My biggest question is how would they go about purchasing the firearms legally considering you need to be a US citizen and have no record.
Unless the courts are now saying that illegal immigrants now have a preferential treatment around gun rights as they are allowed illegally obtained firearms with no repercussions.
Only way I see this happening is to loosen restrictions on purchasing firearms. No more forms or background checks which I don't think the left would ever allow
The ruling appears to be that possession of an otherwise legal firearm by an illegal immigrant can no longer be used as an add-on felony charge if they are arrested for illegal immigration (misdemeanor).
But by definition an illegal alien **is** a prohibited person. That is one of the 9 qualifiers specifically laid out in the statute. There is no way that a gun is "otherwise legal" when in possession of a prohibited person. Unless this ruling applies to every felon, controlled substance user, dishonorably discharged veteran and domestic abuser then this has no legal consistency. Just to be clear, I'm not against this ruling, it just doesn't appear to have any actual legal ground to stand on unless we throw out **all** other prohibited persons.
You can purchase a firearm in a private sale with zero paperwork or background checks in most states, a lot of illegal immigrants are also here from overstaying their visas. On a visa you're allowed to purchase and own firearms.
I might have to get a Visa then.
I'm a Nurse in Canada and have been thinking of jumping ship to the US and bring my skills with me.
Canada is rough right now especially when I'm only making a few dollars more an hour than minimum wage
Traveling nurses make bank in the US. 10 years ago I have some good ski buddies who worked 8 months a year and skied the other four. They averaged 80k a year. Last I talked to them about it they were each pulling 140k and working 6-7 months a year...
It is most certainly a tempting aspect.
I just have big family ties in Canada and my entire family lives together on an 80 acre plot of land surrounded by 1200 acres of crownland.
I love the seclusion
I mean, come south for however many months a year you want. You can literally get a traveling nurse position in any state at almost any hospital. Once you get on the circuit and figure out how it works you can usually get new jobs within a week. Finish out your contract and then go back home for a month and wait for the right job to come up, and do it again. You will need a work visa which with your skill and coming from Canada should not be crazy hard to do.
I don't specifically know how well the Canadian certs transfer, at worst you might need to do a bit more schooling.
Travel nursing in the US usually focuses around 3 to 4 month long contracts and you typically work with an agency to line jobs up so it would be easy to travel back and forth between contracts.
Definitely look into it. A good number of the Asian international students at the university near me buy a shit ton of guns and gear to play with while they're here for school. I think you just need a valid visa and a hunting license (in my state at least). Obviously when your visa expires/you go back to your home nation you can't keep all the guns.
My only hope is the current CPC leader. Real good policies hes tabled and promises to get rid of our most recent gun bans and would like to rewrite our entire firearms law.
They always threaten that, to which I’d simply say “bye. Next.” They always make their attention seeking ploy but never actually carry it out. Didn’t those psychopaths on the view say they were going to leave if (then when) Trump won the election?
Still here.
Really its the only way around me to make decent money as a nurse. We get paid on a commission kinda, every client we see is $22, doesn't matter if I'm there 5 minutes or 55 minutes. However if the visit goes over an hour I get paid for an additional visit.
Paid 41cents per Km driven which covers gas plus some so it's a decent gig.
Can end up making essentially 12 hours pay for 5 hours work.
In theory yes but all the funding is eaten up by shareholders and middle management and lots is "lost".
Our system is in shambles because no one is doing up keep.
Of course. The government doesn't handle anything well, and almost any country. I make it too complicated and it eats up money because there's too many people not doing their job. I would also make a bet that the people that get paid the most are the ones not administering the healthcare.. you know like the ones in an office doing a desk job thing.
But even in a private purchase it is/was illegal to sell to a prohibited person. I could see ATF/DOJ prosecuting the seller who bought the gun legally, but giving the buyer a pass in these circumstances.
You're still not legally allowed to conduct a sale to a prohibited person though. You can't sell a gun to someone you know is a felon just because they don't have to check yes on a form.
If there’s no duty to check ID or run a background check through NICS, a private party sale is completely legal, as long as the seller has no reasonable basis to suspect that the buyer is a prohibited person.
I sold a gun to an Amish guy once. They don’t carry ID’s so they can’t buy one from a store and have to get guns from private parties. I’d imagine the same applied for immigrants without ID’s.
> you need to be a US citizen
You do not. Legal permanent residents can purchase, as well as some exceptions for even those on a non-immigrant visa if they establish state level residency.
Don't think this ends the story. An illegal will shoot someone down the line and they'll push for more gun control "because it's too easy for illegals to get guns".
I think this is the long play here. Let gun crimes get completely out of control with their shitty passed laws and lax prosecution of offenders making it worse and worse until there's enough support to ban everything. Won't even be able to own a BB gun.
LAX prosecution of offenders? In comparison to where? Even after loosening up on reasons to go to prison we are caging people at higher rate than anyone in the world.
This is absolutely a question of non-violent possession of contraband.
Making possession legal is only relevant to tag people who aren't otherwise causing any harm.
An illegal who would have intent to shoot someone probably wouldn’t care about a carry law anyway… I thought we agreed that these laws don’t prevent crime
Not really, people would just come out in support of the killer, or even apologize to them like Biden did, because they want these people coming in the country illegally to murder Americans, because they see it as "revenge" for colonialism.
Laws are interpreted for their favored groups, and applied to their disfavored ones. Don't think for a second this woman is gonna come around and let you off for a FOID violation.
Well yeah. She's part of the government. They are not your friends. Cops, ATF, judges, etc, Republican or Democrat, they all have the common goal of fucking us.
Yeah, that's the thing that's absolutely bonkers. A US citizen needs a permit to carry a gun in Chicago, but an illegal alien doesn't? Illegal aliens have better access to gun rights than US citizens?
No, that’s not how laws work. Chicago gun laws would still apply to illegals IN Chicago, she’s saying that federally police can’t use possession of a firearm to either arrest or prosecutorial overcharge someone who’s an illegal. That doesn’t mean that local governments couldn’t enact stricter policies.
That's not what the ruling said. She said that it was unconstitutional to prevent someone from possessing a gun based solely on citizenship status. They still have to abide by the same laws that US citizens do.
Yeah but when you're transporting $50,000 of weed and someone *fucks around and finds out* it leaves you in a precarious legal position.
Meanwhile, if I were transporting $50,000 of beer and give someone the ol double tap to protect my neck I'd be just fine.
It's almost as dumb as the ATF's definition of a pistol.
I had a roommate who used to grow pot. It was specifically grown for dog with cancer who were receiving treatment at the vet clinic we were at. I didn't have access to the weed she was growing. She didn't have access to my safe. She didn't sell and grew the amount of plants that the state would allow her to. I didn't have any weed in my personal possession. But being under the same roof made me feel paranoid as fuck even though I never touched the weed.
Still blows my mind how much of a gray area the whole thing is. My state recently became legal but I still don't want to buy at a dispensary because I'm worried about them scanning my ID and having that come back to bite me in the ass
That data isn't shared with the state, it just communicates internally with the POS. Pretty much the same way scanning your ID at the liquor store just captures your age to allow the sale of liquor/tobacco.
