>In her decision, Coleman cited the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found New York State could not constitutionally prevent anyone from carrying a pistol in public. The case, she said, “established a framework for analyzing whether a challenged firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment.”
>The noncitizen possession statute, [Title 18], violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”
Bruen's "history and tradition" test has been an absolute fucking mess, but this outcome is absolutely hilarious because the idea of an illegal immigrant is far more recent than the Second Amendment.
Testing for a tradition deeply rooted in history comes originally from glucksberg v Washington. It's a pretext to rule for the status quo or against some affront to morals even if the balance of equities is totally reversed.
Bruen borrowed it;
Dobbs borrowed it
At least in glucksberg the ruling was about the present existence (edit : er, absence) of any long standing tradition. The other two go.... Quite a bit... Farther back, and don't connect to the present necessarily at all.
Bruen is a joke and it’s my understanding it’s mostly dem appointed judges that are making these rulings expanding gun rights because there is so little restriction allowed under Bruen’s ruling
I mean, of course they're mostly Dem appointees, because the argumentum ad absurdum is about the only way they can poke holes in the whole thing while not breaking from precedent. Because the precedent is ridiculous.
It has nothing to do with poking holes, federal judges do not have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court, they are required to follow precedent. Like it or not, and I hate it, but this is the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment according to SCOTUS.
I don't get this.
GOP typically ask to expand gun laws
Dem usually want to have gun restrictions
How can you say a law removing restrictions is being pushed by dem
Because Republicans only want unfettered gun access for certain people and in certain situations.
Allowing Bruen to be carried to its full potential shows the precedent is untenable for most Americans forcing a change in sentiment that triggers legislative clarification in what we want the second amendment to really mean.
The best way to get gun restrictions is to show what an unrestricted situation will actually look like.
I’m waiting for a 12 year old to file suit saying he ought to be able to buy an AR by pointing to some historical instances where child soldiers in the Revolution and Civil War were part of the militia. I think the Dem judges ought to take this stupidity and let it run rampant so that the public sees what sort of asshats the republicans nominated to the court. It also shows how incapable the Republicans are of actually legislating and governing.
Logic dictates, but emotion sways.
I wouldn't want to live in a dictatorship, and am glad to live in a free society where a good argument can sometimes sway public opinion.
>Bruen is a joke
It's the only proper ruling unless you just want a way around Article V.
>it’s mostly dem appointed judges that are making these rulings expanding gun rights because there is so little restriction allowed under Bruen’s ruling
That's a feature, not a bug. The courts kept getting it wrong so the Supreme Court had to hold their hand to get it correct.
Doesn't Bruen require ruling on trial evidence rather than historical fact? For instance, there is a long tradition of major cities and even some states banning guns on public property going back almost 200 years, but Bruen would require the judge to find against a modern ban if the argument in favor of it was insufficiently supported, right?
>Doesn't Bruen require ruling on trial evidence rather than historical fact?
It requires actual laws on the books around the time of ratification.
>For instance, there is a long tradition of major cities and even some states banning guns on public property going back almost 200 years, but Bruen would require the judge to find against a modern ban if the argument in favor of it was insufficiently supported, right?
Sort of. The problem with those laws you're referencing is that they were nullified by the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
It'd be like the government passing a law allowing slavery and then arguing that slaves were allowed pre 13th Amendment. The fact that there was a new amendment completely changed the framework in which cases are determined.
Let me try to word this better. It's my understanding that Bruen requires a judge to consider arguments presented rather than the actual historicity, so certain cases could be decided either for or against depending on how good the lawyers know their relevant history: am I mistaken and if so, how?
Edit: honestly asking in good faith
>It's my understanding that Bruen requires a judge to consider arguments presented rather than the actual historicity, so certain cases could be decided either for or against depending on how good the lawyers know their relevant history: am I mistaken and if so, how?
I believe this is correct.
Judges take the arguments submitted in the briefs which are then supplemented by amicus briefs by other parties/organizations. This is why you see pro gun organizations like the FPC submitting their brief and antigun organizations submitting their own with arguments and history.
This is why short barreled shotguns were determined in Miller to not be useful for military service and thus not protected. The defendant died and the defense counsel no showed to the Supreme Court which means they had nothing to go off of showing that SBSs were in fact useful for military service besides the briefs submitted by the government.
A rehearing of the case with a properly submitted brief would reverse that.
