1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 120 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,450 Posts
Hmmmm, interesting. My initial reaction is that it erodes the concept of the "law abiding" gun owner; when your daily existence and presence is criminal in nature, its difficult to call one "law abiding"... "law abiding" doesn't mean just the laws you agree with; it means that you submit to and follow the rule of law. If you don't like it, you work to change it, but you don't violate law as a routine part of your day to day life.

Question 11k on the ATF 4473 asks if you're an alien illegally in the US. To answer 'yes' is a FEDERAL disqualifier; to answer 'no' is yet another criminal offense... one could also expolarate (as liberal judges love to do when it suits their purpose) that an illegal, subject to deportation, is technically a 'fugitive form justice' and would have to answer yes to 11d as well.

I can almost see this as an anti 2A decision; if illegals have the same 2A rights as everyone else, perhaps we need more 'reasonable restriction' on those rights to keep guns away from habitual criminals....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
If they are here illegally how can they achieve, possess, or maintain any rights granted to a citizen of this Country - when legally they should not even be on American soil?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,588 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Hmmmm, interesting. My initial reaction is that it erodes the concept of the "law abiding" gun owner; when your daily existence and presence is criminal in nature, its difficult to call one "law abiding"... "law abiding" doesn't mean just the laws you agree with; it means that you submit to and follow the rule of law. If you don't like it, you work to change it, but you don't violate law as a routine part of your day to day life.

Question 11k on the ATF 4473 asks if you're an alien illegally in the US. To answer 'yes' is a FEDERAL disqualifier; to answer 'no' is yet another criminal offense... one could also expolarate (as liberal judges love to do when it suits their purpose) that an illegal, subject to deportation, is technically a 'fugitive form justice' and would have to answer yes to 11d as well.

I can almost see this as an anti 2A decision; if illegals have the same 2A rights as everyone else, perhaps we need more 'reasonable restriction' on those rights to keep guns away from habitual criminals....
Excellent points, as usual. The Fugitive from Justice is one I had not considered. Thanks for the comments!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,559 Posts
For much the same reasons that wccountryboy has pointed out.

This would appear to be a moot point.

This kind of comes off to me as another example of politically correct actually spinning off into insanity. I am waiting for them to start referring to criminals as legally challenged individuals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
According to the article he was caught with a 22 cartridge. Pretty flimsy evidence and ridiculous to charge for same. Not sure what to think about illegals having the same rights as citizens......doesn't sit well with me though.

Why even waste time trying him for the ammo. Why not just deport him as law and common sense dictates. Some one is smoking to much crack.

Danny
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,450 Posts
Excellent points, as usual. The Fugitive from Justice is one I had not considered. Thanks for the comments!
Personally, I think its a huge stretch, and BS to boot... I just brought it up as an example of how the leftist jurist thinks... they go from A to Z because Z fits their worldview; b through Y is irrelevant.

I think to be a fugitive from justice, one would have to be wanted by LE or have an arrest warrant out...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,450 Posts
If they are here illegally how can they achieve, possess, or maintain any rights granted to a citizen of this Country - when legally they should not even be on American soil?
If RIGHTS are inalienable, as most here would like (particularly as it relates to the 2A) and are granted not by government, but by our Creator, to all men, then does citizenship of a nation enter the equation? Just because other governments don't recognize some rights doesn't negate them by a government that does-or should- according to the core documents that govern our country.

The US is one of the few countries where a legal foreigner can acquire, keep, and possess firearms. We also allow non-citizens to own real property, and in some jurisdictions, vote... While the former is a right, enumerated in our Constitution, the latter 2 are not...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,669 Posts
I'm a legal immigrant - not yet a citizen - and I appreciate the right to own firearms. I'm sure that I'm allowed almost all of the rights that a citizen has - freedom of speech, religion, illegal search & seizure, Miranda rights, etc etc with the exception of the right to vote - and I'm totally happy with that exception because it's suicide for a country to allow non-citizens to vote, IMNSHO.

However, illegal alien invaders really get up my nose - I had to go through a long, expensive and non-transparent process to get here along with a physical (which included drawing blood to check for STDs and dread diseases), while they can just skate in and play the "it's for the children" card. Sorry, kiddo - your daddy had no RIGHT to be here let alone bring you here, so blame HIM.

While I accept that, as humans, they're allowed to defend themselves against an attacker, I will never accept that they should be allowed firearms as a right. Perhaps it's time to determine exactly what rights they do have as human beings (illegally) in the US - and which they do NOT have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
Probably going to tweak a couple of noses here, but I am enough of a rights absolutist that I believe that even non-incarcerated convicted felons still have a God given right to keep and bear arms.

If someone is a danger to society, then they should be locked up. If they are walking among us then they should have the same right to self-defense as any other person. Applies to all people, everywhere, including illegal aliens. Especially for illegal aliens. Their immigration status should not make them unarmed victims of any tyrant. As it is, many illegal aliens suffer abuse and are afraid to even report crimes against them to the authorities. This is a terrible form of slavery, and should be more appalling to us than their immigration status. I really don't think that there are too many Americans who will pick the chile crop down south of me, and we have been turning a blind eye to the plight of those who come here to do so, and then end up victimized.

I am actually old enough to remember being able to purchase firearms without restriction or impediment using my lawn mowing money at age 12.

