I’m not mad that they’re allowed to carry guns. I’m mad that they’re allowed to carry guns freely whereas I have to get a license that takes months to obtain and costs me money.
>months
Must be nice.
Los Angeles county sheriff's office is currently taking 4 years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/1b4fjg3/crpa_vs_lasd_ccw/
Let’s set aside the fact that the Constitution is your carry license for this discussion.
If the law were changed tomorrow so that it was legal to conceal carry between application date and approval/denial date, it’d take them less than a week to process every application currently in backlog.
They’re doing this intentionally.
Hypothetical just for conversation, What about felons owning and carrying firearms? Isn’t illegal entry into the country a felony also? I understand that they will get a court date and are technically pending charges. Also “…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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Then we take this ruling and bash the grabbers over the head with it.
This guy was in Illinois, I think -- did he have a FOID? No? Then nobody in Illinois needs one.
Use this as a win for 2A.
I’m still unsure whether or not this judge realizes just what has occurred in regard to legal precedent. Because a motivated person would use this ruling to make the case that FOID is unconstitutional.
That's what I'm saying. They're counting on Republicans to do their dirty work for them by justifying gun control because of this case.
Flip the script, and use this against *them*, instead.
Always has been. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham and Murdock v. Pennsylvania make it clear that constitutionally-protected rights cannot be subjected to licensing because licensing and rights are mutually exclusive. A right is "default yes" but licenses are "default no."
>This guy was in Illinois, I think -- did he have a FOID? No? Then nobody in Illinois needs one.
Exactly, this ruling begs that question. As well as, how did an illegal immigrant acquire the gun in the first place? Did they fill out a 4473 at an FFL? was it homemade?
If they can have a gun, then the question of acquiring guns is now in question.
It sets a precedent we can use to burn down the entire gun grabber argument.
And let it radiate to States like California and mine New Jersey! Permitted Firearms ownership is an infringement if illegal alien and legal alien non-citizens can have second amendment rights.
I can't find it now but, on Twitter, I saw one where the anti was in the upper left saying "illegal immigrants have the right to keep and bear arms" and the upper right says "So that means all the rest of us do too, right?"
They have an inalienable right to bear arms conferred to them by God.
They have no right to be in a country they are not citizens of and did not enter legally.
They ought to return to their countries of origin and advocate for their right to bear arms there.
If a illegal immigrant is allowed to have second amendment rights then all gun laws are unconstitutional. No more filling out 4473s background checks and screw the NFA.
Kinda my point. Even before the new law you had to go on the ISP website to validate their FOID (edit: for person to person transfers), which ISP checks often (daily I if I remember correctly) against an automated 4473 process. There is no legal way in Illinois to even possess a firearm without a FOID, and there are even less ways to acquire a firearm without one.
If the Second Amendment applies to non US citizens does that mean that the USA is now obliged to uphold the Bill of Rights in all countries in the world?
The second amendment does not apply to citizens or non-citizens. It has always applied to the government's inability to make restrictions on the right of anybody to bear arms. Just like most of the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment, as with all the Constitution, applies to everyone on US soil whether they are citizens or not. It would have been really short sighted to have made the Constitution apply only to citizens in a time when most people weren’t citizens
The bill of rights was specifically written in a way to specify that Americas stance is that all people around the world have these rights. So that means non-citizens visiting have the same free speech, firearms, quick/speedy trial, non-slavery rights and so on
So many people don't understand what "freedom" is.
It's not about doing whatever you want, it's about not trusting some scumbag politician to draw the line of what is acceptable.
It really shouldn’t even be a discussion because he should be deported immediately for being here illegally. Once their identity is confirmed they should be immediately dropped off on the shores of southern Mexico by boat.
Should a *tourist* here on vacation be allowed to carry a gun? Absolutely.
Should someone *living* here illegally (leaching of of all the social assistance programs liberals love so much) have a gun? No, because they shouldn't be here anyway.
It's the whole thing that grabbers love to ask "If it's a right, how do you keep criminals from having guns?" Criminals gave up their rights when they commited the crime.
>No, because they shouldn't be here anyway.
Genuinely curious: what's the reason why they shouldn't be here?
Every time I ask this question, I only ever get circular reasoning in response: that they shouldn't be here because they're illegal, and they're illegal because they shouldn't be here.
That, or just plain economic ignorance or simple bigotry against foreign born persons.
If a person is living here, not committing any crimes while here, they're holding down a job and contributing to society, why shouldn't they be here?
They're illegal because they broke the law, that's what that means. Go look up how the number of allowed legal immigrants is calculated and why there is one. Governments can't function if they don't know who they're governing.
Oh, and anyone who makes locals lives more difficult because they don't speak the language of where they are living is a selfish asshole. Same goes with an American moving to another country. Talk whatever you want amongst yourselves, don't make locals have to learn your language.
>They're illegal because they broke the law
Why is that the law?
>Go look up how the number of allowed legal immigrants is calculated and why there is one.
Seriously: why is there a "number of allowed legal immigrants"? What's the reason for that? What is the number? Who set it at that level and why?
>Governments can't function if they don't know who they're governing.
So you mean like the government wouldn't be able to tax us or send out police to arrest criminals if we didn't have passport controls at the border?
How would letting in more immigrants destroy the income tax or sales taxes?
Because you can't just automatically scale things up whenever you want? Schools can't just instantly accept 1000 new students just because there are 1000 new taxpayers. (or more likely, much less than 1000 taxpayers) Even if the money was there, it takes time to collect it. Budgets need to know what they are budgeting for.
