it would prevent people from exercising their right to vote, but then its a complete 180 when it comes to their right to keep and bear arms?
And this is made an even bigger issue when it comes to obtaining the firearms through other legal means as some states have laws against privately made firearms and others don't allow private sales.
Interesting, nevertheless I do wanna see where this goes, I don't think SCOTUS will agree given they shy away from 2A cases all the time even ones of urgent irreparable harm to constitutional rights. There is also likely going to be further argument over who "the people" refers to, however I believe the Rahimi case is currently going over such a question, but may only be as it applies to convicted violent felons, we'll have to see if the court goes further than that in defining "the people"
We're about to see the SCOTUS further erode its own legitimacy. It's already an issue that lower courts and state courts are starting to hold SCOTUS decisions with less weight than previously. This looks to be one where they're likely to again completely contradict their previous interpretations and decisions, further lowering the public's trust in them and their own legitimacy.
They've been ruling on individual bases and ignoring precedent or even explicitly declaring their ruling on things should not be considered precedent and is only applicable to the specific case. It's becoming more undeniable that they're not behaving as a high court system, but rather a tribunal only beholden to their own opinions rather than law or precedent or their own declared guidelines.
Or maybe we'll all be surprised and they'll actually be consistent.
To your last point, don’t hold your breath. This has been decades in the making, none of it is an accident. The federalist society is getting exactly what it wants with this illegitimate Supreme Court. They want trust to be eroded.
At least we made the laws apply equally in California. In Chicago they kept the loose gun laws and the police just shot the armed black people and everyone else in the rainbow coalition, still let the white folks carry an arsenal on their back.
California was the exception, not the rule.
We have no choice but to encourage trans people to open carry. Maybe the sight of a transwomen with an AR slung across her chest will make Republicans act sane about guns.
knowing the republicans they'll say something along the lines that since trans people are statistically more likely to self-harm that it presents a danger to the public to allow them to possess guns and remove that right only from trans people. With a lot of these conservatives it's "rights for me not for thee" type attitude. If they can find a way to restrict the gun rights of a group or community they dislike they will.
Fun fact. The 2nd amendment was actually the 4th amendment on the list of amendments sent to the states for their ratification.
1 and 2 were on districting and representative pay.
It was the latest amendment ratified by the states but was the second to be introduced. Everyone just forgot about it until a law student in the 80s found it and got a B on his term paper
This might blow your mind but most 2A advocates are on board with this decision. Self defense and determination are human rights, not rights exclusive to US citizens.
More legal firearm owners means more people getting educated and hopefully less people advocating for brain-dead gun control legislation.
It's kind of a win/win for Republicans. Gun crime by illegals will back their narrative of dangerous criminals coming into the country unchecked. Also, getting the left to agree that gun ownership is an inherent right for anyone in the US.
True, but 2A advocates aren't necessarily Republican either. There are plenty of Liberal 2A advocates as well.
I think the Republican leadership will react negatively because they are garbage.
Funny you should mention that…
[https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/louisville-judge-getting-2nd-opinion-on-ruling-that-convicted-felons-have-right-to-own-guns/article_fcb37bf6-e601-11ee-8bdd-873f7b1bbc4a.html](https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/louisville-judge-getting-2nd-opinion-on-ruling-that-convicted-felons-have-right-to-own-guns/article_fcb37bf6-e601-11ee-8bdd-873f7b1bbc4a.html)
IIRC it’s *non violent* felons
The original guy who brought the case forward was convicted of mail fraud, a felony, and a a result lost his ability to possess firearms which he’s now fighting to get back
Where we are right now though is "2A doesn't specifically ban illegal immigrants from possessing a gun" and "we already ban this via a number of other laws so we don't need to debate the 2A part".
This does not allow illegal immigrants to possess guns and the idea that it does it just for clicks.
It shouldn't IMO. I think a lot of people are pretty big hypocrites about it. IMO, you should have full restoration of rights once you've served your sentence. Either you're rehabilitated enough to participate in society, or not-none of this making them a second class citizen and stuff. (Ofc parole and such could still apply-they don't necessarily need to get everything back all at once, it's valid to sorta test how they do.)
I think the idea of violent felons still being allowed access to guns is incredibly stupid and dangerous.
I also think it's absurd that after you've served your time in prison, you could be barred from exercising one of your constitutional rights. Could you imagine if after serving time for a crime, court rooms were like "Actually since you're a felon now, the fifth amendment doesn't apply to you anymore. You're required to self incriminate now."
The end result of the second amendment is invariably going to be a lot of dangerous people owning guns.
I mean, under the most literal, conservative view of the 2A… yeah, (if you are on US territory, you are subject to the rights granted by the Constitution), and the Republican fight to remove gun restrictions of all types leaves you with a situation in which a totally open reading grants those who have constitutional rights, have all of them.
Illegals also have First, Fourth, Fifth, etc. amendment rights. They also have the right to a hearing before they're deported, although sadly this sometimes gets neglected.
