Results 21 to 30 of 40
-
August 4th, 2018, 05:41 PM #21Grand Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
-
Chalfont,
Pennsylvania
(Bucks County) - Posts
- 2,416
- Rep Power
- 21474853
Re: Interesting Test Case on 2A Rights
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.Crusader's local #556 South Central Asia chapter
-
August 4th, 2018, 05:57 PM #22
Re: Interesting Test Case on 2A Rights
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.How can you have any cookies if you don't drink your milk?
-
August 4th, 2018, 07:10 PM #23
-
August 4th, 2018, 08:37 PM #24
-
August 6th, 2018, 02:24 PM #25Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
-
Franklin,
Pennsylvania
(Venango County) - Posts
- 3,920
- Rep Power
- 15878969
Re: Interesting Test Case on 2A Rights
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.It is you. You have all the weapons that you need. Now fight. --Sucker Punch
-
August 6th, 2018, 03:57 PM #26
Re: Interesting Test Case on 2A Rights
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.
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.
-
August 6th, 2018, 04:54 PM #27
-
August 8th, 2018, 11:32 PM #28Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
-
Franklin,
Pennsylvania
(Venango County) - Posts
- 3,920
- Rep Power
- 15878969
Re: Interesting Test Case on 2A Rights
"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.Last edited by TaePo; August 8th, 2018 at 11:37 PM.
It is you. You have all the weapons that you need. Now fight. --Sucker Punch
-
August 9th, 2018, 06:57 PM #29
Re: Interesting Test Case on 2A Rights
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.Get your "Guns Save Lives" stickers today! PM for more info.
-
August 9th, 2018, 08:00 PM #30
Re: Interesting Test Case on 2A Rights
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.
Similar Threads
-
Is a test case in the making? Firearm on school property....
By skylark in forum GeneralReplies: 32Last Post: September 25th, 2015, 02:39 PM -
AR15 Brass vs Steel case Torture test
By dkf in forum RiflesReplies: 5Last Post: January 9th, 2013, 12:21 PM -
another Castle Doctrine test case
By jsmithxd in forum Concealed & Open CarryReplies: 3Last Post: December 21st, 2011, 11:09 AM -
Interesting 9mm pistol test site
By Holleta in forum GeneralReplies: 13Last Post: March 7th, 2007, 07:57 PM
Bookmarks