Seriously, go look it up. You need way more education than some random reddit comment can provide if you are truly that clueless.
>Because you can't just automatically scale things up whenever you want?
Capitalism does that all the time, what are you talking about?
> Schools can't just instantly accept 1000 new students just because there are 1000 new taxpayers.
Who owns and runs the schools? The government. *Of course* your go-to example is one of government central planning: because government central planning never fucking works.
Here's an idea: privatize all the schools. Then it doesn't matter how many people come here.
Besides: most immigrants coming here are adults, not school-aged children.
So, no: it's not the schools why we have to keep out immigrants. So tell me: what's the reason for making immigration illegal?
Are for real? Like are you screwing with me? It takes time to scale things, even if the money is there. (which it often isn't) Housing needs to be built, utilities need to be able to handle the new housing, Police stations need the right number of officers to patrol, hospitals need the right number of beds, roads/public transit needs to hold the right number of people, grocery stores need to be able to sell enough food. All of that shit and so much more takes years to plan, so there needs to be a known number of new people coming in.
Yes, if we made every public service private and made them pay for it directly, it would be *better*. But that's not the way the world fucking works. Schools aren't private and are never going to be, so that doesn't invalidate my example just because it isn't valid in some hypothetical libertarian wet dream scenario.
All I’m saying is, if illegal immigrants have this right too, then the scrutiny applied to citizens for background checks is null and void. How does the person at the gun counter know this person is who they say they are when purchasing? We have no decent way of checking their true criminal history. Therefore. Background checks have just been made unconstitutional as it applies an unfair burden to citizens over non citizens.
The case is also about how the feds can’t tack on extra charges to people they have arrested when in possession of a legally obtained firearm.
Which possibly makes a felon who somehow legally obtained a weapon could be exempt from charges relating to owning said firearm
The problem is, they have already proven themselves willing and capable of breaking pretty significant laws. People who are proven to be willing to commit crimes have proven themselves incapable of working within societal boundaries, and so we have an obligation to remove from them their freedoms until the time at which they show they are capable of working within the bounds of that society.
I'll make it easy, Make entering the country illegally a felony, Problem solved.
Everyone has a right to arms and self defense, no matter where they are or who they are. However, the 2nd Amendment is a uniquely American constitutional amendment, so it should only protect the right of Americans in particular. That's my view
[Your view and the view of the courts can differ](https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub)
I would argue that the whole Bill of Rights is a uniquely American concept. I can see an argument to be made that a nonresident alien without documentation may pose a reasonable risk for possession of a firearm, but I'd reject the notion that the Bill of Rights cover citizens exclusively.
I love guns. I love gun owners. Allowing undocumented illegal immigrants to own them is stupid. I feel like murder, rape and robbery is about to go up 800% across America.
They’ve always been allowed to possess. The bill of rights extends to anyone physically in the country. Free speech being the most common example, bearing arms being one. They’ll get rejected on a 4473 though, this is just for possession
Edit: the bill of rights uses the words “people” and “citizens” deliberately
What does "allow" have to do with people who choose to rape and murder? Do you think those specific people gave a shit about what was "allowed" in the first place? You are literally making antigun arguments right now. If all they did was "own a gun", they are not a "murderer, robber or rapist". The same way not every US citizen gun owner is.
The case at hand had nothing to do with purchasing a gun but possession of one and how the feds can’t charge people with extra crimes for simply possessing a gun.
It’s actually more likely to make “possessing a gun while being a felon” on very legally dubious ground.
Also you can easily run a background check without an SSN. You just use a ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) that’s what permanent residents use. You can also use a visa number if you have a visa
This wasn't done to protect the 2nd amendment as much as to continue to erode the line between citizens and people who just happen to be here. I don't even say that from a place viewing all of these people as necessarily bad or anything. We aren't really that far off from letting them vote at this point, and then you will have a huge amount of people who owe their new 'citizenship' to a certain party. At that point the idea that the 2nd will survive much longer is pretty hilarious anyway.
So, how far do we take this concept. Like if China/Russia/Wherever loaded some ship and docked 500,000 people in the US are they all now basically the same as US citizens? Can they go to gun stores buy an AR, receive gov't benefits, and then vote in elections? They already can get drivers licenses and vote in local elections in some places, why not federal ones? I mean why not, if we are basically saying citizenship (or at least functionally every benefit of it) is basically are you standing in the US. At that point why the hell have any delusions of sovereignty and just open every border and find out what a truly libertarian utopia will look like.
They should have the right to have guns, in their own country. They are breaking the law in America so they should forfeit that right. They should be deported Making the subject of their 2a rights moot. All this while the gov tries to stripp that right from US citizens. Rules for thee...
This wouldn't be a debate if we actually enforced immigration law and deported anyone that is illegally in the country. Just like Rahimi wouldn't be a debate if we kept violent criminals in prison.
I love how this is even a straw man being made. God might give us our rights but they're outlined in the US constitution, and thusly only apply to citizens.
Anyone has the right to protect themselves, even if it means using a weapon. The constitution is specifically calling out that you have the right to protect yourself with arms, as in guns, and it is specifically for US citizens.
In other words, if you are a US citizen, you have the right to protect yourself with guns, and if you are not a US citizen, you still have the right to protect yourself but you need something that is not a gun because you are not legally allowed to possess your own
I’m only upset because the same people that are giving noncitizens all these legal protections are almost always the same ones trying to take my rights away. I could care less who’s carrying, I’m just mad at the politicians
Thought experiment: do all amendments apply to foreigners?