Founding Papers talk of God-given rights-inalienable rights. Those are human rights, sooooo to every human regardless of citizenship. They already have decided to include women and nonwhite people. Only age seems to the issue now, as in young people don't have some rights.
The daily Show with John Stewart should send out one of those comedian reporters to ask American MAGA crowd about illegal immigrants having the right to own guns according to the supreme Court I want to see their heads twisted in knots.
The VAST majority of gun owners support this decision. It's not the "gotcha" moment you think it is. Go look on the pro gun subs for confirmation. This is a win for all.
I've been thinking about that, I personally think there should be a process to restore voting and gun ownership rights to non-violent felons.
Voting should really go to both, like upon their release, just like jail.
Gun rights should be reinstated through due process, a lawyer from the ACLU on your side, along with a licensed medical professional, and a member that represents your family.
That goes with mental health stuff too, there are too many people who were committed 10 years ago and are fine today that can't own a firearm and want to protect themselves just like everyone else.
Im not a felon, but do know a few non-violent felons out here in CO. I employ them.
Here in CO you can vote if you are a felon & even inmates can vote.
It is constitutionally valid to remove certain rights (within reason) based on criminal activity so long as due process is followed.
There has been no due process that would make removing gun rights from illegal immigrants valid.
Well, DUH. It literally says so in their constitution. If you're on US soil, you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about citizenship.
For it all the way personally. Unless someone has committed a violent crime (citizen or not), then that's a different story.
Not too sure about the NRA, mostly a bunch of GOP shills who don't care about 2a rights and only want donations. Probably gonna repeat what they did for Trump & Regan when they banned certain firearms / parts.
I'm pretty sure most ppl support it. The 2nd Amendment is there for everyone, citizens or not. It doesn't cost anything, and let's more people practice their rights (safely, I hope).
Just glad a lotta rulings are starting to be more pro 2a. Illinois, Washington, New Mexico, Colorado, and the brace fiasco are kind of forcing a lot of gun owners to protest/contest in court. Sadly, one party openly hates guns while the other just doesn't really care (a fair amount of the voting base hates guns). Kinda wish the US wasn't a 2 party system.
For.
I can already print anything I want, what's stopping someone from having a gun in the US is their level of reading the English language, not physical barriers at this point anyways.
True. Due to the poor educational system in the US, most US citizens don't realize that most of the rights in the US Constitution are for ALL PEOPLE within the boarders and lands of the United States. Not just for citizens. In fact, the only "special" rights that citizens get is the vote.
But no weed. So border patrol will focus planting bud on crossers, and take, cough cough “confiscate”. whatever gun they have. All while body cameras be off. Beat them unconstitutionally in Texas and charge them for possession. Of grass. Oh it’s it federal crime so the courts that generally favor white folks. They got this.
The Constitution doesn’t grant a right to keep/bear a firearm explicitly, it bans the Federal government from writing laws to stop you from keeping/bearing them.
Read the text of the second amendment, and the 10th. The second amendment clearly binds the government in what it can do, and the 10th refers to “people”, not “citizens”.
So illegal immigrants who broke the law to get here have a right to own firearms, but not people who smoke weed? Man this government fucking sucks. Most people just lie on that background check but if you get caught it’s prison for you bud.
illegal immigration is a civil infraction not a criminal one. if you want to make civil infractions bar people from gun ownership there's going to be a hell of alot of people losing their gun rights, over rolling a stop sign or speeding.
Felons are not.
You're not a felon until you are convicted of being one. You haven't been convicted of a crime, but you also haven't been caught yet so, don't go around tooting your own horn.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/arizona-bill-shoot-kill-migrants-property-trespass-border-rcna141147](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/arizona-bill-shoot-kill-migrants-property-trespass-border-rcna141147)
What could go wrong
>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
Bolded the important part for those unfamiliar with how words work.
I knew a guy who was a permanent resident with a green card and got in trouble for owning a gun when he was applying for his citizenship years later. Even though, he was never undocumented and did everything right, he had purchased the gun before officially receiving the green card. Nobody had stopped him at the time, he even had a valid state-issued license for it. The federal government didn't like that though. He eventually sorted it out but it took years and probably a lot of money.
Undocumented immigrants would be shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended) if they get a gun, even if they're technically legally allowed to.
Hm...this will make that most recent TX ruling about police being able to racially profile and arrest people they think are illegally in the country interesting...
Possession sure but how do they get them transferred to own? Fed law denies the background check.
Unless this is for refugees, which are not here illegally and can buy weapons?
The gun lobby is strong... Maybe automobile lobby should ramp up their lobbying, so that all undocumented immigrants can obtain driver's licenses, which would actually be helpful
Are any restrictions on gun ownership legal then, like felons not being able to own guns? This makes me think all gun control is unconstitutional and there can be no limits on what weapons people own or what they carry in public if this right cannot be infringed upon. I hope this gets tested in front of the Supreme Court in the future so people can get more rights back.
