US Code says no. Federal judge in Chicago says yes. And here's the kicker, the ruling is based on The Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Which apparently supercedes US Code (I mean of course it does, but often its not interpreted that way in the courts). https://www.infowars.com/posts/illegal-aliens-can-carry-guns-in-the-us-obama-appointed-judge-rules/ I want it on record that Im in full agreement the even illegal aliens should have the right to bear arms. I dont think they should be here in the US, but I do think they should be able to defend themselves from violent criminals. This case is interesting because seldom do federal courts rule in favor of The Constitution when other federal legalities run afoul of it. I cant help but theorize that this illegal is getting the 'special little angel' progressive exception. But maybe Im wrong. Do those of you who favor inviting all the words poor to shelter in the US, and/or want to reduce civilian firearm ownership with restrictive legislation, support this decision to afford illegals the literal interpretation of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
This is a difficult issue to come to a conclusion about. Nearly all of the Left does not believe guns should be a right. Conservatives are not sympathetic to illegal aliens and do not really believe they should have special rights. So as a result, there's going to be a near consensus that illegal aliens should not have gun rights. But if we're talking about principles and logical consistency, the argument can be made that illegals should not face extra punishment for having guns (even though they should face immediate expulsion and possible punishment for being in the country illegally). Some might also try to make an argument that illegal migrants are not just being punished for having a gun, but would just be facing more additional punishment for illegally migrating into the country, because they illegally had a gun.
Im wondering if this is a strategy to come at gun control from a sideways direction. Similar to the Black Panthers in the 60s and 70s being used to get the pro-gun to precedentially undermine themselves into supporting gun control, I suspect this is something similar. I dont believe for a hot second this federal judge is concerned about protecting constitutional rights from federal authority. But I do think that's precisely what they have done so long as we dont get stupid about it. Take the bait, but not the hook ...or something. But ya, I think this is going to be another one if those polls that gets a jillion views and almost no votes because it fundmentally challenges both the left cult and the right cult at the same time.
I've noticed this as well. The Left is able to sneak and advance all sorts of legislation, by appealing to some of the instincts on the Conservative Right. Typically this includes "tough on crime". But, in my opinion, it's kind of a Trojan horse. Trying to whittle away special rights. Set the precedent that it's okay not to recognize the rights from some groups of people, which will get them a bit closer to taking away the rights from everyone else. Because that thing will no longer be viewed as an absolute right.
Well, anyway, modernpaladin, to answer your question, I am really not sure. I recognize this is an important issue you've brought up (at least in principle). My instinctive answer would be that illegal migrants should be punished for having guns, but should not be punished too much extra. Maybe only punished 50% more than they are punished for illegally entry, or maybe not given a first-time grace period, since right now illegal migrants are usually not sentenced to prison time for their first offense (so long as they agree to be deported). I think the law enforcement system likes these type of laws because they can conveniently be used to punish persons for suspicions of other crimes, when the evidence for those other crimes is not strong enough to specifically criminally charge them with that crime. So then it becomes assumed that having a gun is evidence that the gun must have been being used for some sort of crime. Illegal migrants get much less benefit of the doubt than ordinary citizens. It's actually kind of a complicated issue to think about, if we are truly trying to examine this logically.
Committing a crime with a gun usually results in a harsher sentence because of the gun, presumably due to the assumption that the crime was committed with a willingness to kill to complete the crime. I dunno if thats even fair for other crimes, but I certainly dont think it applies to illegal immigration in and of itself. While many immigrate to flee their criminal record (and continue their crime here), most are just looking for a better peaceful life. I guess we cant say for sure whether this migrant in Chicago is a criminal or not (I'll leave that to the 'we need to track and verify gun owners' crowd...), but based purely on statistics, probably not except for illegal migration. I dont think one could demonstrate that he had the goal of using the gun to get away with being here illegally. Since he isnt known to have committed any crimes that a gun would assist in getting away with, I think its reasonable to conclude the gun really is for self defense. It is Chicago after all, and while I question the wisdom of choosing Chicago as the destination for making a better life, I certainly dont question feeling the need to have the means of effective self defense in Chicago. But thats really less the point. More the point is whether the constitution was meant for citizens in America or everyone in America. I think probably everyone. Now that doesnt mean sneaking in here means you get to stay, but it does mean while you're here, you have rights. Or it should. And beyond that, I really hate the idea that having a gun is any different than having, say, a hammer or a gallon of gasoline. And noone would or should care that he had a hammer or a gallon of gasoline. Hoplophobia is one of those strange viruses that only exists because of social engineering propaganda where we're sposed to fear eachother and beg the govt to protect us. Screw that. But also, in the context of gun control, we're told that our neighbor with no criminal history needs to have a mental screening and a proficency test before being trusted with a firearm because they might become a violent criminal, but this illegal immigrant with no history at all is fine to have a gun, because what? Just because he's a migrant? It really illustrates that the govt doesnt care about mental screening or criminal history or tracking or safety or prificency... it just doesnt want The People to have guns.