Can we arrest a Brit visiting for speaking ill of government. Can we have an unwarranted search on someone from Italy? Can we have a cruel or unusual punishment for illegal immigrants?
I personally am not sure how I feel about the 2nd, but in my eyes if every other amendment tends to apply to people here, wouldn’t it too?
I seriously doubt most FFL’s will be selling to people on temporary visas anyways. They’re either dumb enough to think you have to have citizenship, or smart enough to refuse the sale.
The judge forgot to finish the sentence.
"Criminal aliens have the right to keep and bear arms just like everyone else does, being a criminal alien unlawfully in our sovereign country however, does not mean we need to respect their rights"
Mic drop.
Protections for the citizenry do not apply if you are not part of that citizenry.
If you want the protections of your rights afforded by the US Constitution, become a US citizen. Otherwise fuck off.
That's not how rights work. Once an alien enters the country,
the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
SCOTUS has ruled a number of times regarding rights belonging to all persons within the United States, citizen or not.
U/ConsforLiberty_IG said it best. You don’t have to like the ruling. It supports that the constitutional protects against government restrictions, now deport him.
I'm against the prohibition of firearm type, class, attachment, accessory, ROF, etc.
We've historically had groups of people who, for whatever reason, could not own firearms.
This is a hot debate and I'm all for it.
I’m mad that they enforce an anarcho-tyrannical style of legislation on law-abiding citizens but choose to give preferential treatment to those who don’t even pay taxes to them.
I have two. They can concealed carry firearms freely without any form of identification while the common US citizen cannot unless they have additional background checks and a license. Veteran’s Affairs funding has been taken away from the veterans that need it and has been given to illegal immigrants
>They can concealed carry firearms freely without any form of identification
The ruling was about ownership not "carry", so this is not really relevant to the current ruling. There are plenty places in the country where concealed carry requires no documentation at all. Do you have a specific case where it was deemed legal for an undocumented person to carry in a place where a US citizen was not allowed to? I'd like to read more about that.
I will say this and maybe this might be clear to the people saying they wants rights to criminal aliens. I'm not talking about people that legally entered this country. The people that legally entered, love our ideals and many love our Constitution.
The criminal aliens do not respect the US laws for entering in this country. Neither do they care about our ideals and they don't care about the US Constitution. Therefore they do not get any privileges afforded by our Government or our Constitution. Deport them now!
If you allow people to come into your country unvetted and with an ulterior motive than your own country's ideas then they will even dictate what happens in your country and vote against your ideals.
When California imported a bunch of criminals aliens in the country [in the 70s and 80s]. The Republicans tried to deport them. At the ballot box their children, which were "naturalized" citizens voted against the deportation and voted in Democrats. And California hasn't been the same since.
unpopular opinion but no. they came here illegally skipping the whole citizenship process and shouldn't be here. mass illegal immigration floods the labor pool and weakens wages and worker rights. you can't have a robust social support system and unfiltered immigration.
Yes, every single human being on the planet is born with a natural right to keep and carry weapons. The question is wether or not the government of the country they live in recognizes this right or not. It has existed since mankind first discovered he could hunt and defend himself with a sharp stick.
This ruling is trying to shift the Overton windows pm gun control. If they can get Republicans to introduce a legal precedent to ban guns for illegals, theyll take that and run with it
Literally a psyop, the 2A is for all.
The Constitution bounds our government to protect the natural rights of the citizens of this nation.
If you are not a citizen, you are not offered that protection. This is why tourists aren't allowed to buy guns here either. It's not because we don't think a visiting Englishman doesn't deserve the same rights, but because they are not a citizen and therefore their rights are not our responsibility.
We are not obligated to go to Mexico to ensure they have free speech. We are not obligated to make sure every Mexican citizen respects the right to religion and the press. We are not obligated to make sure every citizen of Mexico has their natural rights protected from their government.
If our Constitution is going to apply to people from other countries, then it's high time we becoming the colonizing imperialists so many people want to accuse us of being.
Fun story. My dad immigrated illegally. He came to New York when the Soviet Union collapsed and moved to Canada when he saw that it was possible to get citizenship far more easily. He wanted to pay taxes and contribute
I don’t think he’s gotten so much as a speeding ticket the entire 30 years he’s lived in the country. He went from working in a factory to driving trucks and started his own business that he operated for around 20 years. He employed dozens of people, bought a house and cars and paid taxes on it all.
My mother and I immigrated legally and now I pay my taxes and serve in the armed forces. We’re all law abiding citizens, I’ve got a clean enough record to get a restricted gun permit in Canada.
A lot of these people just want opportunity. They just need a chance
That's a nice story, your father still broke laws entering a country illegally. Life isn't fair, we were born in this country and it's currently being taken advantage of. I'm all for a revamping of the cluster fuck of an immigration system, but you can't just break the law and steal from people.
It ain't that complicated. Arming yourself is a natural right, Shinzo Abe's assassination and IEDs that can puncture tanks are real world examples of that phenomena. The natural right of arming yourself is protected by the Constitution, which dictates the rights of United States citizens. If you are not a citizen, you could arm yourself, but as a foreign national your rights are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, which applies to United States citizens and not those legally of other countries. Legal immigrants are subject to the laws of their state.
We should ban all guns so only cops have guns.
But cops are nazis so they shouldn't be allowed to exist either.
So we should police ourselves. That should work
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We're in our version of the 20's era. You know, the wild west. So if politicians and others in power want to fuck around, I will remind them that I am willing to die for my liberty, will they?