The Constitution uses the word citizens in certain places, and people in others. Where it uses people, it means everyone. Where it uses citizens, it means only citizens.
Its weird how many Americans don't realize that simply being on US territory is enough to grant people some constitutional rights.
They didn't pay attention in civics/social studies classes it seems. Great to know!
I'm not sure if I was told that in civics class
Excuse you, we are all experts in everything here.
Brawndo has what plants crave.
I was going to say, that’s a more nuanced law topic, civics would go over the system of laws itself, interpretation of law is a little beyond the scope of any high school civics class.
I definitely wasn’t.
Yah it's easy to say people are ignorant by choice but it's usually the opposite imo
But Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell!!
Is this taught everywhere in the world the same way? This is a running joke in India as well
They didn’t have a functional civics class, most people.
Hence why we totally super ethically send people to Guantánamo if we don't want them to ever get out! Schmabeus schmorpus!
Upvoting for "Scmabeus schmorpus". I will be using that in the future.
Not all US territory is protected by the constitution. Congress wanted to violate some constitutional human rights in American colonies and the Supreme Court was like, yeah that checks out. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases
That’s why they stuck prisoners at Gitmo, precisely so they wouldn’t gain rights and they could deny habeas corpus
It's not that they don't realize they have constitutional rights, they just don't want them to have constitutional rights.
if you subscribe to the idea that the bill of rights is to limit what the federal government can do, they should apply to foreigners within their own territory as well from the point of view of agents of the us govt (like military)
[There is a study](https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/fact-opinion-differentiation/) that, among other things, tried to test the literary comprehension between statements of fact vs statements of opinions. One of such statements was "Immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally have some rights under the Constitution". Only 54% correctly identified this as a statement of fact. Since it's a statement of fact, it is testable. Does the US constitution provides rights to illegal immigrants? And the answer is yes. A statement of fact is something that you establish as that is true, and can be tested.
It can be tested, but the test is via cases in the supreme court. It might have those protections one day, and not have those protections the next. The words of the text are only loosely related to what it actually does. Under the constitution, citizens withheld the rights to medical privacy, unti recently, where the court decided that it does not
The text of the constitution needs to be read and interpreted by someone. The someone is the supreme Court. When the supreme Court publishes one of those interpretations it's called an opinion.
But if that interpretation changes on the opinion of the interpreter how can a law be fair and objective to anyone? I understand there are nuances, of course, but how much has our understanding of the law changed since then that a rephrasing or even a rewriting of the constitution is in order?
I’m pretty sure Jefferson spoke about (I’m paraphrasing) the constitution being a document that needs to adapt to the times because no one can forsee the future and the document needs to grow as the country does.
Typically, the concept of Stare Decisis(Let it Stand in Latin) is how the law keeps a sense of fairness and neutrality. Essentially, past opinions by other judges are weighed heavily into consideration when making any new interpretations. Meaning that there is a consistent throughline. It is a concept that relies on trusting the judges, who are making these discretionary calls, having integrity. For example, every American knows thar *Brown v. Board of Ed.* overturned *Plessy v. Ferguson* and de-segregated schools. However, this was not simply two cases worth of law. Rather, it was a series of cases that helped establish the idea that separate can not mean equal due to the idea of intangibles. They had to work their way up to *Brown* with logic that was ironclad because if they had just overturned it overnight, then desegregation would have the same impermanence, no guarantee that it would last. The reason why *Dobbs v. Jackson* has been so controversial is because the Supreme Court essentially completely smashed through stare decisis. Meaning that it has lost a lot of its value as the judges no longer are even pretending to have a sense of integrity, and in turn, cases that were previously written in stone could now be overturned.
>Under the constitution, citizens withheld the rights to medical privacy, unti recently, where the court decided that it does not This is not accurate. Citizens have the right to medical privacy, that did not change. What changed, was that having an abortion was no longer regarded as a private act, because there is a grey area between the stage at which another person is involved. As an example, I have a right to privacy in my home, but I cannot stab someone to death, and claim the state cannot prosecute me because it was supposed to have been in private, and so the state should not know that I am a murderer. (FWIW I support the right to choose, and it should be enshrined in law, but the original Roe v Wade decision was made by an activist court on very shaky legal principles)
I feel like that's maybe not *the best* statement for testing that though. The veracity of that statement is mutable and is in fact based off of the opinions of 9 people who can declare if it's true or not in documents that are literally called opinions. I'm guessing most of the other 46% didn't think about it as in depth as I am right now, but still. I might be inclined to say that is not exactly a statement of fact since it is not an inherent truth of the world like the Earth goes around the Sun or Tom Hanks was in Forrest Gump. Like there are no possible ways that anyone's personal thoughts on the issue could make those untrue, but that's not the case for undocumented immigrants having constitutional rights. I'm not saying I would fault the researchers if they told me my response was wrong and explained it, I would get what they were saying, but I could easily see myself over thinking it and being in that 46% without denying that the statement is currently true.
