The case cited in the OP resulted in the federal judge ruling that the part of US Code that denies immigrants the right to bear arms is superceded by the 2A which affords them that right. I have issues with this ruling, like how in another part of US Code, noncitizens are included in the arms-bearing militia and the 2A itself doesn't technically specify whether it includes immigrants without that accompanying portion of US Code, but on the whole I agree with the judge's ruling (even if for reasons other than the judge cited...). But you raise an interesting point- if the 2A supercedes US Code as the federal judge says it does, then the 2A probably supercedes other laws and regulations as well ...right?
If someone is in fact an "illegal" they are committing a crime and in most states, being in possession of a firearm while committing a crime is a crime in and of itself. If the person has status then they cannot be denied firearms based on their status although there is no individual right to possess a firearm in the Constitution. For those who think having darker skin and speaking with an accent is the definition of "illegal," the latter does not apply.
When the Constitution mentions the people it obviously means the people of America not the people of Mongolia and not the people of Peru and not the people of Sudan..... It's obviously referring to American citizens.
That people choose not to participate in a biased poll is indication the poll is biased. It is indication of nothing else.
Apparently the federal judge in Chicago disagrees with you. "The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country." "“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” So, not only does the 2A afford the right to individual ("self") defense, it affords that right to illegal immigrants, so long as they don't have a record of criminal violence.
What about the poll is biased? The questions are literally binary. How bout you tell me which option you would have chosen if I had included it in the poll.
And yet scores of non-violent Americans with felony convictions are told by the government that they have no right to own guns for the rest of their life. But leave it to our government to put illegals first and Grant them special rights.
Illegal immigrants know the rules when they reach the US: people have to be prepared to shoot each other at any time, and as such must be allowed to carry guns. This is why they come to such a civilised place.
If it's such a racist and dangerous place, you would think that they would choose somewhere else to go wouldn't you?
Yup. Thats why I think this case is getting the 'special little angel' progressive treatment, and why I think the court is trying to set a bait and switch trap of precedent for the pro-gun. But if we don't take the bait by responding with an attempt to stop illegals from having guns, this precedent very well could be used to reverse other conflicting precedents, such as a history of nonviolent crime being used as a justification to deny 2A rights to citizens.
Perhaps. But if we consider it in the context of the late 1700s and 1800s when the nation was less populated and interested in expansion, in part via immigration getting more people here, I would argue that a lack of distinction rather suggests inclusion. Also consider that US Code was amended in the early 1900s (also when we were seeking more people to come here) to include 'people who intend to become citizens' as part of the militia, I think it stands to reason that the folks who wrote that interpreted the constitution (or at least the 2A) to include noncitizens as well.
So? SCOTUS claims there is a defined right for individuals to possess firearms for self defense. No such right exists. AND There is no relation between immigration status and any right to possess a firearm defined in the Constitution. Bot you and the judge are looking for words that don't exist.
I'm sure they never imagined that there would come a time when we would have upwards of 20 million illegals in the country many of whom are not even interested in learning our language even after having been here for many years
That's only binary if asked to someone who beats their wife. Its not binary in general because it doesn't account for the option of never beating your wife ...but also that doesnt have any similarity to the poll question or the options in the poll. Which option, if I had included it in the poll, would you have chosen?
You are talking about illegal re-entry and I am talking about residing in US illegally. Two different things.
I kind of goes without saying if you're residing in the US and you have violated our border at least two times that you are guilty of a felony.
So what is stopping you from selecting the option in the poll- "I want more gun control and illegals should not have guns"?
Likely not. That's why we have provisions in the constitution for how to amend the constitution. But until we amend it, we should respect it as written, otherwise its meaningless.