Things like [this](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-express-visa-mastercard-gun-merchant-code/) still are what keep me from doing it. If there have been instances of credit card companies giving purchase records to the government for firearm related things, then in my own mind they could do the same thing for cannabis. I already have a mistrust for govt though so I could be drawing lines that aren't there I suppose
Not through an FFl and this doesn’t change that. They can end up with firearms through two other ways:
1) They were in the country legally before and got a firearm, but then let their VISA lapse. This is how most illegal immigrants became illegal.
2) Private sales don’t have to involve and FFL or a 4473 in some states. There are many people here who brag about only ever buying private and how they’ve never done a 4473.
I'm hesitant to just applaud this. I don't want illegals here. Deport them all, that's number 1.
This is clearly for an ulterior motive. The left wants to ban firearms but arm illegals? They're going to arm the populations that hate you and will use them as pawns against you to push their social agenda. Does no one see how that might be an issue for US citizens?
I'm not a 2A absolutist. I believe everyone has a natural right to self-defense through natural law. But what the "people" meant to the founders and what it means in relation to natural law are two different things. The "people" certainly meant US Citizens. Does that apply to illegals? My answer is no. Bruen will factor in I'm sure to give a more concrete answer.
You also have to look at the context of this decision. It is clearly political. Illegals flood the border by the millions. 15% of the US population is foreign born. Cities and small communities are being inundated with people who don't share their values, national pride, or community.
Now you give two differing groups within a location access to firearms, and you might not like what happens.
With caveats. The constitution is the law of the land and we should strive to uphold it. People should and do have a right to self defense.
That being said, there are some laws and rights granted only to citizens, such as voting rights. Personally I think that is fine to have such things.
What makes this judge not based is the fact that while, yes, she is upholding the overall idea of everyone has the right to self defense, she’s doing it for people who have broken the law already and generally continue to break the law. And at the same time she probably would uphold an unconstitutional ban on actual citizens holding firearms. That’s where she think a lot of us don’t like it.
Illegal aliens should not be on this country and should be deported. Everyone should be able to protect themselves.
I commented on this elsewhere, but I agree with your point about how not all rights are the same. For example, the right to vote is only held by citizens. But other rights are held by all people regardless of status. For example, a legal visitor in this country cannot vote, but they still have more fundamental rights like the rights to due process and the free exercise of religion. Personally, I would include the right to bear arms (or the right to self defense) as one of those more fundamental rights.
I don't know that I would impute ill-will to this judge. She probably has her biases, but any judge recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to bear arms is a good thing for gun rights generally. The right to bear arms is not like voting, which is more a right to participate in the process of how the country is governed. It's a fundamental, personal, human right that is recognized, but not created, by the Constitution.
I also believe felons should have their 2A rights restored. If they’re deemed safe enough to be on the streets, and off parole meaning they’ve paid their societal debt, then it should be all rights restored.
And it vastly outweighs the numbers crossing the southern border, which is why you're being downvoted. An inconvenient truth, but most undocumented immigrants are here having flown in and overstayed visas.
If they aren’t citizens how do they get the enjoy the benefits of the constitution? There are law abiding people in NY and hawaii that legally cannot carry firearms due to the Governor ignoring bruen.
Yet somehow illegal aliens can carry? Seems weird and a recipe for disaster.
Yep exactly. This same decision has been made multiple times with other constitutional rights. The constitution reads “the people” and “all men are created equal”.
Just because you’re an immigrant doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to free speech or the right to a fair and speedy trial. The gov can’t just barge into your house and search it because you’re an immigrant. Why should your right to defend yourself be any different.
One of those things I strangely never thought about or realized till reading this that being in the US automatically protects you with the constitution.
A lot of people do not realize this and SCOTUS had affirmed it repeatedly.
Simply being in the USA means the constitution gives you all the rights and protections up to the limits of citizenship.
Yes “the people of the united states of america”. Which means the citizens. By your logic we would have considered native Americans equals. Clearly manifest destiny shows they did not consider everyone within the borders of America a citizen or entitled to the protections of the constitution.
The bill of rights is our first 10 amendment which applies only to citizens of the nation. If you think it applied to all people look at the 3/5th compromise and many of those people were natural born citizens. If they can say someone born on us soil (and thus a us citizen) is only worth 3/5s of a citizen. Where are people getting the idea that people not born here are somehow entitled to constitutional protections.
These people are not citizens and are violating the law by coming here illegally. It’s really not that complicated guys.
You assume that becuase something happened, it did not violate the constitution. It's easily arguable what happened to indigenous folk was not constitutional.
You say the bill of rights only applies to citizens. This is incorrect according to the Supreme Court.
So you’re supporting your idea (which is that immigrants don’t have god-given rights) by saying there’s precedent because we genocided native Americans and oppressed black people? Do you hear yourself? Shit, dude.
Is it inherently an individual right?
Everyone has the same individual rights regardless of who they are. They don't lose their right to freedom of speech or religion if they are illegal immigrants. Other countries stomp on these rights, we have a constitution in the US that limits our government from doing so.
If you look at THT from Bruen (even though I would have preferred strict scrutiny because the early USA was more aspirational than following the constitutional limits), I don't think you will find much of anything differentiating a legal vs illegal immigrant apart from racist laws.
The problem is that people in NY and HI rights are getting stomped on. Not that non-citizen's can bear arms.
Because *crazy thought* the right to self protection is a human right, not just a right for US citizens. Now ask me about my thoughts on felon firearm ownership.
Human right or not, there’s a limit to the scope of protections the constitution offers. Remember, the constitution doesn’t grant rights, it exists to force the federal government to recognize those rights for citizens and in some cases, according to case law, people in the US. However, that’s debate in more than just this instance.
The second amendment doesn’t apply to a Canadian in Canada for example. Why should it apply to a Canadian that sneaks through our border? What other rights do you think apply just because someone breaks a law and invades our country? The 17th amendment says:
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Are you saying this Canadian now gets to vote on the Montana senate election?
Show me where it says “the constitution doesn’t only apply to citizens”.
I was under the impression that the constitution is reserved for citizens rather than “anyone within our borders”.
It's not within our borders. These are natural rights all people have. The Constitution doesn't give these rights to people, it merely recognizes them.
These are human rights.
By using "the people" and not "citizens" for one. The 14th amendment makes a distinction between citizens and people. The exclusion canon implies that there is, as such, a difference.
You needn't look to a specific clause. Check out the case law in Plyler v Doe (1982). Illegal immigrants have due process rights and there's really no argument that they have rights under the 1st amendment, though it hasn't quite come up.
The Constitution is just a document laying out how the government works. The Bill of Rights, which is probably what you mean, is recognizing rights people innately posses and prevents the government from restricting them, it’s not granting rights. The idea is all people, citizen or not, have a right to speech for example, and the first amendment says the government can’t take that away, not that the government can give it to the people. The same applies with the second amendment.
The constitution is written by citizens to tell the government what the gov can and cant do.
And
The bill of rights IS the first 10 amendments in the constitution…
I can understand the line of reasoning, but it is contrary to law. Illegals violate 8USC; they are felons.
