Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules

I really wish a lot of Russians would start crossing the border.

 

Senator Jacob Howard stated, and I quote:

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Insofar as the 14th and persons, do you understand how the constitution works? Essentially every portion of the constitution starts off by defining whom it is talking about and to whom the portion applies. That's EXACTLY what they do in the 14th. The 14th begins by referencing whom a person is and then continues to use said language throughout the article.

It's funny though you don't make this same "mistake" when you incorrectly interpret the 2nd. You assert that even though it says "person" it's actually referring to the militia because that was the first mention.

 

He is welcome to his opinion, but he is mistaken, not to mention he died 140 yrs ago.

 

Anyone who drives legally must have a license for doing that. The license can be issued by any of a large number of countries. The license can be issued by US states that license non citizens who pass normal qualifications.

If someone looks Mexican and Texas incarcerates them, they do not need id if they are American citizens.

Texas citizens are at risk of state sponsored racism.

 

No, it says:
"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."

This clearly states that the reason for guns is that well regulated Militia is a requirement.

Today, that is NOT a requirement. Our enforcement organizations provide the required weapons to those who need them.

We no longer depend on Militia, thus there is no need for the public to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, the USSC can't read English.

 

Lol wtf you mean he's mistaken? He WROTE it

 

Uh no sir. According to your interpretation of the 14th just because the militia is mentioned in the first part of the second is irrelevant given that it says people and not militia in the second part. Right?

Thats the exact same logic you're using for the 14th. You're asserting well even though it talks about persons in the first part, that doesn't mean it's referring to the same persons in the second part.

 

The amendment clearly states that the reason for the people to keep and bear arms is that it is necessary for the maintenance of a militia.

We don't do that any more. So, THAT justification for arms, no longer exists.

 

There are no parallels between the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment.

 

Incorrect. You misread the second.

The second should be read thusly: "Because the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The PURPOSE of the second amendment and the militia is NOT to protect us from outside forces. It is to protect us again a despotic government and governmental abuse of the people and to be a last line of defense against a corrupt and evil government who tries to do away with our rights.

And that reasoning will NEVER go away under ANY circumstances. It is our god given right to defend ourselves, our families and our freedom; and we will do so by any means necessary.

 

Yes there is. It's called syntax.

 

Of course he wrote his opinion, - which he modified later. You are quoting him debating the 14th where he offers his opinion. Besides, he is talking about citizenship, not about what we are discussing here in regards to people "within US jurisdiction". If you are on US soil the US laws apply to you, - obviously. Should US courts apply Chinese laws to Chinese citizens? No. If a Chinese national commits crime in US, he will be judged according to US law, and he enjoys Constitutional rights, like due process.

 

You were right until your last statement. They are under our laws. There is NOTHING however within the constitution that guarantees them any rights.

The ONLY "right" they have is to be safe within their persons and not deprived or life or liberty without due cause

 

You are incorrect, but you are welcome to your opinion. Tourism would all but die if we announced that non-citizens have no rights while in US. Have a nice day.

 

Regarding Senator Jacob M. Howard's comments, they do touch on citizenship and jurisdiction as they were thought about when the 14th Amendment was being crafted. But to read his statement as a blanket exclusion of all foreigners and aliens from the Constitution's protections is to miss the mark on both the historical backdrop and the broader way the 14th Amendment has been applied legally. Howard's distinction doesn't cut out the wide net of constitutional protections that extend to everyone on U.S. soil, including non-citizens. The Supreme Court, especially in decisions like Plyler v. Doe, has made it clear that the "jurisdiction" mentioned in the 14th Amendment spreads its protective wings over non-citizens within the U.S. as well, noting I did address your point in my comment, apparently you missed it.

Now, your comparison between how the 14th and 2nd Amendments are interpreted is a bit too simplistic. The debate and interpretation surrounding the 2nd Amendment's mentions of "A well regulated Militia" and "the right of the people" are far from straightforward. It's a complex issue, and the conclusion that "people" only means "militia" is not a universally accepted interpretation. That issue wasn't really settled until Heller. In the same vein, the broad usage of "person" in the 14th Amendment is by design, aiming to cast a wide net of protections. This breadth is key to the Amendment's goal of ensuring equal protection under the law for everyone in the U.S., citizens and non-citizens alike.

Please understand that the Constitution and its Amendments aren't set in stone; they're living, breathing documents that evolve in interpretation to reflect our nation's growing understanding of rights and protections. The intentions of the framers are vital, of course, but we also have to look at how these principles are applied today. So, saying that non-citizens are entirely outside the U.S. legal system's protection is not just at odds with Supreme Court interpretations; it also overlooks the basic principle of equal protection under the law, which is foundational to American legal thought.