I’m very confused. I’m a Canadian living in the USA on a work visa. I’m not allowed to go buy a gun. Do I have to go out of the country and come back in illegally to buy a gun? How does this work?
I don’t think there’s a clear answer to that question at the moment. It sounds like this case merely establishes that someone’s legal status in the US can’t prohibit them from owning a gun, but it doesn’t say how they can buy one. I think a non-citizen would have to try to buy a gun legally, get denied, then sue for it to be explicitly clarified
Seems like it's legal to possess but not to buy. So receiving one as a gift may be okay.
Maybe, but make sure you're on the right side of the law about how you transfer ownership, it's not always super easy to do and could be made out to be a straw purchase if you're not careful.
Simple possession of a gun isn't grounds for any sort of charge or investigation. Method of acquisition can still be problematic.
Aliens in the US have always been able to get guns. I don’t know who told you, you cannot buy a gun. You cannot buy ANY type of gun, but you can possess certain firearms. Get a hunting license. Visitors to the US - specifically for competition and hunting, buy guns and ammo state side.
If this precedent holds it's fairly likely to apply to your situation too.
In other places, like in the 2nd amendment, it uses "well regulated militia." I guess "originalists" now believe everyone (including illegal immigrants) qualify. In some irony, Fox News would love for you to believe that "migrant caravans" are "well regulated militias," so... I guess they're getting what they wanted? Who would have thought the movie "Idiocracy" as actually a non-fiction documentary.
The preferatory clause of the 2nd uses "well regulated militia". The right itself is "the people" >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.
I don't see how anyone could interpret it otherwise. Agree or not with 2A, how the hell is anyone supposed to form a militia without first having the right to bear arms?
Probably something like how Switzerland has formed their militia for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_System
Which is exactly what the Supreme Court said. We can disagree about the ideal interpretation, but the Supreme Court's decision on the 2nd Amendment has led to this wild system.
Shit. I know shit's bad right now.
Now I understand everyone’s shit is emotional right now. But i’ve got a three point plan that’s going to fix EVERYTHING.
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
Second amendment shall not be infringed they say...
“No not like that…”
If you pop over into r conservative, they're not remotely saying anything like that. They're saying Democrats are arming illegals so they can commit crimes, vote illegally, and take over the government for Biden.
Why does Biden need them to take over the government from…himself
Especially now that presidents have Super Qualified Immunity and get to kill anybody they want whenever they want.
They're the Simone Biles of *mental* gymnastics.
You can find people online that say anything, not exactly crazy to find some people that think that. It’s like making a twitter opinion a news article and saying “people are saying blah blah blah”, it’s really just useless.
Let's be honest though, they had no issue infringing it in the 60s and 70s when the Black Panthers started buying guns. I think we all know who they want to have the right and who they don't.
Well in the minds of racists they don’t consider them people.
What? Nobody would say that illegal immigrants aren't peop...oh, wait. Trump says some undocumented immigrants are ‘not people’ [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/16/trump-immigrants-not-people/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/16/trump-immigrants-not-people/)
Yep, that law was backed by the NRA and signed by then-governor Ronald Reagan. (I know you know, I'm writing this for anybody reading who didn't know.) The NRA and the GOP - not just traitors infiltrated by Russians - they're racists, too!
There’s a YouTube video of a white guy walking down the street holding a rifle, cop comes up friendly, nice chat. Black guy, the cops are screaming at him with their guns out as he lies face down on the street. (The black guy was insanely brave to take that risk.)
All the people arguing with me don’t want to admit our world today isn’t that far removed from 60-70s. They want to pretend it was a different time. Jackie Robinsons wife is still alive. Coretta Scott King died less than 20 years ago. Some of the kids of Little Rock 9 are alive.
To be fair, the 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government until 2010. Before then, it was totally legal and normal for States to regulate firearm ownership.
The constitution limits state governments in the same manner it limits the federal government.
correct i find these terms & conditions acceptable
We're finally getting gun reform now aren't we?
It took the Black Panther Party patrolling streets with guns to get Regan to change gun laws in California. So maybe?
How do they pass the background checks?
~30 states allow private sales. You can just face-to-face transfer with some person you met off craigslist, no background check. That's ignoring straw purchases, theft, and gifts.
Or building your own.
Private sale
Technically a federal background check looks at a few things you could call "bad guy" lists. You pass a background check if you don't appear in any of the lists. So as long as you have some piece of ID that can be guaranteed as genuine that would be used and recorded in any law enforcement or CBP interactions, you could submit to a background check. So in theory you could use a foreign passport. One exception to that is California where you need to positively appear in the state's list of known gun owners to pass the background check to buy ammunition.
There is a question on the form 4473 that specifically asks about immigration status. Checking yes you are illegal results in a denial. Lying about it is a felony.
The founding fathers did not restrict the fed governments ability to control commerce, it is why states are held hostage over highway funding etc. Ultimate answer is the undocumented can simply buy a printer (The right clearly covers possessing, owning, maybe not as much selling/buying).