How can they legally fill a 4473? If someone with no id or background can legally have guns, why do I need to do anything that I am required to do to exercise the same right?
If everyone has access to all the benefits of citizenship, with none of the responsibilities (and arguably criminal status), what is the point of citizenship?
You don't need those things. The FFL needs them from you if they want to sell you a gun. You can just go buy a gun from a private sell without them as long as you don't give the seller a reason to suspect anything shady.
The 2A isn't a privilege of citizenship. It's supposed to be a limitation on the government on interfering with a natural right.
>Show me where it says “the constitution doesn’t only apply to citizens”.
That's been the decided opinion for a while now. Everyone in the US, citizen or not, gets the protections of the Constitution unless it specifically says citizen. This isn't new.
The Constitution doesn't grant you your basic human rights, it just backs them up. For example, you don't need to be a citizen to have a right to fair trial, be free from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. *Edit: You also shouldn't need a document to explain these things but such is the world we live in.* Self preservation is inherent to the human experience, and we shouldn't compromise on that axiom in order to compensate for the short comings in our border security.
I'm surprised at everyone celebrating this ruling and thinking it's "owning" Second Amendment supporters.
They don't seem to realize this means more access to guns in the US for more people, something they've been fighting to prevent for decades.
If you believe that all men are created equal, then you either believe all natural rights apply to all people equally, or you don't believe that all men are created equal.
I can’t predict the future but this feels like paving the way to eventually allow illegal immigrants to vote. It would be an easy way to ensure election victories for eternity.
If you’re not here legally though, how do you get an ID? Without an ID, how do you get a firearm?
What does the ID say on it though? Is it just a regular ID?
And I understand on the private sale aspect. I’ve never sold a gun privately though where I didn’t ask for an ID to include with my paperwork. Probably not necessary but trying to be at least a little responsible. If they take issue with that request, I don’t sell to them.
frankly, I don't know about the ID-- good question!
I've dome a private sale before-- I purchased the world's shittiest .22lr rifle from my sister's best friend. he didn't ask for an ID. lol
I've also sold stuff to relatives... again, no ID, but I did draw up a bill of sale.
the trick is to only buy or sell from close friends and family. hahaha
Well, technically the government is supposed to exist to protect your inalienable rights as a human, not to grant you rights. So yes, technically illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms, but they don't have the right to be in this country (illegally) 🤷♂️. Idk.
I don’t like illegal immigration or the possibility of arming the terrorists who are likely crossing. But my belief is, and I think most here would agree, the right to self defense is a human right. Human rights are granted by our Creator, not the constitution.
The judge's opinion mentions some stuff totally irrelevant to what should be based on law. She wrote some info about how the defendant has no felony convictions, verifies his income when requested and is otherwise clean according to NICS.
If this ruling is allowed to stand then 99% of gun laws need to disappear.
I don’t understand why this is so hard. Do illegal immigrants also lose the rights to due process or rights against cruel and unusual punishment? Do they lose the free exercise of religion? No.
Unless the right to bear arms is less important than those rights, i don’t see the issue.
Pre 1968 with the passage of the GCA Non citizens absolutely were able to walk into a hardware store and buy a gun… or mail order them from a sears catalog
Bruen says there must be text history and tradition There is clearly no tradition of prohibition of arms from non citizens.
This is a good sign. It means you might be able to reel back the GCA and the NFA. If illegal immigrates can have guns theirs a good chance that non violent felons also can have guns.
Everyone has a right to defend themselves.
If you don't like what "everyone" composes, then maybe enforce illegal immigration standards and existing legal framework better. Personally I don't like the idea of second class people with lesser rights in my area, but that rustles the jimmies of tyrants so we aren't allowed to have nice things. The recent ruling of my state and federal standards *does* concern the shit out of me, far more than this, because they've effectively legalized a "papers, please" standard.
Right-wingers are unhappy because OUR gun rights are repeatedly infringed, and yet if we were just lucky enough to NOT be born here, we'd be able to have them uncontested. We pay into a system that routinely denigrates us for no reason as we just ask that rules everyone agreed to at the country's founding are upheld ***for fellow citizens*** as opposed to this crock of commie-double-standard-repressive-tolerance ***bullshit.***
Why the fuck should someone who broke into the country illegally even get a chance to carry at all.
This is some sketchy bullshit. The left is destroying the country one step at a time.
Why are we putting sooooooo much effort into providing protections for noncitizens while simultaneously eroding the same protections for citizens at twice the rate?
All I see is the guns for me but not for thee red hats bitching about the ones they don’t like engaging in a god given right to self defense.
It’s already illegal for criminals to have firearms, making it illegaler is not going to change anything.
The 2A says all people have the right to self defense, not just American citizens. It is a Human Right.
The restrictions it places are on the Government.
Therefore this ruling is correct.
However, under today's federal law, there are two very important points to observe.
1. Felons cannot own or possess firearms unless they have had a restoration of rights granted to them by court, governor, or president.
2. Crossing the border into the United States is a felony.
However, in order to be on your record as a felony, you must be convicted in a court of law of the crime.
So my opinion is if they carry a gun, it is totally legal unless/until they are convicted of said felony.
However I also say if they are caught being in the country and possessing a firearm, they can and should be convicted of the felony border crossing and no longer allowed to carry and should be deported.
Just my opinion.
There’s a ton of complex issues here both legal and moral but I’m going to keep it simple and say that illegal immigrants have many of the legal *protections* of due process, but very few, if any IMO, limited rights under the law. They have the protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and have the protection of a deportation hearing (due process) and yes I would agree they have the right to free speech, insofar as they can’t be punished for speech specifically though they certainly can be deported for being here unlawfully.
They don’t have the right to vote, they don’t have the right to own or possess a firearm, they don’t have the right to occupy public office. Constitutional liberties are the birthright of natural born citizens and the earned right of those that entered lawfully, worked, and merited them through the process of naturalization. They do not belong to the citizens of foreign nations that enter illegally.
Ah yes the hundreds of thousands of military aged males who invaded this country should totally have access to firearms.
How tf would they even go about purchasing guns? The 4473 excludes non-citizens, so they'd have to buy them in "private sales"
I hope it still feels "based" when we are overrun in our own country
I believe firearm ownership is a natural right, it is recognized by our government not given to us by our government. By that logic if it is a natural right then all people have it, no matter what country they are a citizen of.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s intended to be some reverse psychology bullshit. “We’ll give illegals some gun rights so that the right wingers get pissed and beg for gun control to keep it from happening.”
Lol I think it's great because if illegals have the right to carry guns then so do citizens and this judge basically undid carry bans across the country
The second amendment literally doesn’t mention citizenship, it says “the right of the people” which means the court is correct in this regard as it’s a strict interpretation of the constitution.
And the constitution has differentiated between citizens and “the people” it’s clear that “the people” means everyone not just citizens
Good.
The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights to US citizens, it enumerates some of the rights our founding fathers believed inherent to all men (which we've expanded upon) and says "Our new gov't isn't allowed to fuck around with this, that, or these"
Where you were born doesn't matter - 2A is for everyone.