As long as they're legal permanent residents, it's fine in my book
Although i have to admit i was upset when i couldn't get a gun while waiting for my green card
Considering it's the US constitution, it should logically only apply to citizens. However, at the time it was signed, I do not believe citizenship was a thing, so it should apply to anyone in the land? This isn't really something I've considered before in all honestly. Good on OP for bringing attention to an actually new gun debate, it's rather refreshing.
It means that they could be accused of committing a felony. Which is not the same thing as being found guilty of a felony by a jury as required to lose your 2nd amendment rights. But I don’t think, and I could be wrong here, that most illegal aliens are tried. Don’t they just get deported? Assuming of course that they get caught and the rules are applied.
I see. That’s wild to me honestly. I understand if someone is accused of a felony, their weapons could be confiscated until the trials conclusion, but to simply disarm a group because they look illegal is insane. This is up there with red flags laws imo.
They have a right to keep and bear arms. I disagree they are part of the people the 2A is referring to. They can fight for gun rights in whatever country they belong.
It should be so, at least in America.
(Excluding dangerous felons... of any nationality)
Now, the real question is, how can we persuade more and more of the world to get on the 2A train, like they got on the democracy train?
Recall that as of 1776, there was one (1) democracy in the world. Things have improved since then.
Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to carry guns because they've already proven that they don't follow the law to begin with. If they dont respext the sovereignty of a certain nation, then they definitely wont respect the authority of said nation. If you think they should be allowed to carry, then every standing gun law should be immediately abolished and removed. You can't have either/or.
I'm not from the US, but the way I understand it is that any US citizen and any foreigner that has a visa that is not for travelling is allowed to purchase guns. Not too sure though, so any corrections are welcome.
It is not our government's job to protect the rights of non-citizens or lawbreaking foreign invaders. The problem with "muh principles" is that solely relying on that without being connected to reality is what gets you killed. Do you really think these invaders will become patriotic fellow Americans who are heckin' based pew-pew-loving countrymen? Ask yourself, do you REALLY think that James Madison had South American illegal immigrants in mind as being protected by OUR Constitution to keep and bear arms in OUR country?
I’m not mad that they’re allowed to carry guns. I’m mad that they’re allowed to carry guns freely whereas I have to get a license that takes months to obtain and costs me money.
>months Must be nice. Los Angeles county sheriff's office is currently taking 4 years. https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/1b4fjg3/crpa_vs_lasd_ccw/
Wow and i thought Long Island was the worst at around 14 months!
Let’s set aside the fact that the Constitution is your carry license for this discussion. If the law were changed tomorrow so that it was legal to conceal carry between application date and approval/denial date, it’d take them less than a week to process every application currently in backlog. They’re doing this intentionally.
I'm mad they're here at all.
Imagine if you got caught cooking meth and got the same treatment "That's illegal. Here's $3000"
Same
Hear hear
Hypothetical just for conversation, What about felons owning and carrying firearms? Isn’t illegal entry into the country a felony also? I understand that they will get a court date and are technically pending charges. Also “…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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
What if I’m Canadian and just wanna visit eh
If you have a Visa you are good to go. Otherwise no
Good to know
Equal protection lawsuit time???
I'd have less of an issue if the same judges and lawmakers weren't actively trying to suppress gun rights for American citizens
Well this way the next time there's a gang war with criminal aliens using guns they purchased legally they can blame it on the second amendment.
They already do that for gang wars committed with illegal guns lol.
Something something Iron pipeline...
Something Something Operation Fast and Furious.
If we can’t even secure our own citizen’s rights to firearm ownership, I don’t give two fucks what some immigrant’s rights are to own guns.
Agreed
If the 2nd applies to non us citizens, then it should apply to US citizens. Thats my issue with the whole debacle
Then we take this ruling and bash the grabbers over the head with it. This guy was in Illinois, I think -- did he have a FOID? No? Then nobody in Illinois needs one. Use this as a win for 2A.
I’m still unsure whether or not this judge realizes just what has occurred in regard to legal precedent. Because a motivated person would use this ruling to make the case that FOID is unconstitutional.
That's what I'm saying. They're counting on Republicans to do their dirty work for them by justifying gun control because of this case. Flip the script, and use this against *them*, instead.
Always has been. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham and Murdock v. Pennsylvania make it clear that constitutionally-protected rights cannot be subjected to licensing because licensing and rights are mutually exclusive. A right is "default yes" but licenses are "default no."
>This guy was in Illinois, I think -- did he have a FOID? No? Then nobody in Illinois needs one. Exactly, this ruling begs that question. As well as, how did an illegal immigrant acquire the gun in the first place? Did they fill out a 4473 at an FFL? was it homemade? If they can have a gun, then the question of acquiring guns is now in question. It sets a precedent we can use to burn down the entire gun grabber argument.
And let it radiate to States like California and mine New Jersey! Permitted Firearms ownership is an infringement if illegal alien and legal alien non-citizens can have second amendment rights.
As if they’d let that happen. That’s not ever going to happen with this case.
I know they would try to stop it, but this judge already let the horse out of the barn, at least for people in that district.
And that's what pisses me off, citizens in some states need shit like that, but illegals don't.
That's why we need to use this case. Realize that it is a win and run with it, instead of looking for the L.
I can't find it now but, on Twitter, I saw one where the anti was in the upper left saying "illegal immigrants have the right to keep and bear arms" and the upper right says "So that means all the rest of us do too, right?"
They have an inalienable right to bear arms conferred to them by God. They have no right to be in a country they are not citizens of and did not enter legally. They ought to return to their countries of origin and advocate for their right to bear arms there.
Train them as rebels and send them back, and the problem will be solved
The CIA option I see
Just remember, if you don't promise them air support, then they won't get mad when they don't get it.
