Should Illegal Immigrants Be allowed RKBA?

[Matt King]

Do you think that illegal immigrants be able to purchase guns in the USA? I don't know the exact laws about this, but am just wondering if you think that the RKBA Should include People here illegaly.

I am not sure myself if they should or not.

 

[orangelo]

Sure if they aren't felons.

Oops, the whole social security fraud, identity theft, sneaking into the country after being deported, income tax evasion, selective service violations are all FELONIES.

Guess they are out of luck.

 

[WT]

Yes, provided they have not been CONVICTED of any felonies.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Owning a ***** is also a felony in some jurisdictions. Want to prohibit RKBA to some THR members in Texas and Georgia? RKBA is a human right which should not be denied by law, except to those who are already convicted and incarcerated.

 

[rev214]

sure...once the U.N. recognizes the U.S. 2nd Amendment...

 

[cuchulainn]

You're coming at this from the "shall not be infringed" angle, yes?

Further, "the people" is not limited to citizens -- lots of case law on this. Illegal immigrants, if brought to trial, would get full benefit of the 5th and 6th amendements.

The question is whether we can carve out classes of people who should not be allowed to buy guns -- and still respect the right of "the people" generally.

Would a law violate the general RKBA if it forbid anyone under age 6 from buying a gun without a parent or guardian there?

Would a law violate the general RKBA if it forbid selling a gun to someone who is clearly intoxicated?

Would a law violate the general RKBA if it forbid the sale if the seller had clear knowledge that the buyer was engaged in or planing to engage in illegal activity?

 

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Well, they are already getting there guns illegally so why not let them buy guns legally huh..

I am also pro-legalization of marijuana, I don't do the stuff but it causes more problems BECAUSE it's illegal kinda like prohibition.

 

[XDKingslayer]

I think the big question is does the Constitution apply to those that aren't legitimate citizens?

They don't have the right to vote if they are illegal, why should they have the RKBA?

 

[Matt King]

I think the big question is does the Constitution apply to those that aren't legitimate citizens?

Exactly.

 

[cuchulainn]

I think the big question is does the Constitution apply to those that aren't legitimate citizens?

Yes, it does. Plenty of case law there. We cannot deny illegals their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. Thus the problem.

They don't have the right to vote if they are illegal, why should they have the RKBA?

Children don't have the right to vote. Does that mean they don't have the RKBA?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

+1 cuchulainn!

Funny how the RKBA shall not be infringed concept, held sacred, is perfectly fine with being infringed so long as the right post hoc rationalization is applied to it such as being an adult, citizen, non-felon (which is one I like), sober, etc.

So I say, sell guns to all the wealthy illegal alien children coming across the border to promote RKBA here in the US!

orangelo, you have grossly over generalized characteristics of illegal aliens.

 

[Punkermonkey]

The right is not granted, it is mearly enumerated in the BOR. Technically, we would have no more justification to bar them from arms then we do from freedom of speech.

So, yes.

 

[Freddymac]

WHAT WHAT WHAT!!!

Should Illegal Immigrants Be allowed RKBA?

HELL NO. By definition, these people are breaking the law! To those who said “as long as they are not felons”, I say, it’s like saying should bank robbers be allowed the right to keep and bear arms as long as they are not felons. Further more, they are not immigrants, they are ALIENS. Immigrants are people who go through the proper channels to become citizens. They assimilate. They pay taxes. Why don’t people see these illegals as criminals? They are hear with out permission, are not citizens, and do not pay taxes. Why should they have the same rights that we do?

If you are asking if legal immigrants should have the right to keep and bear arms, then my answer is a resounding YES.

 

[Camp David]

Do you think that illegal immigrants be able to purchase guns in the USA?

No.

Within the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights there is an implied imperative that the people being discussed and their rights put forward are citizens. Thus, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." refers to American citizenship ownership only, not illegal aliens in my opinion. Secondly, also in my opinion, one cannot be representative of an illegal class and claim rights due under such class.

 

[MikeH]

Current federal law says that illegal immigrants ARE NOT ALLOWED to purchase guns nor ammo. Proof of legal resident status was required in all gun transactions I've gone through.

 

[rev214]

dang those unalienable rights...they get ya everytime you want to qualify or limit somethin'...

 

[slugcatcher]

No. They're neither citizens nor legal residents.

 

[Punkermonkey]

Really - for a group of people whom claim to strive for their "Rights", some of your are sure quick to deny others theirs.

 

[cuchulainn]

Double Naught Spy: +1 cuchulainn!

Actually, I haven't come down on this question one way or the other.

Camp David: Within the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights there is an implied imperative that the people being discussed and their rights put forward are citizens

FWIW: There's plenty of case law that disagrees with you. Non-citizens, for example, get full benefit of the 5th and 6th Amemendments.

Camp David: Secondly, also in my opinion, one cannot be representative of an illegal class and claim rights due under such class.

So ... criminals shouldn't get the rights in the 1st, 4th 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments?

 

[Freddymac]

What about our economic rights

every time an illegal receives a welfare check he/she takes it out of the pockets of an American citizen. Every time an illegal uses food stamps, he/she takes food out of the mouth of an American… And YOU and I are paying for it.

 

[Car Knocker]

At least some aspects of the Constitution apply to everybody in the country. For example, if a non-citizen (here legally or illegally) is accused of a crime (let's say grand theft), that person has a right to due process and legal representation. If convicted, cruel and unusual punishment cannot be meted out (no whacking off body parts or branding).

 

[cuchulainn]

And to make it even more stickier ...

Should the federal government be barred from stopping invading enemy troops from buying non-military guns for their personal use?

Remember, the RKBA is sacrosanct and inalienable.

 

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

No. They're neither citizens nor legal residents.

Indeed. they can carry whatever, whenever they want, as long as it is not here.

too many mentions of "who" and "what"... there is a "where" to consider.

 

[Camp David]

There's plenty of case law that disagrees with you

Oh I know... but initial post asked our opinion.

I just personally don't think people here illegally (guilty of at least one crime) should be able to buy handguns when they are unwilling to register to become citizens. I know that view isn't popular herein...

 

[cuchulainn]

Camp David: Oh I know... but initial post asked our opinion.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with case law. I disagree with all the case law that says the 2nd Amt is "collective."