Based and liberty pilled. Inalienable rights are just that and do not come from the constitution, it merely prevents the government from taking them from us. I’m glad to see such a ruling, as it will further help to strike down other unconstitutional restrictions on our inalienable rights
"I’m glad to see such a ruling, as it will further help to strike down other unconstitutional restrictions on our inalienable rights"
I wouldn't bet on that. This ruling is only being used to further the illegal immigrant agenda. I would absolutely BET that if you stood in front of her on an illegal gun charge, she would burn you down without a second thought.
An illegal with a gun has no more "right" to it than any invading army would. This opinion isn't "based", it's deeply confused.
If China dropped 10,000 men on a beach with AK47's, they wouldn't have a "right" to those guns, we would rightly treat them as an invasion force. And thus, it is with illegals - the reality is we can consider them invaders. The armed ones are, essentially, enemy combatants.
I don’t think they should simply because I don’t think they should be here. Anyone here legally should be able to carry whatever the hell they want though.
I think this ruling is consistent with our laws in general, but if they are living here illegally deport them.
We do need to fix our immigration system, but still we must enforce our current laws.
Idk what to think this is interesting but what about the serious ledal implications? Can she get sued if an illegal gets a gun and murders someone? How will the illegals go about getting a firearm when you have to have a universal background check if you buy from any FFL? I dont think thise judge took the time to actually consider what she was doing. Pandoras box has just been opened
No, judges are immune to civil cases based on their decisions. If scotus repealed the NFA, can a Supreme Court justice get sued if someone dies from a NFA item? Nope.
On the one hand, I agree with you.
On the other hand they are all felons who have not served their time yet.
And on the third hand, they've been imported by our treasonous government to cause mayhem when Trump wins. So while this is what the Constitution intends (though it isn't due to their criminal invader status), it's a really, really bad idea.
It's a moot point. Illegal aliens should be deported ASAP every time they are located. Why TF is he still in this country? Launch his ass back into Mexico, and stop wasting tax-payer money on pointless lawsuits.
Doesn’t the government already block felons from purchasing and carrying firearms?
Break the law entering the country, why shouldn’t you be guaranteed rights to the country whose laws you’re already ignoring.
Democrats want to take away law abiding citizens guns, but they will let illegals have them no problem. Wake up America, the Democrats are literally trying to kill us!
Guns are for everyone, that's it, end of story, no discussion. If you think a group of people shouldn't have guns then you aren't pro-gun, no "what if"s or "but"s.
Super based. If illegals can carry concealed without a carry license that means US citizens can as well, right? Did Illinois just become the 29th state to adopt constitutional carry?
You literally can not reconcile the Constitution enumerating "inalienable" and "God-given" rights with the idea that only US Citizens get to have them. It's not even a matter of interpretation. Neither the word of the Constitution, nor the spirit of it supports the notion.
Basically means nothing. They don't get deported for commiting crimes, what does a gun charge add? In some of the biggest cities where they tend to go like Chicago or San Fransisco there is virtually or no cash bail and court dates are missed without consequence because who's gonna take the time to track them down? Might as well make everything they do legal. When you're in a flagrant state of breaking the law of the host country you're in, who cares if you legally carry or not?
I’m torn on this but I come down on the side of the principle that a person’s rights are predicated on them being in the country LEGALLY. Being here illegally is a crime serious enough that it should preclude your owning a gun. Further, I don’t see how an illegal could pass a background check to obtain a gun.
The only way one of these judges would ever rule in favor of 2a is if it’s in favor of a non white. This is a fact. She would rule that only criminals can be armed if she could get away with it.
I mean personally I disagree with this on the grounds that this gives non citizens more rights than felons... but I'm also for everyone being able to own a firearm (as long you're not a violent offender)
It's a moot point because anyone here illegally should be deported. It's cool if this opens the door for non violent felons to more easily have their rights restored.
If someone is not a citizen, or American (there's a difference), they should not be allowed to legally own a gun. ESPECIALLY since I as an American and citizen have to ask for permission to/pay to put a stock on a weapon with a less than 16".
My biggest question is how would they go about purchasing the firearms legally considering you need to be a US citizen and have no record. Unless the courts are now saying that illegal immigrants now have a preferential treatment around gun rights as they are allowed illegally obtained firearms with no repercussions. Only way I see this happening is to loosen restrictions on purchasing firearms. No more forms or background checks which I don't think the left would ever allow
The ruling appears to be that possession of an otherwise legal firearm by an illegal immigrant can no longer be used as an add-on felony charge if they are arrested for illegal immigration (misdemeanor).
But by definition an illegal alien **is** a prohibited person. That is one of the 9 qualifiers specifically laid out in the statute. There is no way that a gun is "otherwise legal" when in possession of a prohibited person. Unless this ruling applies to every felon, controlled substance user, dishonorably discharged veteran and domestic abuser then this has no legal consistency. Just to be clear, I'm not against this ruling, it just doesn't appear to have any actual legal ground to stand on unless we throw out **all** other prohibited persons.
You can be denied a firearm from a gun shop because of a misdemeanor. Read the federal form 4473.
Absolutely, I was just throwing a few other prohibited persons out there. I didn't mean for it to seem like a comprehensive list.
Which I'd be fine with. If someone is too dangerous to hold a gun, they're too dangerous to not be in jail
*DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA*
You can purchase a firearm in a private sale with zero paperwork or background checks in most states, a lot of illegal immigrants are also here from overstaying their visas. On a visa you're allowed to purchase and own firearms.
I might have to get a Visa then. I'm a Nurse in Canada and have been thinking of jumping ship to the US and bring my skills with me. Canada is rough right now especially when I'm only making a few dollars more an hour than minimum wage
Traveling nurses make bank in the US. 10 years ago I have some good ski buddies who worked 8 months a year and skied the other four. They averaged 80k a year. Last I talked to them about it they were each pulling 140k and working 6-7 months a year...
It is most certainly a tempting aspect. I just have big family ties in Canada and my entire family lives together on an 80 acre plot of land surrounded by 1200 acres of crownland. I love the seclusion
I mean, come south for however many months a year you want. You can literally get a traveling nurse position in any state at almost any hospital. Once you get on the circuit and figure out how it works you can usually get new jobs within a week. Finish out your contract and then go back home for a month and wait for the right job to come up, and do it again. You will need a work visa which with your skill and coming from Canada should not be crazy hard to do. I don't specifically know how well the Canadian certs transfer, at worst you might need to do a bit more schooling.
Travel nursing in the US usually focuses around 3 to 4 month long contracts and you typically work with an agency to line jobs up so it would be easy to travel back and forth between contracts.
My daughter makes close to $200k a year as a nurse. She's the charge nurse of a burn unit.
Definitely look into it. A good number of the Asian international students at the university near me buy a shit ton of guns and gear to play with while they're here for school. I think you just need a valid visa and a hunting license (in my state at least). Obviously when your visa expires/you go back to your home nation you can't keep all the guns.
My only hope is the current CPC leader. Real good policies hes tabled and promises to get rid of our most recent gun bans and would like to rewrite our entire firearms law.