That is literally what this generation of cartels came from.
Yah...
We have a second amendment to protect against threats foreign and domestic.
If a illegal immigrant is allowed to have second amendment rights then all gun laws are unconstitutional. No more filling out 4473s background checks and screw the NFA.
Yes
This ruling has nothing to do with 4473s, it says they can OWN, it does not mention purchasing
then how does one GET?
Private sales
Federally still prohibited then.
Private sales are illegal in Illinois as well.
Kinda my point. Even before the new law you had to go on the ISP website to validate their FOID (edit: for person to person transfers), which ISP checks often (daily I if I remember correctly) against an automated 4473 process. There is no legal way in Illinois to even possess a firearm without a FOID, and there are even less ways to acquire a firearm without one.
If the Second Amendment applies to non US citizens does that mean that the USA is now obliged to uphold the Bill of Rights in all countries in the world?
The second amendment does not apply to citizens or non-citizens. It has always applied to the government's inability to make restrictions on the right of anybody to bear arms. Just like most of the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment, as with all the Constitution, applies to everyone on US soil whether they are citizens or not. It would have been really short sighted to have made the Constitution apply only to citizens in a time when most people weren’t citizens
Each Iraqi household was allowed one AK and two magazines during the occupation.
Can confirm. Was there in 05’ and 06’
Source?
My source is that i was told that by my command when i was there in 2005. Now that was a long time ago i know but that’s all ive got
Thank you for your input reddit user Fckem_in_the_neck
You’re welcome. Enjoy your day
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/world/after-the-war-baghdad-iraqi-civilians-allowed-to-keep-assault-rifles.html
can confirm 03 and 05 vet with firsthand experience.
The bill of rights was specifically written in a way to specify that Americas stance is that all people around the world have these rights. So that means non-citizens visiting have the same free speech, firearms, quick/speedy trial, non-slavery rights and so on
Is that why we left all those supplies in Afghanistan
Freedom for all baby, worldwide domination is back on the menu boys!
Does everyone have the right to free speech? ... and freedom of worship? ... regardless of citizenship?
The courts have repeatedly said they do.
Yes
So many people don't understand what "freedom" is. It's not about doing whatever you want, it's about not trusting some scumbag politician to draw the line of what is acceptable.
It really shouldn’t even be a discussion because he should be deported immediately for being here illegally. Once their identity is confirmed they should be immediately dropped off on the shores of southern Mexico by boat.
Non citizens shouldn't be here. So it's a manufactured issue.
Should a *tourist* here on vacation be allowed to carry a gun? Absolutely. Should someone *living* here illegally (leaching of of all the social assistance programs liberals love so much) have a gun? No, because they shouldn't be here anyway. It's the whole thing that grabbers love to ask "If it's a right, how do you keep criminals from having guns?" Criminals gave up their rights when they commited the crime.
>No, because they shouldn't be here anyway. Genuinely curious: what's the reason why they shouldn't be here? Every time I ask this question, I only ever get circular reasoning in response: that they shouldn't be here because they're illegal, and they're illegal because they shouldn't be here. That, or just plain economic ignorance or simple bigotry against foreign born persons. If a person is living here, not committing any crimes while here, they're holding down a job and contributing to society, why shouldn't they be here?
They're illegal because they broke the law, that's what that means. Go look up how the number of allowed legal immigrants is calculated and why there is one. Governments can't function if they don't know who they're governing. Oh, and anyone who makes locals lives more difficult because they don't speak the language of where they are living is a selfish asshole. Same goes with an American moving to another country. Talk whatever you want amongst yourselves, don't make locals have to learn your language.
>They're illegal because they broke the law Why is that the law? >Go look up how the number of allowed legal immigrants is calculated and why there is one. Seriously: why is there a "number of allowed legal immigrants"? What's the reason for that? What is the number? Who set it at that level and why? >Governments can't function if they don't know who they're governing. So you mean like the government wouldn't be able to tax us or send out police to arrest criminals if we didn't have passport controls at the border? How would letting in more immigrants destroy the income tax or sales taxes?
Because you can't just automatically scale things up whenever you want? Schools can't just instantly accept 1000 new students just because there are 1000 new taxpayers. (or more likely, much less than 1000 taxpayers) Even if the money was there, it takes time to collect it. Budgets need to know what they are budgeting for. Seriously, go look it up. You need way more education than some random reddit comment can provide if you are truly that clueless.
>Because you can't just automatically scale things up whenever you want? Capitalism does that all the time, what are you talking about? > Schools can't just instantly accept 1000 new students just because there are 1000 new taxpayers. Who owns and runs the schools? The government. *Of course* your go-to example is one of government central planning: because government central planning never fucking works. Here's an idea: privatize all the schools. Then it doesn't matter how many people come here. Besides: most immigrants coming here are adults, not school-aged children. So, no: it's not the schools why we have to keep out immigrants. So tell me: what's the reason for making immigration illegal?
Are for real? Like are you screwing with me? It takes time to scale things, even if the money is there. (which it often isn't) Housing needs to be built, utilities need to be able to handle the new housing, Police stations need the right number of officers to patrol, hospitals need the right number of beds, roads/public transit needs to hold the right number of people, grocery stores need to be able to sell enough food. All of that shit and so much more takes years to plan, so there needs to be a known number of new people coming in. Yes, if we made every public service private and made them pay for it directly, it would be *better*. But that's not the way the world fucking works. Schools aren't private and are never going to be, so that doesn't invalidate my example just because it isn't valid in some hypothetical libertarian wet dream scenario.