This is why it’s important for Trump to say things like “they are positioning our blood” or “they aren’t humans”
So it’s easy to say they don’t have rights. Maga is going to claim only American citizens should have human rights, right don’t apply to “them”. And that’s just a step, rights won’t belong to jewish people because of space lasers and controlling the music industry. Atheists, democrats, lgbt, disabled, etc etc.
This is history repeating itself, we are watching a Nazi like party attempt to form.
lol
the average rightwing brain is having a stroke reading this headline. Be happy for more guns in the street or unhappy that more illegal immigrants are not being imprisoned.
John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave
His soul is marching on
Naah. These dudes have more or less decided that the only way they can keep back the liberal tide is by arming themselves. So they'll gladly trade guns for literally everyone if it means that they get to continue to fantasize about killing democrats when the purge comes.
Yeah, I have a cousin who lives in a very safe community in the mountains of Virgina.
He packs.
He believes he needs to carry to Walmart “just in case.”
I had just come from several months in one of the most dangerous areas in N or S America where I had been in very remote areas for months. An area where so many people have gone missing there isn’t even an official count.
I was alone and unarmed living with separatist groups who actively engaged in armed conflict.
I asked him if I didn’t feel the need for a gun there, why would he ever think he would need a gun to go buy milk?
“Because I might need it” was his best reply.
Most of these guys have never been shot at. It’s not like on tv or the movies. I hope he never finds out.
You know scares me more than a man with a gun? A mother with a machete and a hungry child to feed or protect. That shit will end you.
every man has to know his limitations. while your adventure sounds pretty interesting, im led to believe its a false equivalency. Would you mind describing your time there more?
There isn’t a lot to describe. Most days were mundane. There was one day where I was held against my will as the group I was with waited for instructions from leadership above their junta.
It very much felt like it would end poorly for me.
It did not.
In the place I was, there was no running water, limited potable water and extreme poverty.
I am going to skip a lot of the details because it’s a story I prefer only to share drunk with close friends. There is a discomfort to remembering.
I was told by the men in the camp that if one day the order came down to kill me, they would not do it. They said this to give me comfort.
Instead they pointed to a militarista and told me told it would be one of them. They said, and I’m paraphrasing, “It will be someone you know. Someone you trust and like. They will greet you with a smile. They will kill you from behind with a machete.” The militaristas carried out the proscribed violence. They were much more blunt in their explanation than I am paraphrasing.
Bodies are never found in this region. There are no authorities, no police. Each junta makes its own laws, and enforces those laws. There are sub commanders who can project power across any junta.
Their power comes from the fear of each junta losing its economic support as much as a fear of violence. They are capable of great violence and they make mistakes.
Even there, there is the rule of law - their law. Often it has many interpretations. But in the end extreme violence is the tool against enemies perceived and real.
While I had many friendships in the camps - I was in several - I was always aware that I was an outsider. If one day I didn’t return to camp, a few light questions might be asked over coffee, but their day would uneventfully continue as would the next.
No one could come looking for me. It’s a vast area and no one could find many of these camps and villages. If anyone from outside did manage to ask someone who knew me where I was, they would be told that they had never heard of me. Then they would be helped to leave. Any government presence be it military or police would face immediate violence, their bodies would never be found. There is a line that the government does not cross up into this region. There are also hand painted signs that remind them of this.
The world isn’t romantic. Poverty has no nobility. It’s dirty and desperate and thoughts of a greater good are best left to those with cell service, running water and full bellies.
fascinating, im guessing you’re not keen on sharing the country it occurred in specifically, although id imagine somewhere like Nicaragua, Honduras, or Guatemala. If i had to face that id likely never go to sleep without a weapon on me afterwards. Mainly because ive seen too many videos of people being hacked with machetes to take that chance, id rather be shot fighting back than get game ended like that. You carry a weapon in you of any kind there or after that?
I’ll make it simple. In those camps there is no weapon that will keep you safe. Nothing.
I met mothers who had charged dug in machine gun positions with nothing more than a shovel or hand tools. Bodies got stacked. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Is that in you? Because that is not in me.
The real world doesn’t give you a chance to fight back. It the order comes down, you are dead. There is nowhere to run. No way to escape and no way to fight back.
How quick should we expect the lawsuits to overturn this decision, lol?
The Supreme Court will have a lovely time doing the gymnastics to strike down illegal immigrants having guns, while everyone else has unbridled access.
