Interesting Test Case on 2A Rights

[cdi]

When one enters a country contrary to the laws of that country, they are not immigrants.
They are foreign invaders, no?

I could see over staying a visa or other circumstance being dealt with as a civil violation.
Illegal entry is a small scale invasion by a hostile force.

[Berncly]

When one enters a country contrary to the laws of that country, they are not immigrants.
They are foreign invaders, no?

I could see over staying a visa or other circumstance being dealt with as a civil violation.
Illegal entry is a small scale invasion by a hostile force.

That is correct.
The Liberal Democrats have been deliberately confusing the language for some time now, deliberately blurring the lines and claiming no person is illegal.
A non citizen that enters the United States contrary to our laws is classified as an illegal alien.
A non citizen that enters the United States legally is not an immigrant, he is a legal alien.
A non citizen that is granted permanent residence via a "green card" is not an immigrant, he is a legal resident alien.
A non citizen that is naturalized and becomes a United States citizen is an immigrant.

[Qtrborecrazy]

How would you like it, if you're forced to bring them INTO YOUR HOUSE to feed, cloth, educate based on the, "..they have unalienable rights, endowed by God etc. etc.? I bet you would shut the door.
(caps for dramatic effect.....again).

Anyone, especially liberals should be forced to take care of them if they want them here.

[ideaman]

Anyone, especially liberals should be forced to take care of them if they want them here.

Also. There are only a certain amount of students per classroom. Those college students who want's DACA or illegals a college education should be willing to give up their seat.

[TaePo]

I would say an illegal alien does not have a right to keep and bear arms. Like others engaged in illegal activity, they cannot enforce contracts peacefully through the court systems. Therefore, lacking legal enforcement, they must rely on threat of or actual force such as kidnapping, torture, rape, maiming, and killing. A firearm would be very conducive for these activities in order not to be taken advantage of.

So, no.

[Statkowski]

I would say an illegal alien does not have a right to keep and bear arms.

Yet SCOTUS says they are entitled to due process, among other 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment rights. Why should 2nd Amendment rights be excluded if a constitutionally-protected right is a constitutionally-protected right?

Like others engaged in illegal activity, they cannot enforce contracts peacefully through the court systems.

The contract is unenforceable through the courts only if the subject matter of the contract is illegal, such as loan sharking or illegal drug deals. One's immigration status would have no bearing on a construction or repair contract.

Therefore, lacking legal enforcement, they must rely on threat of or actual force such as kidnapping, torture, rape, maiming, and killing. A firearm would be very conducive for these activities in order not to be taken advantage of.

So, to bolster your argument, you lump all those here illegally possessing firearms only for criminal usage?

So, no.

Not that I disagree with your premise, but your argument appears unpersuasive.

[gnbrotz]

I would say an illegal alien does not have a right to keep and bear arms.

So do they have a right to defend themselves if they are attacked?

[TaePo]

"So do they have a right to defend themselves if they are attacked?"


Yes. They can defend themselves. But if they later get deported or if prohibited, they might get charged with those crime(s). But I believe they can use the same homicide exception as anyone else.

An exception to being prohibited would be if a bad guy brought the gun the illegal immigrant gained control in a justifiably defensive manner.

[gnbrotz]

"So do they have a right to defend themselves if they are attacked?"


Yes. They can defend themselves. But if they later get deported or if prohibited, they might get charged with those crime(s). But I believe they can use the same homicide exception as anyone else.

An exception to being prohibited would be if a bad guy brought the gun the illegal immigrant gained control in a justifiably defensive manner.

But that's NOT a legal exception. It's an affirmative defense - as is his current legal argument. If he doesn't have an existing criminal record, and hasn't been formally convicted (yet) of illegal entry, and DOES have the right to defend himself, why in the world couldn't he (legally) do that with a firearm?

2A says "arms", not "guns". Defending himself with a firearm should be just as legal (or illegal) as using a ball bat or his fists. Unless they can prove he wasn't really "defending" himself, the possession charge is crap.

[Coops]

The 2A defense is irrelevant.
Carrying in NYC requires a permit. That permit is not a ban like in McDonald v Chicago
No permit, then its a gun possession crime. The gun itself is not banned, the person carrying it is prohibited.
If a citizen gang member did the same thing he would also be charged.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that States and municipalities can have reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and the right to carry outside the home. (ie. DC v Heller)

If the test case is that all local carry laws are unconstitutional then good luck. That will never happen.