That's how I was thinking also, which is why I wondered if the judge was considering that the Supreme Court could end up having to take this on. It could open the door for more red flag laws. But I also wonder if the source of the article is using the issue as a way to trigger the anti-immigrant folks. Interesting topic. Thanks for posting.
ILLEGAL MIGRANTS shouldn't be here in the first place. They should be standing in line with the rest of those who want to be American citizens. And violating our borders ILLEGALLY is only a "civil" infraction the first time. The second time it is a felony. And still begs the point; If we do not have secure borders not much else matters, does it? That the courts have said that one's presence in the country gives them automatic access to a free public education, athe "right" to other protections under the law and now to possession of firearms begs the issue; WHY HAS THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SO MISERABLY FAILED TO SECURE OUR BORDERS? Every other administration has managed to secure the border, with the same laws, and the same budget. WHY CAN'T BIDEN?
Cool beans, but you are missing the point. Um...no, we were getting 1.6M per year when Reagan was in office. But again, that's not the topic on this thread.
So why hasn't biden managed to do at least as well as Ttump/Obama/Bush/clinton? Same laws, same budget. And it is most certainly relevant.
Its "beating a dead horse", and I don't see how its relevant to the ruling about gun rights. Reagan/Clinton high numbers were caused by the same issues as we have today: Worse than usual conditions in Central America coupled with Good situation in US. Panama has so many migrants from Venezuela that they can't even count them, let alone know what to do with them. Obama/Bush simply didn't have to do much because there weren't that many arrivals. Going back to Panama, the issues are far worse than ours, because it is a nation with small population, and now the massive influx of Venezuelans has resulted in traffic so bad people spend up to 4 hrs going to work, and some people opt to sleep in their cars next to work place as opposed to spending half the day commuting. Also, the VZ folks with money have pushed up the property values to a point where locals can't afford it. Some, or many, decide to continue the journey up North and some travel all the way to US.
Wow. So when world conditions make it bad at home, they decide to come live in America. And we have little or no control over that. Other, you know, than to welcome them in to run down our standard of living while we feed, house, care for and get the laundry done for these people. In simple terms, our borders are not secure. Government has failed it's first and most important duty. In true denial fashion, find someone or something else to blame for our failures. All these people are coming here to get away from poverty and crime and their government. And all we can do is welcome them in. Oh, and let them enjoy our freedoms, like, you know, a free education and gun ownership. Well, I disagree. No matter what conditions you think are causing this invasion, I think no matter what we need the border secured and the people here ILLEGALLY sorted out; either send them back or make them citizens. But strong consideration given to how they came to be here. If they crossed ILLEGALLY or over stayed their visa, they have a much higher bar to clear to become citizens.
And no interest in solving the ILLEGAL MIGRANT problem. Ah well. To answer the question, no, ILLEGAL MIGRANTS should not have a "right" to possess guns. We don't allow ILLEGAL MIGRANTS to possess them (Really; check the link below) We don't allow convicted felons to possess them. We don't allow minors to possess them. We don't allow drug addicts to possess them (unless it's a democrat that is ) We don't allow fugitives to possess them. We don't allow dishonorably discharged service members to possess them. What is the Punishment for an Illegal Firearm Possession Conviction? | LegalMatch
Well, that's the topic. We have laws to restrict firearm ownership, but the judge in question says they are unconstitutional. The Constitution does not rule out felon, of junkies and it also does not set an age limit. You say we should have restrictions, so you are on the gun-grabber side of the debate.
well we both know that this judge has a different agenda than striking down the federal gun laws that are based on the very dubious jurisdiction created by the expansion of the commerce clause (an expansion the Miller court assumed was valid before WICKARD was issued 3 years later). and I agree with her in the sense that the federal government cannot ban felons, illegals etc from owning firearms on a TENTH amendment grounds. States certainly can
Well as predictable as your response is, I have to yank you back a bit; 1) The judge in question said there was nothing in this ILLEGAL MIGRANTS record that would prohibit his possession of a gun. 2) That I note the current restrictions in FEDERAL law, and yes, support some of them, does not mean I am for "gun grabbing". Now, my greater concern is the fact that ILLEGAL MIGRANTS keep getting constitutional guarantees and rights granted to them, ignoring the fact that they are IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. There is a price to pay when a country does not or cannot secure it's borders. For America, that price can be prohibitively high. We have many enemies who would destroy our government and our society and take what we have. They cannot do that with outright military aggression, so they can be expected to try terrorist attacks as in 9/11. With brandon's open border policies allowing MILLIONS of ILLEGAL MIGRANTS into the country it is all but a certainty that terrorists have slipped in. What they plan, where, and when isn't known, but I very much believe we're going to find out and we won't like it. The price will certainly be at least as high as 9/11. To argue about the "right" of ILLEGAL MIGRANTS to possess guns, and the twirling about feeding, housing, clothing and providing medical care to them begs the question; what price will we pay for brandon's open border policies?
They can do whatever they want on their side of the border. They should not be here in the first place.
Qasnt that said by the native Americans when most of the US populated by those from other countries wanting to escape oppression and starvation and start a new life. And then they oppressed the indigenous population for their land. “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”. Ooops. The door is shut.
I don't think that's quite the subject anyway, though. It's about whether this group of people needs special rules with regards to gun possession. The same rules should apply to them as anybody else. They don't need to be put in a "loss of rights/privileges" category like a violent felon. Though I am skeptical if it's useful to tell violent felons not to own guns. Hell, if anybody needs to be able to defend themselves, it's them. And if they abuse this right/privilege in any way, then they go to prison for a long time. I'm more of the camp that the public needs to be better educated on how guns do not make average people safer.
Sure. But that doesnt really have anything to do with having guns. Being able to buy a gun doesn't mean also being able to stay.
Honestly my intent was for the subject to be about exposing logical fallacies. Wanting more gun control, especially background checks and registries, but then being fine with people having guns whose background isn't even known, is a self defeating position. Similarly, claiming self defense is a God-given right and/or gun control doesnt work because criminals can still get guns illegally both undermine the concept of banning illegals (and for that matter felons, as you mentioned) from having guns. Neither are logically defensible IMO. And yet the bulk of the votes are for one of those options. I say, until we agree on what to do with them- whether we make them citizens or ship them away, there's no reason to try to stop them from being armed, unless and until they engage in offensive violence, and then lock them up and/or ship them away. I also think the federal judge that made this ruling is trying to troll the pro-gun into underming their own resistance to gun control. And if this poll so far reflects actual public perception, it appears like it might work...
Good point. An unarmed population is easily conquered. This is a good reason to fight attempts to bankrupt our firearm industry. Its not our fault they allowed their country to be taken over by cartels. (Although our weak border policies do help the cartels)
This is a dilemma for Dems. They push for background checks that are impossible with undocumented immigrants.
It could be an even bigger dilemma for Dems, if it turns out that people fleeing tyrannical oppression where they cant defend themselves end up not wanting to ban guns here too.
Many of my dem friends bought guns these past few years. They were surprised at how difficult it was. When I noticed a Prius at the range, I decided to go to the desert to shoot. Its much safer!
Isn't that why you have Armed forces. Or is it better to have guns to shoot those children etc. in schools/colleges or unhinged people running around causing mayhem.
We have armed forces to contend with other nations. Its better that The People have guns to protect their children. Its just that we also have a lot of people who don't want children to be protected with guns.
Guns don't shoot children. These unhinged people target schools for the same reasons they don't target police stations. They are looking for unarmed victims.