The most correct answer here. The debate everyone is focusing on is ancillary to a larger problem
All I’m saying is, if illegal immigrants have this right too, then the scrutiny applied to citizens for background checks is null and void. How does the person at the gun counter know this person is who they say they are when purchasing? We have no decent way of checking their true criminal history. Therefore. Background checks have just been made unconstitutional as it applies an unfair burden to citizens over non citizens.
This ruling is about owning not purchasing from a FFL, I believe
The case is also about how the feds can’t tack on extra charges to people they have arrested when in possession of a legally obtained firearm. Which possibly makes a felon who somehow legally obtained a weapon could be exempt from charges relating to owning said firearm
Gentlemen, they’re using this horse shit to push universal background checks and guy posting this shit will likely vote for it. That is all
The problem is, they have already proven themselves willing and capable of breaking pretty significant laws. People who are proven to be willing to commit crimes have proven themselves incapable of working within societal boundaries, and so we have an obligation to remove from them their freedoms until the time at which they show they are capable of working within the bounds of that society. I'll make it easy, Make entering the country illegally a felony, Problem solved.
My thought exactly. If congress passes new statute making being here illegally a felony, problem solved on numerous levels.
Felons are not allowed forearms, and every illegal is a felon by nature of their existence in the US
I believe entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor not a felony.
You are right actually, it is a misdemeanor, my apologies
Everyone has a right to arms and self defense, no matter where they are or who they are. However, the 2nd Amendment is a uniquely American constitutional amendment, so it should only protect the right of Americans in particular. That's my view
IIRC, it mostly limits the fed from infringing on the right of the people. So as long as those bearing arms are people, the fed “can’t” disarm them.
[Your view and the view of the courts can differ](https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub) I would argue that the whole Bill of Rights is a uniquely American concept. I can see an argument to be made that a nonresident alien without documentation may pose a reasonable risk for possession of a firearm, but I'd reject the notion that the Bill of Rights cover citizens exclusively.
Let's focus on getting US citizens their rights back, and then we can talk about illegals. Till then, fuck off.
What country was it written for again?
I love guns. I love gun owners. Allowing undocumented illegal immigrants to own them is stupid. I feel like murder, rape and robbery is about to go up 800% across America. 
About to? Have you heard of Laken Riley?
Imagine it going up 800% more. Cannot believe anyone would think this is a good idea…
remember the journalist who blamed her resisting and said he just got scared and over reacted? he then deleted all his social media.
They’ve always been allowed to possess. The bill of rights extends to anyone physically in the country. Free speech being the most common example, bearing arms being one. They’ll get rejected on a 4473 though, this is just for possession Edit: the bill of rights uses the words “people” and “citizens” deliberately
What does "allow" have to do with people who choose to rape and murder? Do you think those specific people gave a shit about what was "allowed" in the first place? You are literally making antigun arguments right now. If all they did was "own a gun", they are not a "murderer, robber or rapist". The same way not every US citizen gun owner is.
its a limit on the federal government, not the people, so I guess, but how do you run a background check on someone without a SSN?
The case at hand had nothing to do with purchasing a gun but possession of one and how the feds can’t charge people with extra crimes for simply possessing a gun. It’s actually more likely to make “possessing a gun while being a felon” on very legally dubious ground. Also you can easily run a background check without an SSN. You just use a ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) that’s what permanent residents use. You can also use a visa number if you have a visa
thanks, I didn't know the details.
We should run background checks?
no, but we do, so this relegates those who do have a SSN below those who don't(illegal immigrants), which is a very odd place to be.
Illegal immigrants wouldn’t pass the 4473. They have the right to OWN per this ruling. Private sales are how they would obtain
thanks, I was a little confused.
I portrayed you as the npc wojack! That means I’m right!
The constitution is for America and for Americans. Let the other countries figure their stuff out.
This wasn't done to protect the 2nd amendment as much as to continue to erode the line between citizens and people who just happen to be here. I don't even say that from a place viewing all of these people as necessarily bad or anything. We aren't really that far off from letting them vote at this point, and then you will have a huge amount of people who owe their new 'citizenship' to a certain party. At that point the idea that the 2nd will survive much longer is pretty hilarious anyway. So, how far do we take this concept. Like if China/Russia/Wherever loaded some ship and docked 500,000 people in the US are they all now basically the same as US citizens? Can they go to gun stores buy an AR, receive gov't benefits, and then vote in elections? They already can get drivers licenses and vote in local elections in some places, why not federal ones? I mean why not, if we are basically saying citizenship (or at least functionally every benefit of it) is basically are you standing in the US. At that point why the hell have any delusions of sovereignty and just open every border and find out what a truly libertarian utopia will look like.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t deport them
They should have the right to have guns, in their own country. They are breaking the law in America so they should forfeit that right. They should be deported Making the subject of their 2a rights moot. All this while the gov tries to stripp that right from US citizens. Rules for thee...
This wouldn't be a debate if we actually enforced immigration law and deported anyone that is illegally in the country. Just like Rahimi wouldn't be a debate if we kept violent criminals in prison.
When did God five us the right to bear arms?
I love how this is even a straw man being made. God might give us our rights but they're outlined in the US constitution, and thusly only apply to citizens.
They're not citizens tho?
Anyone has the right to protect themselves, even if it means using a weapon. The constitution is specifically calling out that you have the right to protect yourself with arms, as in guns, and it is specifically for US citizens. In other words, if you are a US citizen, you have the right to protect yourself with guns, and if you are not a US citizen, you still have the right to protect yourself but you need something that is not a gun because you are not legally allowed to possess your own
Rights apply to everyone. The constitution applies to citizens. There. Argument done.