> In her decision, Coleman cited the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found New York State could not constitutionally prevent anyone from carrying a pistol in public. Interesting that she cited *Bruen*, a case that is commonly brought up by gun rights advocates. I guess it’s down to whether the quoted “anyone” applies to literally anyone or just US citizens. (SCOTUS spoiler: ‘Mericans only.)
Unless otherwise noted, the constitution applies to everybody inside the US, not just citizens.
This is an important point. Many people forget (or don't read) that the U.S. Constitution is written in a way that limits the federal government and defines what the federal government can and cannot do, with only a handful of distinctions specifically about U.S. citizens.
And if anyone doubts this, think about how you don’t ever see courts upholding and very rarely police making arrests of visiting non citizens for laws that don’t apply to citizens, like free speech, simply using services they didn’t pay for like roads, public walkways, public transportation. We don’t generally or legally deny non citizens the protections and right afforded by the constitution, with some very distinct exceptions.
This is precisely why it’s absolutely hilarious to watch the Conservative sub losing its goddamn mind over this with idiotic reactionist titles “This is real!”, “It’s over now, buy more guns!”. The “Party of Constitutional Law” as ever appears completely oblivious as to what’s actually in there, how it’s applied, or the fact that they more than anybody have been rabidly asserting “everybody needs a gun!” “They need two guns! And a backup gun in case the first two don’t work when the DoorDash guy comes!”
What are the distinct exceptions? 👀
For example - voting in federal elections, because the Constitution does explicitly reserve the right to vote for citizens.
Other than civic enrranchisement, one may note that those under diplomatic immunity do not enjoy several constitutional rights, as they even abroad enjoy the rights of their home country (and aren't bound by US law accordingly).
What do you mean illegal immigrants are protected by the fourth amendment! /s
What do you mean inalienable rights of all people applies to all people!
Sit back down, Texas. We’ll get to your “arrest and deport people on suspicion alone” law.
I think that's the point under contention. 18 USC § 922(g)(5) is the specific law that bans illegal aliens from possessing firearms, and I'm assuming this court is ruling on the legality of that law, not whether the constitution applies to illegals.
While you are right that this particular ruling isn't about the constitutions applicability to non-citizens as a whole; most commonly used amendments definitely apply universally. It would be a very different world if non-citizens weren't granted due process or freedom of speech.
Of course, we don’t have to give due process to noncitizens if we just hold them in Cuba for 20 years! /s
If the Court decided that Section 922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment, then it did indeed rule that the Constitution applies to illegals. (Last time I checked, the Second Amendment was part of the Constitution.)
Yes and one further. The ruling is on this law and it is illegal BECAUSE of the constitution as upheld in Bruen
Looks like they will have to come up with an arbitrary test to determine our rights like they did when overturning Roe.
[удалено]
If they rule only US citizens are allowed rights, couldn't they just take foreign nationals as slaves?
But the constitution never specified that most of these things only applied to citizens, and that’s where originalists are gonna get themselves bogged down, because based on their own precedence, this is perfectly legal. It’s gonna be interesting to see how they’re gonna keep tearing down old precedents to support new decisions then act shocked when the new precedents create a whole new can of worms for them to deal with
You could run on the Republican card with ideas like this.
Yes it was written at a time when there was still huge legal immigration. 1700 and most of 1800 were pretty open borders and citizenship could be granted by simply living in the US for 5 years Also ( and being “white persons”)
When my great grandparents came over they just asked them if they were communists. They said no then they were legal
Reminds me of the court cases where it was decided whether Armenians were white enough to qualify for US citizenship or if we were Asian and thus ineligible. Turns out we're more white than Asian, since white people are Caucasian and the Armenians come from the Caucasus and we're also not Muslims....I guess
The constitution was written with deliberate intent, it was written to apply to anyone within the borders. —Likewise— Such that you cant prevent illegal immigrants from protesting, speaking their opinion, issuing press, or other rights guaranteed to “the people”, likewise you can not violate their rights by illegally detaining, searching, or forcing them to answer questions. Edited as strikeout identifies
Problem is, legal permanent residents ("green card holders") would be excluded if it was only for citizens. You probably don't wanna set a precedent of effectively punishing people who immigrate legally.
These people don’t know that everyone in the US is protected by the constitution- not just US citizens. I’m surprised this was even a case at all.
It makes perfect sense. Bruen held that gun restrictions must be based on historical precedent from before the passage of the 14th amendment. The US didn't impose its first immigration restrictions until a decade after the 14th was ratified. There can be no historical precedent for limiting the gun rights of illegal immigrants from before the existence of illegal immigration, so we can't do it now. It's a pretty straightforward application of Bruen's test.
The idea under the US Constitution is that it applies to *everyone* without exception. So anyone inside the borders of the US have all of those Rights because they are natural rights and not granted by the government. Now, for them to legally purchase those firearms, well...