 

Plyler v Doe is one of the most absurdly ruled cases in modern history.

Why would ANYONE choose to become a citizen and not simply live here as an illegal? Even people who were born here and their family has always been American. Why would we choose not to just give up our citizenship and live here illegally?

If we can reap ALL of the benefits and the same rights as a citizen while being illegal and yet have ZERO obligations to this country like paying our taxes, showing up at court when we murder someone or get a dwi etc etc?

What you're asserting and that Plyler v doe asserted is that illegals have ALL of the benefits and NONE of the drawbacks of being a citizen. Thats so absurdly ridiculous and completely makes citizenship a burden and not a benefit. Which is wholesale against what this country represents and was founded to do.

Fortunately for us the only thing it takes to overturn that absurd decision is a conservative scotus with the willingness to get rid of stupid precedent. Which we currently have.

 

You are so wrong.

This "2A is for fighting our gov's tyranny' is the classic logical fallacy typical of the right.

When the founding fathers were speaking of 'tyranny' what did they have fresh in their minds?

Colonial rule by British Monarchy. They sure as hell were not arguing for a rebellion against their own government given that the framers were the government. Hell, the militia clause is about suppressing countering insurrections. This is the logic used by the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, they were using YOUR logic. What did that get them? Jail.

so what was the second amendment was about? It was a militia vs standing armies argument. Read the transcripts of all the arguments presented at the constitutional ratification conventions, no talk of 'individual right to bear arms' was mentioned, it wasn't on their minds, the militia versus standing army was on their minds.

Thing is, the debate wasn't settled until Heller. That the second amendment guaranteed the right of an individual to own and keep arms for self defense, and for sport, wasn't settled until Heller, and even then, as precedents go, it's rather recent, and even then, it was a party line vote. Hardly the stuff of unshakeable precedents of history.

 

lol no sir you are wrong. Here let me show you

Why were they concerned about a standing army? What was the fear?

 

For the very obvious reasons like to avoid getting deported, and to enjoy benefits you pay for like Social Security.

What would be the benefit of becoming an illegal alien?

 

You don't pay income taxes. If you commit a crime you just don't show up in court. You're already a criminal anyway. If the crime is bad enough you might go to prison, you just leave the country and go back home. You don't have to show up for jury duty. And the likelihood of you being deported once you're already in the country with democrats in office is essentially zero. You get to go to schools you don't have to pay for. If you have a baby you get to receive government assistance from the ACTUAL citizens of this country to support your illegal anchor baby.

I can go on if you'd like.

Other than not being deported, what benefits does citizenship confer on you that illegals can't get?

 

They feared demagogues and tyrants (see Fed paper #1) but not the government as a whole Because the framers were the government and why would they fear themselves? This is the reason for the militia clause in the constitution. The point is, there is no legal reason for an insurrection unless there is a breakdown in the system so severe that the military will loyally follow illegal commands by the president (such as shooting protesters, which Trump, indeed, inquired to Gen. Milley about doing). That is not likely to happen. This constitution was ratified at a time long before the concept of the military swearing an oath to the constitution was sufficiently ingrained in the American psyche. The only person who ever has emerged as a potential tyrant is Donald Trump. But since the principle that the military swears an oath to the Constitution has become so ingrained in America, this idea that even Trump can become a tyrant on the sense of Mussolini is really a moot point today, though he can still do a lot of damage. Because of this fact the second amendment is really a moot amendment. It needs to be revised or repealed Because the only thing holding it together as an "individual right" is the Heller decision, which was decided on by a party line vote and rather recently, hardly the stuff of strong precedent.

 

Well, let's face it, owning guns would make them more American?

 

lol so you admit the 2nd amendment and militias were put in place as a check on demagogues and tyrants who would use our government to **** us.

Thanks

 

Clearly, as a man from Mexico, Flores is part of La Raza or “the people”. The 2A is very clear it protects the right of the “people” (la raza) to keep and bear arms!

Jokes aside, yes, this dude is protected by the 2A. If he were not, his case would not be in the court system at all because he would have no right to fair trial either.

One can oppose illegal immigration and support the 2A at the same time. There is no conflict here. The dude has a right to self defense. It’s a natural right.

 

I'm fine with your rewrite of the amendment.

The state referenced is the USA - a free state. This was at the time of the Revolutionary War and the issue was the USA being free of the King - not a colony.

We no longer use militia for that. Besides, we don't use militia in our individual states, either. And, the constitution WAS NOT there to protect some unstated right to insurrection. Insurrection is a crime.

Under a proper reading of the 2nd amendment, states could still have their own laws concerning gun ownership and use.

For example, law in Wyoming would likely have quite different law than NYC - for sound reasons. But, the idea that the laws NYC wants should govern Wyoming (or vice versa) is total nonsense.