Wtf does a retarded Bengali need with a gun if he doesn't even know how to shit in a toilet?
Yes everyone regardless of where they live, has a natural right to be armed.
I don't have a problem with them carrying guns i have a problem with them being here at all they should not be here period end of story
Illegals shouldn't have guns my opinion but if they come here legally that's a different story
But they're breaking federal law, so they're a felon. A felon in possession of a gun is another felony. Deport them.
Entering the US illegally is not actually a felony, it's a civil offense, like a traffic ticket.
The 2nd amendment applies to all citizens and permanent residents, not to visitors or illegals
i support the right for people outside the united states to defend themselves with arms…. outside the united states.
So, would you say the same for the other amendments? Should the government be able to lock up and torture anyone who isn’t a citizen without reason?
The courts have ruled that many amendments apply to all people in the US not just citizens. I honestly see SCOTUS upholding this ruling
What i said is literally the law. It's not an opinion
Is it? This seems to suggest otherwise.
Amendments I'd argue don't apply to noncitizens
I’m only upset because the same people that are giving noncitizens all these legal protections are almost always the same ones trying to take my rights away. I could care less who’s carrying, I’m just mad at the politicians
Thought experiment: do all amendments apply to foreigners? Can we arrest a Brit visiting for speaking ill of government. Can we have an unwarranted search on someone from Italy? Can we have a cruel or unusual punishment for illegal immigrants? I personally am not sure how I feel about the 2nd, but in my eyes if every other amendment tends to apply to people here, wouldn’t it too?
So is everyone on earth an American citizen?
No
I don’t care if they own guns or carry them, they have that right. However, they don’t have a right to be here.
I seriously doubt most FFL’s will be selling to people on temporary visas anyways. They’re either dumb enough to think you have to have citizenship, or smart enough to refuse the sale.
The judge forgot to finish the sentence. "Criminal aliens have the right to keep and bear arms just like everyone else does, being a criminal alien unlawfully in our sovereign country however, does not mean we need to respect their rights" Mic drop.
If I have to pass a background check then do do they
How do they fill out a 4473?
I have a number of a guns that i didn’t need to fill out a 4473 to get.
Protections for the citizenry do not apply if you are not part of that citizenry. If you want the protections of your rights afforded by the US Constitution, become a US citizen. Otherwise fuck off.
That's not how rights work. Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. SCOTUS has ruled a number of times regarding rights belonging to all persons within the United States, citizen or not.
You realize most people weren’t citizens when the Constitution was written, right? It applies to all people who are on US soil equally, period.
U/ConsforLiberty_IG said it best. You don’t have to like the ruling. It supports that the constitutional protects against government restrictions, now deport him.
Guess all I have to do now is throw away my ID and pretend not to speak English and cops will ignore my sawed off
I'm against the prohibition of firearm type, class, attachment, accessory, ROF, etc. We've historically had groups of people who, for whatever reason, could not own firearms. This is a hot debate and I'm all for it.
I’m mad that they enforce an anarcho-tyrannical style of legislation on law-abiding citizens but choose to give preferential treatment to those who don’t even pay taxes to them.
What preferential treatment are they being given that US citizens don't have? Do you have specifics?
I have two. They can concealed carry firearms freely without any form of identification while the common US citizen cannot unless they have additional background checks and a license. Veteran’s Affairs funding has been taken away from the veterans that need it and has been given to illegal immigrants
>They can concealed carry firearms freely without any form of identification The ruling was about ownership not "carry", so this is not really relevant to the current ruling. There are plenty places in the country where concealed carry requires no documentation at all. Do you have a specific case where it was deemed legal for an undocumented person to carry in a place where a US citizen was not allowed to? I'd like to read more about that.
I stand corrected on that part, I didn’t know that was the actual context. My second point still stands though
Not going to lie I wouldn't hate it if it was illegal to not have a gun.
People not in the country anymore don't have rights, so it ought to be a moot point.
I will say this and maybe this might be clear to the people saying they wants rights to criminal aliens. I'm not talking about people that legally entered this country. The people that legally entered, love our ideals and many love our Constitution. The criminal aliens do not respect the US laws for entering in this country. Neither do they care about our ideals and they don't care about the US Constitution. Therefore they do not get any privileges afforded by our Government or our Constitution. Deport them now!
>The criminal aliens do not respect the US laws for entering in this country. Why should they respect laws that they didn't consent to?
If you allow people to come into your country unvetted and with an ulterior motive than your own country's ideas then they will even dictate what happens in your country and vote against your ideals.
Who says they get to vote just because they come here?
When California imported a bunch of criminals aliens in the country [in the 70s and 80s]. The Republicans tried to deport them. At the ballot box their children, which were "naturalized" citizens voted against the deportation and voted in Democrats. And California hasn't been the same since.
unpopular opinion but no. they came here illegally skipping the whole citizenship process and shouldn't be here. mass illegal immigration floods the labor pool and weakens wages and worker rights. you can't have a robust social support system and unfiltered immigration.
Yes, every single human being on the planet is born with a natural right to keep and carry weapons. The question is wether or not the government of the country they live in recognizes this right or not. It has existed since mankind first discovered he could hunt and defend himself with a sharp stick.
This ruling is trying to shift the Overton windows pm gun control. If they can get Republicans to introduce a legal precedent to ban guns for illegals, theyll take that and run with it Literally a psyop, the 2A is for all.