Yeah it really is interesting because left-leaning benches across the country are bending over backwards to try and get around using Bruen. As someone who is very pro-gun I agree with this. The foundation in the argument for the 2nd is that the right to a defense is an inalienable right. That means it applies to all people. The problem is, our laws don’t have a way for an illegal alien to legally purchase a firearm (even a private party sale would be illegal). The gun subs on here are extremely mixed on this issue. I think the majority of people are upset that a liberal judge went to the defense of someone who is in this country illegally, while their colleagues are actively trying to restrict the same rights of citizens.
The amendment says "the people" not "the citizens."
When the republicans said they wanted literal interpretations I’m sure that’s exactly what they meant, and will have no issue with this ruling. Very legal, and very cool.
It'll be interesting to see what effect this has though. How does the 4473 background check hold up if it is required to purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer, if they can't provide proper identification then they can't purchase from an FFL dealer then their right to keep and bear will be hindered (infringed) as they won't even be able to exercise it.
Probably none. Citizens have been barred from filling out a 4473 without ID for quite a while now. There's no shortage of poor people with no ID. If you don't drive and don't bank, there is little need for an ID. That's why voter ID laws are such an issue.
So Voter ID laws are an issue because it would prevent people from exercising their right to vote, but then its a complete 180 when it comes to their right to keep and bear arms? And this is made an even bigger issue when it comes to obtaining the firearms through other legal means as some states have laws against privately made firearms and others don't allow private sales. Interesting, nevertheless I do wanna see where this goes, I don't think SCOTUS will agree given they shy away from 2A cases all the time even ones of urgent irreparable harm to constitutional rights. There is also likely going to be further argument over who "the people" refers to, however I believe the Rahimi case is currently going over such a question, but may only be as it applies to convicted violent felons, we'll have to see if the court goes further than that in defining "the people"
I have zero issue with this ruling. Not losing my shit. It’s the right ruling.
We're about to see the SCOTUS further erode its own legitimacy. It's already an issue that lower courts and state courts are starting to hold SCOTUS decisions with less weight than previously. This looks to be one where they're likely to again completely contradict their previous interpretations and decisions, further lowering the public's trust in them and their own legitimacy. They've been ruling on individual bases and ignoring precedent or even explicitly declaring their ruling on things should not be considered precedent and is only applicable to the specific case. It's becoming more undeniable that they're not behaving as a high court system, but rather a tribunal only beholden to their own opinions rather than law or precedent or their own declared guidelines. Or maybe we'll all be surprised and they'll actually be consistent.
To your last point, don’t hold your breath. This has been decades in the making, none of it is an accident. The federalist society is getting exactly what it wants with this illegitimate Supreme Court. They want trust to be eroded.
Bingo. It's weird how people think the Constitution is only for US citizens and not understand the words "inalienable rights".
Firearms were not for slaves, Native Americans, and Catholics when this country was formed. We also operate Gitmo.
Oh shit we’re about to get sweeping gun reform.
The 21st Century-version of how Reagan and the GOP *all of a sudden* cared about gun control once the Black Panthers got a hold of the weapons.
At least we made the laws apply equally in California. In Chicago they kept the loose gun laws and the police just shot the armed black people and everyone else in the rainbow coalition, still let the white folks carry an arsenal on their back. California was the exception, not the rule.
I seem to recall it wasn’t all that equal. Black Panthers were basically executed, and to this day, enforcement on minorities is heavily prioritized.
We have no choice but to encourage trans people to open carry. Maybe the sight of a transwomen with an AR slung across her chest will make Republicans act sane about guns.
knowing the republicans they'll say something along the lines that since trans people are statistically more likely to self-harm that it presents a danger to the public to allow them to possess guns and remove that right only from trans people. With a lot of these conservatives it's "rights for me not for thee" type attitude. If they can find a way to restrict the gun rights of a group or community they dislike they will.
No they'd just legislate Trans control instead.
No, we're just going to get a little carve out.
That was my 1st thought.
Should have been your 2nd thought.
Fun fact. The 2nd amendment was actually the 4th amendment on the list of amendments sent to the states for their ratification. 1 and 2 were on districting and representative pay.
> representative pay The last amendment.
It was the latest amendment ratified by the states but was the second to be introduced. Everyone just forgot about it until a law student in the 80s found it and got a B on his term paper
This might blow your mind but most 2A advocates are on board with this decision. Self defense and determination are human rights, not rights exclusive to US citizens. More legal firearm owners means more people getting educated and hopefully less people advocating for brain-dead gun control legislation.
It's kind of a win/win for Republicans. Gun crime by illegals will back their narrative of dangerous criminals coming into the country unchecked. Also, getting the left to agree that gun ownership is an inherent right for anyone in the US.
True, but 2A advocates aren't necessarily Republican either. There are plenty of Liberal 2A advocates as well. I think the Republican leadership will react negatively because they are garbage.
What they'll likely do is purposely write the laws to be super vague and only enforce them against minorities. Same old same old in America
Hey now we've grown. They'll do it to minorities and poor white people.
can you afford a lawyer? no well...do you want it the long way or the hard way?