Just my .02, feel free to disagree, but please don't be disagreeable in the process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,262 Posts
I'm a legal immigrant - not yet a citizen - and I appreciate the right to own firearms. I'm sure that I'm allowed almost all of the rights that a citizen has - freedom of speech, religion, illegal search & seizure, Miranda rights, etc etc with the exception of the right to vote - and I'm totally happy with that exception because it's suicide for a country to allow non-citizens to vote, IMNSHO.

However, illegal alien invaders really get up my nose - I had to go through a long, expensive and non-transparent process to get here along with a physical (which included drawing blood to check for STDs and dread diseases), while they can just skate in and play the "it's for the children" card. Sorry, kiddo - your daddy had no RIGHT to be here let alone bring you here, so blame HIM.

While I accept that, as humans, they're allowed to defend themselves against an attacker, I will never accept that they should be allowed firearms as a right. Perhaps it's time to determine exactly what rights they do have as human beings (illegally) in the US - and which they do NOT have.
I find this to be common sentiment of naturalized citizens who have done things the right and legal way to earn USA citizenship.

On a related note, there are some ridiculous things that can potentially disqualify a law abiding citizen from gun ownership should he/she answer honestly on the 4473. Yet, this decision would allow an individual who is here illegally to legally purchase a firearm. Of course, it would require change to the form but my point is that this was the judges "judgment". He's acknowledging the inherent right but ignoring the disqualifiers. Seems to me that law abiding citizens get the raw end yet again.

I agree with wccountryboy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,509 Posts
Opinions?

Not certain how to think about this. My initial thoughts are No way, but then this is a PRO 2A stance/decision by the Courts. So. I can be convinced otherwise.

Full Story:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/08/2...s-illegal-aliens-have-second-amendment-rights
Yeah I was going to say... I'm very pro 2nd A... but errm... this one I think is a serious mistake and hopefully its overturned...

LEGAL aliens I would have no problems with...

ILLEGAL aliens are fugitives from justice...

There's a difference...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
608 Posts
"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!"
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
:)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,450 Posts
First, this is a ruling in a State Appellate Court; it has NO standing outside of WI, and no foreseeable impact on Federal law.

The scope and jurisdiction of the ruling notwithstanding, there is currently no way for an illegal alien to legally purchase a firearm from an FFL holder. They could buy from a private seller (though to do so would still be a crime as they, under current Federal law, are ineligible).

Sistema brings up a valid point, though I would argue that they SHOULDN"T be walking among us, they do so only because of the failure of government to enforce the law. We have a serious problem when about 3% of the population is here illegally....

Their immigration "status" is the result of a criminal action, period. WHY they committed that crime is irrelevant, an excuse. Every day that they remain, they choose to perpetuate that crime. I have little sympathy for whatever circumstance an illegal may find themselves in while living a crime on a daily basis. They are 'victimized' as a result of their own criminal actions, their own choices.

I could also argue that a criminal, actively committing a crime, has no right to possess arms during the commission of a crime. Most current law supports this...

If one believes that 2A right is an absolute human right in this country, then needs to be absolute, it can NEVER, under any circumstance, be stripped away by government... to include when one is in prison, or on a commercial airline, or in a courthouse, or in or on privately owned, publicly accessible property, certainly while on government property, or when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.... That's an "absolutist" perspective; we all know that it will NEVER happen...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,481 Posts
Probably going to tweak a couple of noses here, but I am enough of a rights absolutist that I believe that even non-incarcerated convicted felons still have a God given right to keep and bear arms.

If someone is a danger to society, then they should be locked up. If they are walking among us then they should have the same right to self-defense as any other person. Applies to all people, everywhere, including illegal aliens. Especially for illegal aliens. Their immigration status should not make them unarmed victims of any tyrant. As it is, many illegal aliens suffer abuse and are afraid to even report crimes against them to the authorities. This is a terrible form of slavery, and should be more appalling to us than their immigration status. I really don't think that there are too many Americans who will pick the chile crop down south of me, and we have been turning a blind eye to the plight of those who come here to do so, and then end up victimized.

I am actually old enough to remember being able to purchase firearms without restriction or impediment using my lawn mowing money at age 12.

Just my .02, feel free to disagree, but please don't be disagreeable in the process.
Thank you for granting us freedom to disagree with you.

I strongly disagree with your position that we should feel so doggone sorry for those who knowingly break the law, first by coming here illegally, and then by remaining here illegally. By doing so, they have left themselves open to abuse, and that is on them. How can we give a damn about their access to deadly force when American military veterans are having their guns confiscated under some circumstances?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,588 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
After reading the replies so far I am back to "No Way". Some VERY interesting perspectives and opinions. Indeed enlightening conversation. Thanks for participating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,018 Posts
Lumping lawbreaking aliens in with citizens - Negative. We have to get rid of the magic soil interpretation.
Pro-2A - Positive.

I can't help but think that this ruling is akin to judicial buggary with a reach around thrown it to keep the commoners pacified. This is exactly what happens when the Constitution gets perverted.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
73,107 Posts
However, illegal alien invaders really get up my nose - I had to go through a long, expensive and non-transparent process to get here along with a physical (which included drawing blood to check for STDs and dread diseases), while they can just skate in and play the "it's for the children" card.
That's what bothers me as well. It took nearly two years of waiting and hundreds of dollars in application fees, plus retaining an immigration attorney just to get my wife over here, and these people can just slip underneath a fence at night and be welcomed with open arms???

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, in my view self-defense is a God-given right and something that was merely affirmed by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights didn't grant us anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Mr. Brown, there is a difference between a welcome light at the front door, and someone crawling in through a back window.
 
1 - 20 of 120 Posts
Top