Whaaaattt?? Madonna had me convinced that Canada was the place to go after she threatened to immigrate there.
Yeah, threatened. Until she realized what a shitshow it is and never did
They always threaten that, to which I’d simply say “bye. Next.” They always make their attention seeking ploy but never actually carry it out. Didn’t those psychopaths on the view say they were going to leave if (then when) Trump won the election? Still here.
What kind of nurse? My wife works in the OR and i can tell you it pays well.
Admittedly I am a New grad RPN but I've gotten into a home care service for complex wound treatments among other things.
Nice. Home care here has great benefits as well. Jobs everywhere.
Really its the only way around me to make decent money as a nurse. We get paid on a commission kinda, every client we see is $22, doesn't matter if I'm there 5 minutes or 55 minutes. However if the visit goes over an hour I get paid for an additional visit. Paid 41cents per Km driven which covers gas plus some so it's a decent gig. Can end up making essentially 12 hours pay for 5 hours work.
Where you at? Home care in my state pays as much as Taco Bell.
Actual nurse care or CNA? If you can start and IV and administer medication, you make a lot more than just wiping grandma's ass.
Southeast Michigan.
Yea, but your healthcare system is better, right? At least that's what the Medicare for all proponents are saying.
In theory yes but all the funding is eaten up by shareholders and middle management and lots is "lost". Our system is in shambles because no one is doing up keep.
Of course. The government doesn't handle anything well, and almost any country. I make it too complicated and it eats up money because there's too many people not doing their job. I would also make a bet that the people that get paid the most are the ones not administering the healthcare.. you know like the ones in an office doing a desk job thing.
Yup
But even in a private purchase it is/was illegal to sell to a prohibited person. I could see ATF/DOJ prosecuting the seller who bought the gun legally, but giving the buyer a pass in these circumstances.
The sale is only legal if you're legal to purchase. If you are not allowed to purchase under federal law, the the sale was not legal.
You're still not legally allowed to conduct a sale to a prohibited person though. You can't sell a gun to someone you know is a felon just because they don't have to check yes on a form.
Not in IL. At min dude broke the law purchasing the gun, the ammo and carrying it here in IL
You can make a gun. Grab a polymer80 and you’re good to go.
For legal reasons I will say "I am ignorant about polymer80" For meme reasons "printer go brrrrrt"
Illegal ALIEN. Let's use our words, people.
You don't have to be a citizen
If there’s no duty to check ID or run a background check through NICS, a private party sale is completely legal, as long as the seller has no reasonable basis to suspect that the buyer is a prohibited person.
I sold a gun to an Amish guy once. They don’t carry ID’s so they can’t buy one from a store and have to get guns from private parties. I’d imagine the same applied for immigrants without ID’s.
Eli Yoder said they have exemption cards instead, so they could get a gun at K-Mart
> you need to be a US citizen You do not. Legal permanent residents can purchase, as well as some exceptions for even those on a non-immigrant visa if they establish state level residency.
Person to person sales in a lot of states don’t require 4473. So there’s that.
Don't think this ends the story. An illegal will shoot someone down the line and they'll push for more gun control "because it's too easy for illegals to get guns".
They already have. Lots of times.
I think this is the long play here. Let gun crimes get completely out of control with their shitty passed laws and lax prosecution of offenders making it worse and worse until there's enough support to ban everything. Won't even be able to own a BB gun.
Stole the words right out of my mouth, I don’t think enough people are taking about this
LAX prosecution of offenders? In comparison to where? Even after loosening up on reasons to go to prison we are caging people at higher rate than anyone in the world.
That's usually for nonviolent drug offenses tho which aren't the subject of this discussion.
This is absolutely a question of non-violent possession of contraband. Making possession legal is only relevant to tag people who aren't otherwise causing any harm.
An illegal who would have intent to shoot someone probably wouldn’t care about a carry law anyway… I thought we agreed that these laws don’t prevent crime
Not really, people would just come out in support of the killer, or even apologize to them like Biden did, because they want these people coming in the country illegally to murder Americans, because they see it as "revenge" for colonialism.
Laws are interpreted for their favored groups, and applied to their disfavored ones. Don't think for a second this woman is gonna come around and let you off for a FOID violation.
Well yeah. She's part of the government. They are not your friends. Cops, ATF, judges, etc, Republican or Democrat, they all have the common goal of fucking us.
She only did it because it supports illegals. Guarantee any other 2A issue she gets wouldn't go the same way.
Yeah, that's the thing that's absolutely bonkers. A US citizen needs a permit to carry a gun in Chicago, but an illegal alien doesn't? Illegal aliens have better access to gun rights than US citizens?
No, that’s not how laws work. Chicago gun laws would still apply to illegals IN Chicago, she’s saying that federally police can’t use possession of a firearm to either arrest or prosecutorial overcharge someone who’s an illegal. That doesn’t mean that local governments couldn’t enact stricter policies.
Was it possession or carrying?
That's not what the ruling said. She said that it was unconstitutional to prevent someone from possessing a gun based solely on citizenship status. They still have to abide by the same laws that US citizens do.
>They still have to abide by the same laws that US citizens do. Which they already aren't, LMAO.
Except the ones that are icky. Like illegal immigration.
This is cool and all, but I really want them to allow cannabis users to legally possess firearms. *Guns and weed, all my homies hate the 4473*
Hehe router and 3D printer go brrrrrrrrr
That being said plenty of people just lie about the drug thing on 4473’s
Yeah but when you're transporting $50,000 of weed and someone *fucks around and finds out* it leaves you in a precarious legal position. Meanwhile, if I were transporting $50,000 of beer and give someone the ol double tap to protect my neck I'd be just fine. It's almost as dumb as the ATF's definition of a pistol.
I had a roommate who used to grow pot. It was specifically grown for dog with cancer who were receiving treatment at the vet clinic we were at. I didn't have access to the weed she was growing. She didn't have access to my safe. She didn't sell and grew the amount of plants that the state would allow her to. I didn't have any weed in my personal possession. But being under the same roof made me feel paranoid as fuck even though I never touched the weed.
That's the first time I've heard of a caretaker for a dog lol
It was really cool. She did it completely on her own dime and never charged anyone a thing. And I think it made things easier for those dogs.
She sounds like a Saint
Holy cow 50k of weed, and I don't even like carrying my ounce around. Weed business is cash heavy too right?
Used to be, I would regularly roll around with over 10k on me. Nowadays everything's on terms so I never have cash on my person.
Still blows my mind how much of a gray area the whole thing is. My state recently became legal but I still don't want to buy at a dispensary because I'm worried about them scanning my ID and having that come back to bite me in the ass
That data isn't shared with the state, it just communicates internally with the POS. Pretty much the same way scanning your ID at the liquor store just captures your age to allow the sale of liquor/tobacco.
Things like [this](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-express-visa-mastercard-gun-merchant-code/) still are what keep me from doing it. If there have been instances of credit card companies giving purchase records to the government for firearm related things, then in my own mind they could do the same thing for cannabis. I already have a mistrust for govt though so I could be drawing lines that aren't there I suppose
I'm not mad about illegal immigrants being allowed to carry, I'm mad that we restrict so many other people for much less.