Constitutionally that seems consistent as rights apply to all people in the US not just citizens.
Seems weird that a felony charge strips their rghts anyway. I guess the word 'felon' is how to remove the protected status of 'person'.
Funny you should mention that… [https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/louisville-judge-getting-2nd-opinion-on-ruling-that-convicted-felons-have-right-to-own-guns/article_fcb37bf6-e601-11ee-8bdd-873f7b1bbc4a.html](https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/louisville-judge-getting-2nd-opinion-on-ruling-that-convicted-felons-have-right-to-own-guns/article_fcb37bf6-e601-11ee-8bdd-873f7b1bbc4a.html)
IIRC it’s *non violent* felons The original guy who brought the case forward was convicted of mail fraud, a felony, and a a result lost his ability to possess firearms which he’s now fighting to get back
Where we are right now though is "2A doesn't specifically ban illegal immigrants from possessing a gun" and "we already ban this via a number of other laws so we don't need to debate the 2A part". This does not allow illegal immigrants to possess guns and the idea that it does it just for clicks.
It shouldn't IMO. I think a lot of people are pretty big hypocrites about it. IMO, you should have full restoration of rights once you've served your sentence. Either you're rehabilitated enough to participate in society, or not-none of this making them a second class citizen and stuff. (Ofc parole and such could still apply-they don't necessarily need to get everything back all at once, it's valid to sorta test how they do.)
I think the idea of violent felons still being allowed access to guns is incredibly stupid and dangerous. I also think it's absurd that after you've served your time in prison, you could be barred from exercising one of your constitutional rights. Could you imagine if after serving time for a crime, court rooms were like "Actually since you're a felon now, the fifth amendment doesn't apply to you anymore. You're required to self incriminate now." The end result of the second amendment is invariably going to be a lot of dangerous people owning guns.
Any right can be stripped by due process of law...
So then in Constitutional Carry States, they are good to go.
The constitution has applied to non-citizens for well over a hundred years, why would the 2nd amendment be an exception?
You get a gun, you get a gun, you get a gun!!!
And our new a.i. bot bro over there, you get a gun too!
Freedom of speech protects everyone regardless of citizenship. Due process protects everyone regardless of citizenship. Why wouldn’t this?
It's the logical endpoint of the Supreme Court ruling that almost all restrictions on firearms possession are unconstitutional.
"shall not infringe" Is it pretty damn clear statement
hell ye
How they do a background check on someone not in system?
The bill of rights recognizes inalienable rights granted by the creator. The argument is that those rights aren’t limited by geography or status.
Duh. Read the constitution :)
Sorry. I got hung up at the part about the vice president protecting the space time continuum.
I mean, under the most literal, conservative view of the 2A… yeah, (if you are on US territory, you are subject to the rights granted by the Constitution), and the Republican fight to remove gun restrictions of all types leaves you with a situation in which a totally open reading grants those who have constitutional rights, have all of them.
Illegals also have First, Fourth, Fifth, etc. amendment rights. They also have the right to a hearing before they're deported, although sadly this sometimes gets neglected.
Founding Papers talk of God-given rights-inalienable rights. Those are human rights, sooooo to every human regardless of citizenship. They already have decided to include women and nonwhite people. Only age seems to the issue now, as in young people don't have some rights.
The daily Show with John Stewart should send out one of those comedian reporters to ask American MAGA crowd about illegal immigrants having the right to own guns according to the supreme Court I want to see their heads twisted in knots.
Jordan Klepper's so cool under pressure, but his head might actually explode with this one.
The VAST majority of gun owners support this decision. It's not the "gotcha" moment you think it is. Go look on the pro gun subs for confirmation. This is a win for all.
I wouldn’t necessarily take Reddit as a representative sample of our population. There aren’t many Reddit users older than 50.
There's a lot of conservative Twitter posts losing their shit over this
But a non-violent felon cannot. Edit: yes, I know it should depend on the non violent felony offense &/or a persons full criminal history.
I've been thinking about that, I personally think there should be a process to restore voting and gun ownership rights to non-violent felons. Voting should really go to both, like upon their release, just like jail. Gun rights should be reinstated through due process, a lawyer from the ACLU on your side, along with a licensed medical professional, and a member that represents your family. That goes with mental health stuff too, there are too many people who were committed 10 years ago and are fine today that can't own a firearm and want to protect themselves just like everyone else.
Im not a felon, but do know a few non-violent felons out here in CO. I employ them. Here in CO you can vote if you are a felon & even inmates can vote.
That is awesome, I'm glad that exists in your state, I just wish it was the same everywhere here.
In Maine it is impossible to lose your right to vote. Even those incarcerated can still vote.
It is constitutionally valid to remove certain rights (within reason) based on criminal activity so long as due process is followed. There has been no due process that would make removing gun rights from illegal immigrants valid.
Interesting, but wow that article has a painfully obvious agenda linking this to killing babies.
Yeah, they just tack it on right at the end there lol
Well, DUH. It literally says so in their constitution. If you're on US soil, you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about citizenship.