What do most of us want? Speaking only for myself I want all illegal aliens kept completely OUT of the country, and, where they are found, they should be rounded up immediately and deported -- period. Should illegal aliens have weapons and "2nd Amendment RIGHTS"? Why would anyone even ask such a blathering-ass, stupid question...?!
Because they are not and will not all be rounded up immediately. Do you think it should be legal to steal from them?
If we just let illegals roam around, doing whatever they like, we'll just get more of what we've gotten already. Steal from them? Steal from the illegals themselves? In the midst of all the headlines about illegals committing crimes in this country, I haven't seen any about people stealing FROM illegals...(?) But if somebody is "stealing from illegals", then maybe the illegals should considering going back where they came from and escape this horrible country....
I do not totally agree with that law, in its entirety, but agree with the basic premise of the law. The idea seems to assume that if a gun is involved in a crime, that the criminal was planning to illegally shoot, or possibly kill, in a certain possible situational outcome or eventuality. But that is not necessarily entirely true. Their plan to use the gun if a certain situational outcome arises might not be illegal. We could use the example of a drug dealer who is concerned one of his drug addict customers might try to pull a gun on him and kill him to steal all his drugs.
Thats not really an answer to the question. Lets make it more simple. Do you think it should be lawful to just do whatever you want to illegal immigrants to get them to leave?
It appears the logic the Chicago judge used is similar to the logic used to require that ILLEGAL MIGRANT children have equal access to education. See, every "RESIDENT" in America is guaranteed a "free" public school education through grade 12. The courts interpreted that to mean that if you are in America, you have an absolute guaranteed right to an education, whether you are here legally or ILLEGALLY. I never agreed with that logic but then I don't control the courts, so we go with their rulings. Maybe now we'll get a new case to the supreme court that will deal with the larger question of what constitutional guarantees does an ILLEGAL MIGRANT have? Because I'm thinking a free public education and the right to bear arms are two areas where common sense might change the rule. And that would be good, you know, to not have educated ILLEGAL MIGRANTS running around with assault rifles.
I think they absolutely should be able to own guns. The whole freedom for some, but not others idea is something I find disgusting. An accident of birth should not dictate whether or not you have the right to defend yourself.
Another option might be to hand the decision about whether to criminalize guns for illegal immigrants back to the states. That could put the Left-leaning illegal immigrant loving states in an awkward position of criminalizing illegal immigration, in certain situations. Since otherwise these are sanctuary states and they are trying to shield illegal aliens from deportation or punishment. So for a conservative Libertarian who believes in gun rights for all, you might not approve of illegal aliens being punished for the reason of having a gun, but you would still approve of an illegal immigrant being punished if they are otherwise not going to be punished for illegal entry. That is, you might not approve of the legal rationale the state is using, but you would not disapprove of the outcome in that specific case. For Left leaning states, it would create a dilemma of whether to take another opportunity to be able to criminalize guns in certain very specific situations (which they normally salivate at), or whether to avoid "discriminating" against illegal aliens, whom they claim should have equal rights.
Do you think people from other countries have a right to move here without our permission and gain access to our social safety nets? (and by 'our permission', i mean in the collective or democratic sense, not literally you or I or every individual)
I don't like the idea of different states being able to curtail basic rights on a whim, especially any more than they already do. The basic right to defend one's self should be universal, globally. And it should definitely apply here in the USA to all people of any nationality. America should be an example for the world to follow when it comes to basic human rights, of which self defense ranks very high. I see it as pretty much sacred.
