And that is easily determined. So let's say we find someone residing in the United States who has been deported once after having been determined to cross the border illegally and they are not a Visa overstay. The process of elimination means it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realize how they got here again.
101–649, § 543(b)(2), inserted “or attempts to enter” after “(1) enters” and “attempts to enter or” after “or (3)”, and substituted “shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined not more than $2,000 (or, if greater, the amount provided under title 1 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, ...
Like I told Fatback, I am talking about residing in US, not entering illegally. Corret. Half are visa overstays, meaning they came vie legal ports of entry.
Each of your choices is the equivalent to "Have you stopped beating your wife." AND NONE of them options answers the poll question.
Um.....no, because you are still talking about illegal entry. Overstay is a civil infraction, but it does not mean there are no consequences. It is what it is, and its not even the topic. Should they be allowed to own guns? If the answer is yes, as the judge says, then felons should be able to own them too since the 2A does not exclude anyone. Is overstaying a criminal offense in USA? Does this bar my entry into Canada? Would my deportation be considered voluntary? https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-overstaying-a-criminal-offense-in-usa-does-this-2402364.html#:~:text=If you overstay your nonimmigrant,received a ten (10) year If you overstay your nonimmigrant visa, it is considered to be a "civil violation," and not a "criminal violation."
None of you is EVER EVER EVER talking about someone who overstays a visa when referring to illegals. MOST OF THE TIME you're talking about people with status but that doesn't stop you from calling them "illegal" If you're going to move the posts play alone.
Can you cite one example in this thread of anyone using the term 'illegals' to refer to anything other than noncitizens entering or residing unlawfully in the US?
All the arguments (completely valid ones imo) about criminals getting guns regardless of the law aside ...would you say that a speeding ticket warrants revoking ones 2A rights? Or can we agree that only certain laws apply to your statement? And in that context, wouldn't it be more reasonable to only include crimes that are violent?
Illegal is anyone with darker skin and a latin accent. Check with your compatriots. AND You're the one differentiating as in "overstay" vs "unauthorize entry" Maybe you should answer your own question.
I think for myself, so no need to check with someone else. Haitians illegals, for example, do not have latin accent, - which I assume you mean Spanish accent. Yes, because there is a difference. I dont have any questions. I already know the facts.
The federal court judge erred. "The right of the people ..." doesn't mean all people. Obviously, jail and prison inmates cannot possess firearms. Those who have been judged to be insane may not possess firearms. Fugitives from justice, drug addicts, and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship are all prohibited from possessing firearms. And given that illegal aliens are in a perpetual state of disobedience to our laws, my vote is that they should not be allowed to possess firearms. As far as I'm concerned "the people" means law-abiding citizens.
Interesting topic. After reading the article, I wondered if the judge was focused 100% on the case in question, or if she was considering how this would stand if it ended up going to the Supreme Court. I'm curious though--why an issue like this is focused on gun ownership? (Yes, I understand that's what the court case was about). But would owning a knife or car be any different? Would this be worthy of discussion here if the "illegal" had a cross bow? What is it about gun ownership for illegals that has people concerned?
Of course not. But neither does this discussion depend on every moron everywhere who doesnt know what they're talking about. So far as I can tell, everyone participating in this thread is very clear on what is meant by 'illegals' ...except for you I guess. Tho I suspect you're being more obstinate than confused... Also, I assume that means NO- you cant find any examples of people in this thread using the term 'illegals' to refer to anything other than noncitizens entering or residing unlawfully in the US.
When you find it necessary to change the meaning of words from thread to thread your arguments are without merit.
While I would prefer for illegal immigrants to be able to defend themselves as well as anyone else from violent crime, I'm not overly concerned about their rights specifically. I'd prefer they all left and came back through proper channels (and yes there's problems we need to fix with our proper channels...). I'm concerned about gun ownership rights for everyone. If there starts an engaging movement to ban/restrict knives, cars or crossbows, I'll be concerned about our right to have those too. All the arguments for why illegals shouldn't have guns are just as flawed as the arguments for why the rest of us shouldn't have guns. I see this as, potentially, a trap to get law abiding gun owners to set a precedent against themselves that swill be precedentially reinterpreted later as more excuse to restrict everyone (except friends of the govt, of course, they always get guns). I double replied here because the above somewhat applies to my response to this as well. But also specifically to you- its not entirely accurate to frame all legal gun ownership as being dependent on being perfectly law abiding. There are many crimes that people commit everyday that apparently dont warrant the restriction of gun rights. Many states have legalized weed, for example, but its still federally very illegal, and yet people in states that have legalized it can legally own guns and smoke weed. People who just can't stop driving while drunk will eventually have their drivers liscence revoked, but they can still have guns. People with a 100 speeding tickets on their record can still have guns. And that's all fine. The only reason IMO to prevent someone from having guns is if they're not an adult or they have a history of violent crime. That would be my 'perfect world' gun control. Obviously that isn't the world we live in, but trespassing (even when its across national borders) is not a violent crime. Its just regular crime, and we have plenty of that that doesn't result in restricting access to guns. And as I've said before, people can own guns and still be deported for unlawful immigration. Its not like letting them have guns is the same as telling them they get to stay...
