Illegal Immigrants and Gun Ownership

[MrAnteater]

I threw out the question in the "should felons own guns" debate so I'll ask it here.

Should people in the US illegally be able to legally purchase a firearm? I don't know the laws on this, so I don't know if its currently possible.

 

[TX35]

Absolutely not!!!
A. They're not U.S. citizens
B. How can a proper background check be performed for someone who probably has a forged SS# as well???

 

[curiousgeorgia]

TX35 has it right. I'm sure most of them looking to buy a gun are well-intentioned, but it comes down to citizenship. They aren't citizens, so they don't get the rights that our Constitution affords us.

 

[ozwyn]

no legal standing is no legal standing.

no constituional protection for illegal immigrants.

Legal immigrants and citizens should have full 2nd amendment rights

its that simple.

 

[jlpskydive]

Well if it brightens anyone's day I witnessed what I"M sure were illegals at a gun show in Raleigh over the weekend be turned away from multiple dealers for insufficient ID. I also witnessed a LEGAL immigrant who I was hanging with get everything he wanted.

 

[whistler]

a person does not need to be citizen to buy a gun
my wife is not a citizen and gave me a 1911 for my
birthday. that said she is a legal immigrant.

 

[MrAnteater]

B. How can a proper background check be performed for someone who probably has a forged SS# as well???

You do not need a SS# to buy a gun. It says "optional" on the ATF form. I never list my SS number and the purchases always go through. I don't know what parameters they use to check but that isn't one.

a person does not need to be citizen to buy a gun my wife is not a citizen and gave me a 1911 for my birthday.

I'm talking just about illegals. I know green card holders can buy them.

 

[waterhouse]

I feel this raises an interesting question. A couple posters have already mentioned constitutional protections.

It is often said that the 2nd amendment, or any amendment for that matter, did not create or grant a right. The amendments merely protect the people from government intrusion on natural rights.

While I have worked as a Border Patrol Agent, and you'll find few that are as fed up with the illegal immigration situation as I am, I find it hard to not feel hypocritical if I say that so called natural rights aren't bestowed equally to one person who is born on the Mexican side of the river and another person whose mother ran across the bridge to America while in labor to give birth (it happens).

So I guess my question is, while American citizens have a document that in theory protects our rights, since they are natural rights, should they not apply to all people?

Keep in mind that unlawful entry into the US at a place not designated as a point of entry is a misdemeanor.

I'd like to have a good argument to say, "no, you aren't an American, and therefore aren't entitled to our rights." But I have trouble with the logic that natural rights share the same boundary as country borders.

I am not saying illegal aliens should be able to buy guns. I'm looking for logical, well thought out reasons as to why the 2nd should not apply to, well, any free person.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Mr Anteater,

Should people in the US illegally be able to legally purchase a firearm?

OK, can you see the contridiction here? Let me break it down.

Subject A by virtue of the crime of entering the US is a criminal. Ergo the question to ask is not if they should be able to legally purchase but whether crossing the border without our permission is a felony.

Selena

 

[waterhouse]

Subject A by virtue of the crime of entering the US is a criminal. Ergo the question to ask is not if they should be able to legally purchase but whether crossing the border without our permission is a felony.

and the answer to the question is: It is not.

 

[jlpskydive]

Here's a shot at it. Illegals that are here are in the process of committing a crime. When they get a firearm.... They are in the process of committing a crime with a gun.

 

[MrAnteater]

OK, can you see the contradiction here?

There are a lot of people that believe criminal history should not disqualify someone from gun ownership. I'm not one, but it does raise interesting questions.

There are some in the Democratic party that want to give illegals driver licenses and the right to vote. So by that logic, it should include gun ownership as well, right?

 

[mp510]

I believe that it is necesary to criminalize illegal immigrants owning firearms because they have not submitted to background screening to help weed out potential subversive agents of foreign governments or terrorist elements. Legal immigrants have had background investegations done, and I hope to God that the federal government looked into possible connections to foreign governments or terrorist groups. Furthermore, there are a lot of illegal immigrants in this country that do have organized crime and drug running connections. Not the kind of people that should be allowed to own guns. Would this hurt some good folks just tryng their best to get by- probably. However, there was a legal option that they could take that would allow them to bear arms. They chose not to take it. They made their choice.

 

[3/325]

Waterhouse posed an excellent question:
The 2A recognizes an inherent right, a human right, and not a perk of US citizenship. How then can it's protection not extend to everyone, whether or not he is a citizen of our country?

I'd like to hear some answers as well. I'm not keen on allowing illegals to do ANYthing other than ride a cattle truck back to the border. However, since I am a firm believer in the inherent right of self-defense, I need more than rhetoric to support the idea of no guns for illegals.

The best response I've read so far was that of jlpskydive:
"Here's a shot at it. Illegals that are here are in the process of committing a crime. When they get a firearm.... They are in the process of committing a crime with a gun."