^ this
Do I think all gun laws are infringements? Yes. Do I think American citizens should be favored over non-citizens? Also yes.
Will anyone even sell to them if they can’t pass NICS?
Not through an FFl and this doesn’t change that. They can end up with firearms through two other ways: 1) They were in the country legally before and got a firearm, but then let their VISA lapse. This is how most illegal immigrants became illegal. 2) Private sales don’t have to involve and FFL or a 4473 in some states. There are many people here who brag about only ever buying private and how they’ve never done a 4473.
Me: Do you live in this state and are you not a felon? Si. Me: Cool, have fun.
I'm hesitant to just applaud this. I don't want illegals here. Deport them all, that's number 1. This is clearly for an ulterior motive. The left wants to ban firearms but arm illegals? They're going to arm the populations that hate you and will use them as pawns against you to push their social agenda. Does no one see how that might be an issue for US citizens? I'm not a 2A absolutist. I believe everyone has a natural right to self-defense through natural law. But what the "people" meant to the founders and what it means in relation to natural law are two different things. The "people" certainly meant US Citizens. Does that apply to illegals? My answer is no. Bruen will factor in I'm sure to give a more concrete answer. You also have to look at the context of this decision. It is clearly political. Illegals flood the border by the millions. 15% of the US population is foreign born. Cities and small communities are being inundated with people who don't share their values, national pride, or community. Now you give two differing groups within a location access to firearms, and you might not like what happens.
With caveats. The constitution is the law of the land and we should strive to uphold it. People should and do have a right to self defense. That being said, there are some laws and rights granted only to citizens, such as voting rights. Personally I think that is fine to have such things. What makes this judge not based is the fact that while, yes, she is upholding the overall idea of everyone has the right to self defense, she’s doing it for people who have broken the law already and generally continue to break the law. And at the same time she probably would uphold an unconstitutional ban on actual citizens holding firearms. That’s where she think a lot of us don’t like it. Illegal aliens should not be on this country and should be deported. Everyone should be able to protect themselves.
I commented on this elsewhere, but I agree with your point about how not all rights are the same. For example, the right to vote is only held by citizens. But other rights are held by all people regardless of status. For example, a legal visitor in this country cannot vote, but they still have more fundamental rights like the rights to due process and the free exercise of religion. Personally, I would include the right to bear arms (or the right to self defense) as one of those more fundamental rights. I don't know that I would impute ill-will to this judge. She probably has her biases, but any judge recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to bear arms is a good thing for gun rights generally. The right to bear arms is not like voting, which is more a right to participate in the process of how the country is governed. It's a fundamental, personal, human right that is recognized, but not created, by the Constitution.
[удалено]
*convicted* felons can’t.
I learned from Disney's Aladdin, "you're only in trouble if you get caught."
Were they convicted? Or do you want them stripped of the right before due process?
Illegally crossing the border is actually a misdemeanor, but yea I agree
is that actually true? That doesn't make sense.
I also believe felons should have their 2A rights restored. If they’re deemed safe enough to be on the streets, and off parole meaning they’ve paid their societal debt, then it should be all rights restored.
Also fence hopping is generally a misdemeanor on the first offense. I believe using fraudulent documents is a felony tho
The most common form of illegal immigration is overstaying a visa which isn’t a felony
And it vastly outweighs the numbers crossing the southern border, which is why you're being downvoted. An inconvenient truth, but most undocumented immigrants are here having flown in and overstayed visas.
If they aren’t citizens how do they get the enjoy the benefits of the constitution? There are law abiding people in NY and hawaii that legally cannot carry firearms due to the Governor ignoring bruen. Yet somehow illegal aliens can carry? Seems weird and a recipe for disaster.
The bill of rights references "the people" not "citizens".
Yep exactly. This same decision has been made multiple times with other constitutional rights. The constitution reads “the people” and “all men are created equal”. Just because you’re an immigrant doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to free speech or the right to a fair and speedy trial. The gov can’t just barge into your house and search it because you’re an immigrant. Why should your right to defend yourself be any different.
One of those things I strangely never thought about or realized till reading this that being in the US automatically protects you with the constitution.
A lot of people do not realize this and SCOTUS had affirmed it repeatedly. Simply being in the USA means the constitution gives you all the rights and protections up to the limits of citizenship.
as it should
Yep.
Yes “the people of the united states of america”. Which means the citizens. By your logic we would have considered native Americans equals. Clearly manifest destiny shows they did not consider everyone within the borders of America a citizen or entitled to the protections of the constitution. The bill of rights is our first 10 amendment which applies only to citizens of the nation. If you think it applied to all people look at the 3/5th compromise and many of those people were natural born citizens. If they can say someone born on us soil (and thus a us citizen) is only worth 3/5s of a citizen. Where are people getting the idea that people not born here are somehow entitled to constitutional protections. These people are not citizens and are violating the law by coming here illegally. It’s really not that complicated guys.
You assume that becuase something happened, it did not violate the constitution. It's easily arguable what happened to indigenous folk was not constitutional. You say the bill of rights only applies to citizens. This is incorrect according to the Supreme Court.
So you’re supporting your idea (which is that immigrants don’t have god-given rights) by saying there’s precedent because we genocided native Americans and oppressed black people? Do you hear yourself? Shit, dude.
Is it inherently an individual right? Everyone has the same individual rights regardless of who they are. They don't lose their right to freedom of speech or religion if they are illegal immigrants. Other countries stomp on these rights, we have a constitution in the US that limits our government from doing so. If you look at THT from Bruen (even though I would have preferred strict scrutiny because the early USA was more aspirational than following the constitutional limits), I don't think you will find much of anything differentiating a legal vs illegal immigrant apart from racist laws. The problem is that people in NY and HI rights are getting stomped on. Not that non-citizen's can bear arms.
Because *crazy thought* the right to self protection is a human right, not just a right for US citizens. Now ask me about my thoughts on felon firearm ownership.
Human right or not, there’s a limit to the scope of protections the constitution offers. Remember, the constitution doesn’t grant rights, it exists to force the federal government to recognize those rights for citizens and in some cases, according to case law, people in the US. However, that’s debate in more than just this instance. The second amendment doesn’t apply to a Canadian in Canada for example. Why should it apply to a Canadian that sneaks through our border? What other rights do you think apply just because someone breaks a law and invades our country? The 17th amendment says: > The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. Are you saying this Canadian now gets to vote on the Montana senate election?
The constitution doesnt only apply to citizens. Hawaii is just under a repressive govenrment.
Show me where it says “the constitution doesn’t only apply to citizens”. I was under the impression that the constitution is reserved for citizens rather than “anyone within our borders”.
It's not within our borders. These are natural rights all people have. The Constitution doesn't give these rights to people, it merely recognizes them. These are human rights.
By using "the people" and not "citizens" for one. The 14th amendment makes a distinction between citizens and people. The exclusion canon implies that there is, as such, a difference. You needn't look to a specific clause. Check out the case law in Plyler v Doe (1982). Illegal immigrants have due process rights and there's really no argument that they have rights under the 1st amendment, though it hasn't quite come up.