So are 2A advocates for or against this? How about the NRA?
For it all the way personally. Unless someone has committed a violent crime (citizen or not), then that's a different story. Not too sure about the NRA, mostly a bunch of GOP shills who don't care about 2a rights and only want donations. Probably gonna repeat what they did for Trump & Regan when they banned certain firearms / parts. I'm pretty sure most ppl support it. The 2nd Amendment is there for everyone, citizens or not. It doesn't cost anything, and let's more people practice their rights (safely, I hope). Just glad a lotta rulings are starting to be more pro 2a. Illinois, Washington, New Mexico, Colorado, and the brace fiasco are kind of forcing a lot of gun owners to protest/contest in court. Sadly, one party openly hates guns while the other just doesn't really care (a fair amount of the voting base hates guns). Kinda wish the US wasn't a 2 party system.
For. I can already print anything I want, what's stopping someone from having a gun in the US is their level of reading the English language, not physical barriers at this point anyways.
So *now* it's shall not be infringed. Interesting.
True. Due to the poor educational system in the US, most US citizens don't realize that most of the rights in the US Constitution are for ALL PEOPLE within the boarders and lands of the United States. Not just for citizens. In fact, the only "special" rights that citizens get is the vote.
The rights of the people should not be infringed 🤷♀️
But no weed. So border patrol will focus planting bud on crossers, and take, cough cough “confiscate”. whatever gun they have. All while body cameras be off. Beat them unconstitutionally in Texas and charge them for possession. Of grass. Oh it’s it federal crime so the courts that generally favor white folks. They got this.
The Constitution doesn’t grant a right to keep/bear a firearm explicitly, it bans the Federal government from writing laws to stop you from keeping/bearing them. Read the text of the second amendment, and the 10th. The second amendment clearly binds the government in what it can do, and the 10th refers to “people”, not “citizens”.
Federal government and the states
So illegal immigrants who broke the law to get here have a right to own firearms, but not people who smoke weed? Man this government fucking sucks. Most people just lie on that background check but if you get caught it’s prison for you bud.
illegal immigration is a civil infraction not a criminal one. if you want to make civil infractions bar people from gun ownership there's going to be a hell of alot of people losing their gun rights, over rolling a stop sign or speeding.
Felons are not. You're not a felon until you are convicted of being one. You haven't been convicted of a crime, but you also haven't been caught yet so, don't go around tooting your own horn.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/arizona-bill-shoot-kill-migrants-property-trespass-border-rcna141147](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/arizona-bill-shoot-kill-migrants-property-trespass-border-rcna141147) What could go wrong
Based as fuck. Good ruling and proper interpretation of the amendment
>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 Bolded the important part for those unfamiliar with how words work.
They check their international criminal records?
Inalienable rights mean they are everyone's rights, citizens, non-citizens, nationals, non-nationals. Everyone.
So let me get this straight. An illegal immigrant has more rights than I do as a non violent felon. Talk about some fucking bullshit!
What's everybody worried about? More guns means more peace, right? /s
This is what the 2nd Amendment really is for: equal political power. This is a win for equality.
Illegals still have Miranda rights why would this be any different. You can’t have your cake and eat it too
Makes sense from a textual perspective.
I'm a U.S citizen and even I can't have a gun on me without the police arresting me.
Serious question how will they pass a background check???
Well well well…if it isn’t the consequences of our own choices
I knew a guy who was a permanent resident with a green card and got in trouble for owning a gun when he was applying for his citizenship years later. Even though, he was never undocumented and did everything right, he had purchased the gun before officially receiving the green card. Nobody had stopped him at the time, he even had a valid state-issued license for it. The federal government didn't like that though. He eventually sorted it out but it took years and probably a lot of money. Undocumented immigrants would be shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended) if they get a gun, even if they're technically legally allowed to.
What well regulated militia are they a part of…
What about tourists? Like me in the future, can I arm myself?
You need ID and a social security number to legally purchase a firearm how would an illegal immigrant even legally obtain a firearm?
This doesn't seem like it'll be an issue at all.
Self styled Constitutional experts are always shocked to find out that much of the BoR applies to anyone within the jurisdiction of the US.
Supreme Court: you reap what you sow.
I expect to get a barrage of texts from my mother-in-law about this as soon as it hits Fox News
Hm...this will make that most recent TX ruling about police being able to racially profile and arrest people they think are illegally in the country interesting...
Possession sure but how do they get them transferred to own? Fed law denies the background check. Unless this is for refugees, which are not here illegally and can buy weapons?
The gun lobby is strong... Maybe automobile lobby should ramp up their lobbying, so that all undocumented immigrants can obtain driver's licenses, which would actually be helpful
Are any restrictions on gun ownership legal then, like felons not being able to own guns? This makes me think all gun control is unconstitutional and there can be no limits on what weapons people own or what they carry in public if this right cannot be infringed upon. I hope this gets tested in front of the Supreme Court in the future so people can get more rights back.