No, but I do believe we need to greatly streamline the process to get rid of the bottleneck on the border, which I see as purposely implemented to keep illegal immigration a problem. Legal immigration should be a process that takes weeks if not days, not years or decades like it does now. Our birth rate is well below what is required to maintain our population. It is very easy to dismiss that now, but in upcoming decades we are going to have far more elderly people and far fewer working age people. AI may mitigate this to a point, but if it doesn't, we are going to be begging for people to immigrate here. We should take them while we can. But yes, I think it should be done legally. But I also think that politicians don't want the illegal problem to go away. It is political gold for them.
Then I don't think you really understood my post. One group of people might view it as punishing a certain group of people for having a gun. Another group of people might view it as punishing a certain group of people for illegal entry. Even if you don't believe that anyone should be punished only just for having a gun, you might still approve of this. Unless you believe in gun rights so much that you believe in extreme anti-discrimination in all cases.
I think we're well past the education argument. In most cases illegal immigrants are afforded free healthcare and most citizens are not (unless the citizen can pass themself off as an illegal, of course). I spose it might be the guns that gets these other questions put to the courts.
I'm all for enforcing immigration standards- stop them from getting in illegally and/or deport them back out when unwelcome. Part of the problem here is that our 'law' is technically the Constitution, and it doesn't specify (so far as I know) whether constitutional rights extend to noncitizens or not. Relative to the Constitution (both state and national), anything outside of it are more like legalities or regulations, not exactly 'law'. We refer to things like US Code as 'law' in general, and typically treat them as such in court (which is whole nother issue that goes way off on a huge tangent so I won't...) but it isn't technically 'law', especially when contrary to the Constitution. This lack of specification of 'rights for citizens only' in the Constitution is likely because the founders didn't foresee a situation where we would want to reduce immigration. They prolly also didn't foresee a population of 330M, FedGov restricting 1/3 of the continent from human settlement, such generous social safety nets that people would want to come here for a free lunch or our manufacturing outsourced to other nations. And indeed if those things weren't true, no one would be trying to limit immigration- we would want as many workers producing as we could get. It seems to me the Constitution was intended to apply to everyone in the US, citizen or not. That includes the right to bear arms. In fact its written in US Code (strangely, since it was the prosecution in this case citing US Code and the defense citing the 2A) that 'the militia' which bears the arms includes people who intend to become citizens, meaning that US Code was written from the perspective that not only citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Tho, its also true that people who come here illegally are not necessarily seeking to become citizens as IIRC illegal residence is more a bar to citizenship than a route to it (correct me if I'm wrong). But that also was codified extraconstitutionally and quite a bit after the founders had anything to do with it. Allowing non-citizens to bear arms does not mean we cannot also deport them. We can still enforce immigration regulations without creating a class of people who don't have civil rights (aside from being deportable, obviously. But the reality is that there are too many people here illegally to deport them all. We simply don't have the law enforcement resources to do that, just like how we don't have enough law enforcement resources to enforce current gun laws, let along an effective gun ban like the hoplophobes want. The only way we're getting all the illegals out is to dry up their access to our social safety nets- that means leaving them to wonder homeless and hungry in the street and deny them medical care. This would effectively turn every city and even the countryside to a lesser extent into the worst images you've seen of tent cities in San Francisco, LA, Seattle and Portland. We would effectively become the places these people fled. And they would eventually flee us too, but who knows how long that will take or how bad it will get before that happens. So cutting them off isn't a viable option, and deporting them isn't a feasible option. Certainly we need to secure the border ASAP and drastically reduce how many people are coming in. But as far as those who are already here are concerned, we arent doing ourselves any favors by limiting their civil rights, including their right to bear arms.
Also, I totally called it. 23.5 hours, 119 views, 5 votes, 0 votes or comments from people supporting more gun control. Thats a pretty strong 'I don't wanna talk about this.' ...I wonder why.
I didn't know whether or not the Constitution provided rights (RIGHTS) to non-citizens, either, so, I googled "Does the Constitution provide rights to non-citizens?". Every link I saw said that, yes, anybody can just wander in here and enjoy all the Constitutional rights and protections afforded to citizens. So... now I realize that we who are citizens of the United States are even more thoroughly ****ED than I thought we were....