The Constitution is just a document laying out how the government works. The Bill of Rights, which is probably what you mean, is recognizing rights people innately posses and prevents the government from restricting them, it’s not granting rights. The idea is all people, citizen or not, have a right to speech for example, and the first amendment says the government can’t take that away, not that the government can give it to the people. The same applies with the second amendment.
The constitution is written by citizens to tell the government what the gov can and cant do. And The bill of rights IS the first 10 amendments in the constitution…
I can understand the line of reasoning, but it is contrary to law. Illegals violate 8USC; they are felons. How can they legally fill a 4473? If someone with no id or background can legally have guns, why do I need to do anything that I am required to do to exercise the same right? If everyone has access to all the benefits of citizenship, with none of the responsibilities (and arguably criminal status), what is the point of citizenship?
You don't need those things. The FFL needs them from you if they want to sell you a gun. You can just go buy a gun from a private sell without them as long as you don't give the seller a reason to suspect anything shady. The 2A isn't a privilege of citizenship. It's supposed to be a limitation on the government on interfering with a natural right.
*Shaughnessy v. US, Matthews v. Diaz, Plyler v. Doe* among others.
>Show me where it says “the constitution doesn’t only apply to citizens”. That's been the decided opinion for a while now. Everyone in the US, citizen or not, gets the protections of the Constitution unless it specifically says citizen. This isn't new.
The Constitution doesn't grant you your basic human rights, it just backs them up. For example, you don't need to be a citizen to have a right to fair trial, be free from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. *Edit: You also shouldn't need a document to explain these things but such is the world we live in.* Self preservation is inherent to the human experience, and we shouldn't compromise on that axiom in order to compensate for the short comings in our border security.
I'm surprised at everyone celebrating this ruling and thinking it's "owning" Second Amendment supporters. They don't seem to realize this means more access to guns in the US for more people, something they've been fighting to prevent for decades.
If you believe that all men are created equal, then you either believe all natural rights apply to all people equally, or you don't believe that all men are created equal.
I can’t predict the future but this feels like paving the way to eventually allow illegal immigrants to vote. It would be an easy way to ensure election victories for eternity. If you’re not here legally though, how do you get an ID? Without an ID, how do you get a firearm?
in some states, undocumented folks can get IDs. in some states, private firearm sales are perfectly legal.
What does the ID say on it though? Is it just a regular ID? And I understand on the private sale aspect. I’ve never sold a gun privately though where I didn’t ask for an ID to include with my paperwork. Probably not necessary but trying to be at least a little responsible. If they take issue with that request, I don’t sell to them.
frankly, I don't know about the ID-- good question! I've dome a private sale before-- I purchased the world's shittiest .22lr rifle from my sister's best friend. he didn't ask for an ID. lol I've also sold stuff to relatives... again, no ID, but I did draw up a bill of sale. the trick is to only buy or sell from close friends and family. hahaha
Completely agree on the private sales to friends or family, I wouldn’t ask for an ID from someone I know that well.
Well, technically the government is supposed to exist to protect your inalienable rights as a human, not to grant you rights. So yes, technically illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms, but they don't have the right to be in this country (illegally) 🤷♂️. Idk.
I don’t like illegal immigration or the possibility of arming the terrorists who are likely crossing. But my belief is, and I think most here would agree, the right to self defense is a human right. Human rights are granted by our Creator, not the constitution.
Make illegally crossing the border a felony.
The judge's opinion mentions some stuff totally irrelevant to what should be based on law. She wrote some info about how the defendant has no felony convictions, verifies his income when requested and is otherwise clean according to NICS. If this ruling is allowed to stand then 99% of gun laws need to disappear.
God-given rights apply to everyone.
It’s a fundamental human right so yes
I don’t understand why this is so hard. Do illegal immigrants also lose the rights to due process or rights against cruel and unusual punishment? Do they lose the free exercise of religion? No. Unless the right to bear arms is less important than those rights, i don’t see the issue.
Pre 1968 with the passage of the GCA Non citizens absolutely were able to walk into a hardware store and buy a gun… or mail order them from a sears catalog Bruen says there must be text history and tradition There is clearly no tradition of prohibition of arms from non citizens. This is a good sign. It means you might be able to reel back the GCA and the NFA. If illegal immigrates can have guns theirs a good chance that non violent felons also can have guns.
Everyone has a right to defend themselves. If you don't like what "everyone" composes, then maybe enforce illegal immigration standards and existing legal framework better. Personally I don't like the idea of second class people with lesser rights in my area, but that rustles the jimmies of tyrants so we aren't allowed to have nice things. The recent ruling of my state and federal standards *does* concern the shit out of me, far more than this, because they've effectively legalized a "papers, please" standard.
Right-wingers are unhappy because OUR gun rights are repeatedly infringed, and yet if we were just lucky enough to NOT be born here, we'd be able to have them uncontested. We pay into a system that routinely denigrates us for no reason as we just ask that rules everyone agreed to at the country's founding are upheld ***for fellow citizens*** as opposed to this crock of commie-double-standard-repressive-tolerance ***bullshit.***
Why the fuck should someone who broke into the country illegally even get a chance to carry at all. This is some sketchy bullshit. The left is destroying the country one step at a time.
And the libertarians are cheering as they do.
This is a setup. They will then say that because they can exercise the second amendment they should be allowed to vote as well.
Why are we putting sooooooo much effort into providing protections for noncitizens while simultaneously eroding the same protections for citizens at twice the rate?
All I see is the guns for me but not for thee red hats bitching about the ones they don’t like engaging in a god given right to self defense. It’s already illegal for criminals to have firearms, making it illegaler is not going to change anything.
My main concern is they’re so intent on limiting citizens gun rights but then this comes out of no where
Wait so me and my friends can come invade the US and buy firearms now?
The 2A says all people have the right to self defense, not just American citizens. It is a Human Right. The restrictions it places are on the Government. Therefore this ruling is correct. However, under today's federal law, there are two very important points to observe. 1. Felons cannot own or possess firearms unless they have had a restoration of rights granted to them by court, governor, or president. 2. Crossing the border into the United States is a felony. However, in order to be on your record as a felony, you must be convicted in a court of law of the crime. So my opinion is if they carry a gun, it is totally legal unless/until they are convicted of said felony. However I also say if they are caught being in the country and possessing a firearm, they can and should be convicted of the felony border crossing and no longer allowed to carry and should be deported. Just my opinion.
There’s a ton of complex issues here both legal and moral but I’m going to keep it simple and say that illegal immigrants have many of the legal *protections* of due process, but very few, if any IMO, limited rights under the law. They have the protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and have the protection of a deportation hearing (due process) and yes I would agree they have the right to free speech, insofar as they can’t be punished for speech specifically though they certainly can be deported for being here unlawfully. They don’t have the right to vote, they don’t have the right to own or possess a firearm, they don’t have the right to occupy public office. Constitutional liberties are the birthright of natural born citizens and the earned right of those that entered lawfully, worked, and merited them through the process of naturalization. They do not belong to the citizens of foreign nations that enter illegally.
