1911Forum banner

Wisconsin Court Rules Illegal Aliens Have Second Amendment Rights

5K views 119 replies 36 participants last post by  Laudanum 
#1 ·
#2 ·
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....
 
#8 ·
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...
 
#5 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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
 
#9 · (Edited)
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.
 
#11 ·
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.
 
#10 ·
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.
 
#15 ·
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?
 
#13 ·
"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.
:)
 
#14 ·
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...
 
#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.
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
There is no debate. Those are the facts. Facts aren't debatable.

You want to piss in the country's cornflakes, go ahead. Just don't expect anyone else to follow your pathetic lead.
 
#34 ·
Not sure if you are talking to me or not, but I'll answer:

I don't care whether someone cares about my views on gun control or not. In fact, I couldn't care less.
 
#37 ·
No back tracking. At no point did I say you were a hypocrite. If you think I was somehow referring to you without actually saying "you" then I'm afraid I can't help you. As was clearly pointed out later I was referring to taking over the country, saying we'll welcome all, and then locking down borders. At no point were you in my thoughts.
 
#44 ·
As was clearly pointed out later I was referring to taking over the country, saying we'll welcome all, and then locking down borders. .
Part of the problem is that times change in ways people can't always, or even usually, anticipate. At THAT time in history we had plenty of land, resources, and need for more people. I doubt the people of those times could have anticipated a country of 300+ million or a world population of almost 7 billion, a deficit in the trillions and so on.
 
#43 ·
Oh now...really?

If you want to post leftist bs, there are plenty of other forums where that is encouraged. Not here. Stick to guns and you will be fine. Throw bombs, expect to catch some shrapnel bro.
 
#55 ·
Uh, so you want us to crack the whip and offer no leeway, ever, for any reason, no matter what? Especially when someone is smearing our country? Really?

Ain't happening.
 
#56 ·
Regardless, neither of you offered much to the OP after your initial statements. If you want to bitch and complain and argue about each other's ideologies then do it elsewhere. I think the OP's original question deserves much more respect and reflection on the matter and the senseless jabs amongst each other are not germane to the post.
 
#59 ·
Take YOUR bitching offline via PM or email. Or be gone. Last and final warning.
 
#58 ·
ONLY... if they are here as a LEGAL alien... , ie they came over legally and through proper channels...

If they're an illegal (ie came over intentionally avoiding the Immigration system)... then they have the same rights any criminal does, as they are directly involved in breaking the law. That unfortunately does not include legal ownership of firearms.

Remember... Legal and Illegal are two different things. I am fully ok with Legal Aliens and the 2A rights...

BUT... some people INTENTIONALLY cloud this issue... they lump Illegal Aliens in with LEGAL aliens... and then want to call it all "Immigration"... so they can slip it under the door... its the reason we have this problem.

Its not... so whenever a discussion like this starts... you need to specify.... legal or illegal aliens... they are not the same.
 
#60 · (Edited)
Here is a link to the decision: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3271/14-3271-2015-08-20.html

While the 7th Circuit agreed the word "people" in the Second Amendment includes illegal aliens, it upheld 18 USC 922(g)(5) which prohibits illegal aliens from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez lost. In short, the 2nd giveth and 922 taketh away. The court specifically said they don't need to decide the 2nd Amendment question because they upheld 922.

I found this interesting -

"The government also argues that § 922(g)(5) reflects the likelihood that unauthorized immigrants are more likely to commit future gun-related crimes than persons in the general population. It offers no data to support that assertion, however, and we have our doubts about its accuracy. The government extrapolates from the fact that persons who are here illegally have “show[n] a willingness to defy our law” to the conclusion that they are likely to abuse guns. This may go too far: the link to firearms is unclear, and unlawful presence in the country is not, without more, a crime."

Followed later by -

"In any event, the question of who possesses the right need not be answered to reach our outcome here, because regardless of the answer 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) satisfies intermediate scrutiny and thus passes constitutional muster."

So rather than a win should we read this to mean Congress has a very free hand prescribing who may be prohibited from possessing firearms and that the level of public safety involved can be very low or only theoretical. I'd wonder who else could be caught up in such a proposition - returning vets, young people between the ages of 18 to 24?

The court did state the 2nd Amendment was not a 2nd tier amendment, which I suppose is encouraging even if it had no impact on the decision.
 
#61 ·
This ruling really adds more grey murky case law then clarify existing law. Nevertheless, I see the gist of this ruling that like many other constitutional rights, once a person sets foot on US Soil, they have certain rights guaranteed by the constitution, regardless of how they got their feet on US Soil.

The corollary to this is why we maintain the Guantanamo prison for terrorists. We don't want those bastards enjoying many rights other prisoners may have in a civilian court of law... such as right to an attorney, habeas corpus, appeals, etc. Those prisoners have no constitutional rights. The rights they have are strictly governed by international law convention on prisoners of war.

However, once a person sets foot in the United States, they have the right to due process and as well as many other rights guaranteed and enumerated under the constitution, including a right to self defense and preservation of their own safety and life.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top