 

[whistler]

I think that the 2a rights applies to Illegal Immigrants.The same way the 1a applies to porn.I don't like it but believe that is what the the 1&2 amendments say.:banghead:

 

[Fburgtx]

I fully believe that it should be a "natural" right of the citizens of a country to keep and bear arms. However, I have a hard time believing that anyone would feel that invaders (read "illegal immigrants") of said country should have the same right. Legal immigrants=citizens, ILLEGAL immigrants=invaders

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by JLPSkydive: Here's a shot at it. Illegals that are here are in the process of committing a crime. When they get a firearm.... They are in the process of committing a crime with a gun.

Speeding is a crime. So is driving without your seatbelt. I guess then if you are caught speeding and driving without a seatbelt you should forfeit your right to bear arms.

I am sorry but everyone should be able to purchase a gun. The 2nd Amendment applies equally.

Did the Natives restrict the settlers (who were the first illegal immigrants by the way)? No they did not.

 

[LeonCarr]

No, they should not be able to purchase a firearm.

We are paying for all of their other "services" while they are here illegally.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[jlpskydive]

Quote:
Originally posted by JLPSkydive: Here's a shot at it. Illegals that are here are in the process of committing a crime. When they get a firearm.... They are in the process of committing a crime with a gun.

"Speeding is a crime. So is driving without your seatbelt. I guess then if you are caught speeding and driving without a seatbelt you should forfeit your right to bear arms.

I am sorry but everyone should be able to purchase a gun. The 2nd Amendment applies equally.

Did the Natives restrict the settlers (who were the first illegal immigrants by the way)? No they did not."


I was expecting this response sooner or later. And if you are here illegally you shouldn't be driving either. As it's a privilege and not a right. But that crime is not really on the same level as what we are discussing.... is it? How about shoplifting with a gun? What will that get you with the local LEO?

And if I remember correctly the Constitution wasn't around to protect the settlers (the original illegals as you call them) or the Natives.

 

[Zoogster]

Only someone who is a US citizen is entitled to the protections of the constitution.

So whether they should own firearms or not is up for debate as they are not protected by the constitution and state and federal laws can be whatever they come up with.

That is very different from anyone who is a US citizen (as any children they have while in the country illegaly currently become.) They are protected by the Constitution and thier right to arms "shall not be infringed".

 

[86thecat]

1. As an American citizen and firearm owner my God given right to bear arms may be restricted by the laws of other soverign nations, so the reverse would also hold true.

2. Even a US citizens God given right to bear arms is subject to a few basic restrictions. Mentally unstable citizens can't bear arms and felons (with a few exceptions) can't bear arms.

If an illegal wants to bear arms they have my support in going back to thier country and doing so.

 

[Standing Wolf]

They're not "illegal immigrants." They're illegal aliens. Calling them "immigrants" of any type merely lends them a patina of legitimacy they've done nothing to earn.

Those who define the terms generally win the arguments.

 

[waterhouse]

Only someone who is a US citizen is entitled to the protections of the constitution.

Right. As American citizens our rights are protected. But if the rights are natural rights, do not all people have the same rights?

It is commonly held that we are born with certain rights. All the constitution does is protect those rights. Without a constitution, those rights would still exist, at least in theory.

So why, if all people are born with those same natural rights, would we not apply those rights to all people?

Perhaps I have it wrong, but here is my thought on what the amendments laid out: these were things that all people should have a right to expect. You should be able to print what you want, practice your religion, live in your home without fear of some gov't agent coming in and messing with your belongings or forcing you to board a soldier, keep arms, not undergo cruel and unusual punishment etc.

In other words, some people sat down and laid out basic rights that human beings already had. After forming a government, they set about to make rules so that the government couldn't screw with their basic rights.

Since they are basic, natural, "Creator given" rights, how can they only apply to American citizens? We started a country in part because another country wouldn't recognize basic rights. Should those rights not apply to all those who are on our soil?

I don't know the answer.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't even think illegal aliens should be in the country. But it seems hypocritical to lay out basic rights, lay out rules to protect people from the government infringing on those rights, and then say that the basic rights only apply to us.

 

[waterhouse]

They're not "illegal immigrants." They're illegal aliens.

According to the legalese we were supposed to use in our reports they were "undocumented immigrants". Like it or not, that seems to be the "official" term. That's what the DA and judge read every time one goes to court, which is a frighteningly rare thing anyway.

 

[Thernlund]

Speeding is a crime. So is driving without your seatbelt.

Are you equating illegal immigration with speeding and seatbelt violations? Hmmm... alright. Let's just give 'em a ticket and send them on their way.

Ugh.

If you came here illegally, you broke our laws. You deserve none, and I mean none, of the the rights we enjoy until you can abide by the laws we've established. You should not have a job, you should not be able to drive, you should not be able to buy a stick of gum at the corner store.

We have a system by which someone can come here legally. An illegal chose to ignore that and break the law. What do you think would happen to me if I drove into Mexico with an empty 9mm casing on the floorboard of my truck? Can you say DONE? Silly to my mind, but that's THEIR laws, and I must abide by them when I go there or else.


-T.