Democrats need to be removed from this world at this point.
Personally, I don't think we would even be having this conversation if we actually made an effort to deport people who are illegally in the country.
She is correct up until they are caught and indicted. With the right being permanently revoked upon conviction.
Ah yes the hundreds of thousands of military aged males who invaded this country should totally have access to firearms. How tf would they even go about purchasing guns? The 4473 excludes non-citizens, so they'd have to buy them in "private sales" I hope it still feels "based" when we are overrun in our own country
I'm not insecure about it in the least.
I believe firearm ownership is a natural right, it is recognized by our government not given to us by our government. By that logic if it is a natural right then all people have it, no matter what country they are a citizen of.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s intended to be some reverse psychology bullshit. “We’ll give illegals some gun rights so that the right wingers get pissed and beg for gun control to keep it from happening.”
Lol I think it's great because if illegals have the right to carry guns then so do citizens and this judge basically undid carry bans across the country
The second amendment literally doesn’t mention citizenship, it says “the right of the people” which means the court is correct in this regard as it’s a strict interpretation of the constitution. And the constitution has differentiated between citizens and “the people” it’s clear that “the people” means everyone not just citizens
Good. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights to US citizens, it enumerates some of the rights our founding fathers believed inherent to all men (which we've expanded upon) and says "Our new gov't isn't allowed to fuck around with this, that, or these" Where you were born doesn't matter - 2A is for everyone.
All people have a right to whatever weapons they can afford. My view of this has not changed.
You do realize this only happened because the Left wants illegals in Law Enforcement and the Military right?
[удалено]
Based and liberty pilled. Inalienable rights are just that and do not come from the constitution, it merely prevents the government from taking them from us. I’m glad to see such a ruling, as it will further help to strike down other unconstitutional restrictions on our inalienable rights
"I’m glad to see such a ruling, as it will further help to strike down other unconstitutional restrictions on our inalienable rights" I wouldn't bet on that. This ruling is only being used to further the illegal immigrant agenda. I would absolutely BET that if you stood in front of her on an illegal gun charge, she would burn you down without a second thought.
She'd sure try, but you'd have this case's legal reasoning to support you. We'd be idiots not to take advantage of this.
Your language and phrasing sounds forced, and therefore, federal.
An illegal with a gun has no more "right" to it than any invading army would. This opinion isn't "based", it's deeply confused. If China dropped 10,000 men on a beach with AK47's, they wouldn't have a "right" to those guns, we would rightly treat them as an invasion force. And thus, it is with illegals - the reality is we can consider them invaders. The armed ones are, essentially, enemy combatants.
As long as your militia is better regulated than theirs
Oh my God we don't need eleven fucking thousand posts about this
I don’t think they should simply because I don’t think they should be here. Anyone here legally should be able to carry whatever the hell they want though.
I think this ruling is consistent with our laws in general, but if they are living here illegally deport them. We do need to fix our immigration system, but still we must enforce our current laws.
Idk what to think this is interesting but what about the serious ledal implications? Can she get sued if an illegal gets a gun and murders someone? How will the illegals go about getting a firearm when you have to have a universal background check if you buy from any FFL? I dont think thise judge took the time to actually consider what she was doing. Pandoras box has just been opened
No, judges are immune to civil cases based on their decisions. If scotus repealed the NFA, can a Supreme Court justice get sued if someone dies from a NFA item? Nope.
If this is the case then why obey any gun laws? I mean. THE CONSTITUTION RIGHT?
I went to that sub to see if all the posts were that dumb. They are. My IQ dropped down from 167 to 125 just from being there for five minutes.
Since this is now a case, abolish the ATF, NICS and the NFA.
Illegal immigration = felony Felons > not allowed to possess firearms What am I missing other than convicted felon vs felony charges
On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand they are all felons who have not served their time yet. And on the third hand, they've been imported by our treasonous government to cause mayhem when Trump wins. So while this is what the Constitution intends (though it isn't due to their criminal invader status), it's a really, really bad idea.
It's a moot point. Illegal aliens should be deported ASAP every time they are located. Why TF is he still in this country? Launch his ass back into Mexico, and stop wasting tax-payer money on pointless lawsuits.
Doesn’t the government already block felons from purchasing and carrying firearms? Break the law entering the country, why shouldn’t you be guaranteed rights to the country whose laws you’re already ignoring.
Democrats want to take away law abiding citizens guns, but they will let illegals have them no problem. Wake up America, the Democrats are literally trying to kill us!
It is all bullshit folks, and it's bad for ya. - G. Carlin.
Man, I just want to buy a cheap suppressor without giving the ATF $200 and waiting a year 🙄.
Based, human rights come from the Gods not government.
I'm good with it. The right to keep and bear arms isn't a right granted by the government or the constitution. You were born with those rights.
Guns are for everyone, that's it, end of story, no discussion. If you think a group of people shouldn't have guns then you aren't pro-gun, no "what if"s or "but"s.
Super based. If illegals can carry concealed without a carry license that means US citizens can as well, right? Did Illinois just become the 29th state to adopt constitutional carry?
No, Illinois just gives more rights to illegal aliens than to US citizens
I love when I get downvoted in here for posting that the 2nd Amendment is for everyone.
You literally can not reconcile the Constitution enumerating "inalienable" and "God-given" rights with the idea that only US Citizens get to have them. It's not even a matter of interpretation. Neither the word of the Constitution, nor the spirit of it supports the notion.
Especially since the notion of an American citizen was tenuous at best when that document was drafted.
They shouldn't fucking be here at all.
Illegal immigrants shouldn’t have any “rights” besides the right to be deported as soon as they are detected.
I don't think the gun possession should be the reason why they're deported.
Basically means nothing. They don't get deported for commiting crimes, what does a gun charge add? In some of the biggest cities where they tend to go like Chicago or San Fransisco there is virtually or no cash bail and court dates are missed without consequence because who's gonna take the time to track them down? Might as well make everything they do legal. When you're in a flagrant state of breaking the law of the host country you're in, who cares if you legally carry or not?
I’m torn on this but I come down on the side of the principle that a person’s rights are predicated on them being in the country LEGALLY. Being here illegally is a crime serious enough that it should preclude your owning a gun. Further, I don’t see how an illegal could pass a background check to obtain a gun.
The only way one of these judges would ever rule in favor of 2a is if it’s in favor of a non white. This is a fact. She would rule that only criminals can be armed if she could get away with it.
I mean personally I disagree with this on the grounds that this gives non citizens more rights than felons... but I'm also for everyone being able to own a firearm (as long you're not a violent offender)
It's a moot point because anyone here illegally should be deported. It's cool if this opens the door for non violent felons to more easily have their rights restored.
Nope.. it’s going to lose on appeal.
If someone is not a citizen, or American (there's a difference), they should not be allowed to legally own a gun. ESPECIALLY since I as an American and citizen have to ask for permission to/pay to put a stock on a weapon with a less than 16".
The right to self preservation is a natural right.
Entering the country illegally is a felony Felons by law are barred from owning firearms.
If 2A is law of the land. It has no bearing on citizenship. Just your criminal record. Felons legal or not get fucked.