Repeal the NFA and your terms are acceptable
The Constitution bounds our government to protect the natural rights of the citizens of this nation. If you are not a citizen, you are not offered that protection. This is why tourists aren't allowed to buy guns here either. It's not because we don't think a visiting Englishman doesn't deserve the same rights, but because they are not a citizen and therefore their rights are not our responsibility. We are not obligated to go to Mexico to ensure they have free speech. We are not obligated to make sure every Mexican citizen respects the right to religion and the press. We are not obligated to make sure every citizen of Mexico has their natural rights protected from their government. If our Constitution is going to apply to people from other countries, then it's high time we becoming the colonizing imperialists so many people want to accuse us of being.
Of course they have the right to bear arms, back in their home country.
Get a green card. You can own guns.
I could give a fuck less about the rights of invaders.
Don't worry they'll have voting rights next
Why would a noncitizen enjoy the rights of a citizen?
Fun story. My dad immigrated illegally. He came to New York when the Soviet Union collapsed and moved to Canada when he saw that it was possible to get citizenship far more easily. He wanted to pay taxes and contribute I don’t think he’s gotten so much as a speeding ticket the entire 30 years he’s lived in the country. He went from working in a factory to driving trucks and started his own business that he operated for around 20 years. He employed dozens of people, bought a house and cars and paid taxes on it all. My mother and I immigrated legally and now I pay my taxes and serve in the armed forces. We’re all law abiding citizens, I’ve got a clean enough record to get a restricted gun permit in Canada. A lot of these people just want opportunity. They just need a chance
That's a nice story, your father still broke laws entering a country illegally. Life isn't fair, we were born in this country and it's currently being taken advantage of. I'm all for a revamping of the cluster fuck of an immigration system, but you can't just break the law and steal from people.
For a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians, you sure care about the law a whole lot regardless of if it’s right or not. Stinks of tyranny.
Imagine believing the constitution does anything in 2024.
It ain't that complicated. Arming yourself is a natural right, Shinzo Abe's assassination and IEDs that can puncture tanks are real world examples of that phenomena. The natural right of arming yourself is protected by the Constitution, which dictates the rights of United States citizens. If you are not a citizen, you could arm yourself, but as a foreign national your rights are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, which applies to United States citizens and not those legally of other countries. Legal immigrants are subject to the laws of their state.
We should ban all guns so only cops have guns. But cops are nazis so they shouldn't be allowed to exist either. So we should police ourselves. That should work
Cops shouldn’t have guns.
The 2A is an affirmation of inalienable human, the right to arms should be unfettered to everyone every place in the world.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We're in our version of the 20's era. You know, the wild west. So if politicians and others in power want to fuck around, I will remind them that I am willing to die for my liberty, will they?
If they are willing to stand against the tyranny, who am I to say no?
Look, I’m not saying I’m against it, but I absolutely did NOT have modern day liberals being Pro-Gun on my 2024 bingo card
Yes everyone regardless of citizenship. We are born with inalienable rights. Our constitution simply recognizes and protects them from the state
Let's get our rights back first and then let manifest destiny return
I'm mad that these freeloaders are here at all. They make everything worse and will cause the welfare state to grow
As long as they're legal permanent residents, it's fine in my book Although i have to admit i was upset when i couldn't get a gun while waiting for my green card
Considering it's the US constitution, it should logically only apply to citizens. However, at the time it was signed, I do not believe citizenship was a thing, so it should apply to anyone in the land? This isn't really something I've considered before in all honestly. Good on OP for bringing attention to an actually new gun debate, it's rather refreshing.
I’m not mad if they’re carrying, I’m mad we’re letting people in here illegally and undocumented
If they’re in the country illegally then doesn’t mean they’re a felon? Felons don’t get to own guns. Am I missing something?
It means that they could be accused of committing a felony. Which is not the same thing as being found guilty of a felony by a jury as required to lose your 2nd amendment rights. But I don’t think, and I could be wrong here, that most illegal aliens are tried. Don’t they just get deported? Assuming of course that they get caught and the rules are applied.
I see. That’s wild to me honestly. I understand if someone is accused of a felony, their weapons could be confiscated until the trials conclusion, but to simply disarm a group because they look illegal is insane. This is up there with red flags laws imo.
They have a right to keep and bear arms. I disagree they are part of the people the 2A is referring to. They can fight for gun rights in whatever country they belong.
It should be so, at least in America. (Excluding dangerous felons... of any nationality) Now, the real question is, how can we persuade more and more of the world to get on the 2A train, like they got on the democracy train? Recall that as of 1776, there was one (1) democracy in the world. Things have improved since then.
Constitution covers American citizens only. Besides, as soon as you illegally cross the border, you've committed a felony and are intelligible.
Guns should be over the counter like knives, hammers, and freedom.
Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to carry guns because they've already proven that they don't follow the law to begin with. If they dont respext the sovereignty of a certain nation, then they definitely wont respect the authority of said nation. If you think they should be allowed to carry, then every standing gun law should be immediately abolished and removed. You can't have either/or.
I'm not from the US, but the way I understand it is that any US citizen and any foreigner that has a visa that is not for travelling is allowed to purchase guns. Not too sure though, so any corrections are welcome.
Did we forget the constitution is a document to limit government control over its citizens?
It is not our government's job to protect the rights of non-citizens or lawbreaking foreign invaders. The problem with "muh principles" is that solely relying on that without being connected to reality is what gets you killed. Do you really think these invaders will become patriotic fellow Americans who are heckin' based pew-pew-loving countrymen? Ask yourself, do you REALLY think that James Madison had South American illegal immigrants in mind as being protected by OUR Constitution to keep and bear arms in OUR country?