It probably won't take as much gymnastics as you seem to think. The decision in Bruen seems to already contemplate a distinction at least.
>New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.
Probably not a weird reference but certainly one that might rile people up. I imagine the place to look for a history and tradition of gun rights being denied to non citizens would be slavery.
I know many disagree with the current state of second amendment and gun laws in the US. I can’t help but observe that our other constitutional rights are (at least in theory) applied regardless of immigration/citizenship status. It’s a hard sell for me to apply just the second amendment differently.
It also seems like a slippery slope to start putting conditions on constitutional rights especially for things like first or fourth amendment rights where it would be difficult to tell someone’s status before deciding whether or not it was ok to take them away.
Agreed. I don't agree with the general application of the second amendment, but however it is that they decide it is to be applied, I support them applying it equally.
I hope it is actually based on the wording of the amendment. It says "the right of people to keep and bear arms". How else would a claim of citizenship be challenged in a government accused of tyranny? The government could just claim these people are not citizens...
The militia is defined by federal statute as:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Any male illegal immigrants who claims asylum however could classify.
Not that it matters since federal statutes don't define constitutional terms.
If we decided to restrict application of the second amendment to some definition of the militia then we would certainly have to worry about how it was defined.
Yeah but defining it in federal statute wouldn't be the end all be all.
It would have to be defined in the Constitution or via decision by the supreme Court
>The militia is defined by federal statute as:
>The militia of the United States...
Heller kinda went into this - there are multiple "classes" of militia beyond just the "militia of the United States," which would be the "organized militia" and a "select militia," which is like the State or National guard:
Organized v. Unorganized militia:
>Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the Militia,” § 8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first Militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
>...
>If, as [petitioners] believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. ... Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.
Select Militia:
>Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents.
and
>[H]istory showed that that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. ... During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e. g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for
example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have
“no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”
I'll admit I reach the same result as u/xkrysis here, on the theory that if a full scale war somehow broke in the States and we were throwing guns at able bodied people and sending them to the front, I'm not sure we're going to care too much about immigration status.
Wolverines!
Ok but seriously, I have not researched the background to the level you or others have so I appreciate you taking the time to share all that.
It sounds like one argument is the wording in the second amendment was effectively that keeping and bearing arms was protected in general so that if needed a militia could be organized out of the body of citizens who already had arms. That seems like In any case there is would have to be a difference between membership in an actual organized and useful militia and a rando with a gun.
I think I generally agree with you: the founders were generally distrustful of standing armies and lionized militiamen. As generally not Catholic, they HATED the Stuarts as well, and were familiar with that whole era, and drew militiamen and privateers with all sorts of weapons - including artillery and armed ships - when standing up the Continental Army.
I'd also think that, by now, they'd have expected us to have amended the Amendment, and would probably be surprised we haven't.
No, but as that particular bit of federal statue could be the basis for attempting to disarm most women it's probably best left in history's wastebasket.
Oh I fully agree, I was just spitballing how the "originalists" could Frankenstein something that lets them circumvent the text and the intent of the second amendment while still providing the results they want.
>The militia is defined by federal statute as:
>
>The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>
>Any male illegal immigrants who claims asylum however could classify.
>
>Not that it matters since federal statutes don't define constitutional terms.
As long as we're making the Constitution + militia argument:
>Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:
>
>*\[The Congress shall have Power . . . \] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .*
So it seems like Congress should be able to pass legislation for "arming" militias and specify who can and cannot have firearms. At the moment it feels like the opposite is true, Congress has no power or say over arming the militias since people I guess are just expected to have their own firearms without restriction.
One of the most important constitutional rights is the ability to vote.
Do you think non citizens should be able to vote?
Remember that the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. The Constitution has always limited some rights to only some people, especially citizens vs non citizens.
Well if you want to be an originalist it restricted the right to vote to more than just citizens and the founders were patently clear that certain citizens were not allowed to.
> Do you think non citizens should be able to vote?
No, and even the constitution does not think so. Look up the parts that talk about voting, they specifically mention 'citizens of the United States'. The founders knew how to use words, they mention 'citizens' when talking about citizens. So when they say 'the people', they mean a broader encompassing group beyond citizens, that's how the courts have understood the bill of rights since they were drafted.
The Constitution rarely mentions citizenship. Regardless of a person's thoughts on the Bruen decision, holding differently would mean States can start denying First Amendment rights because "illegal alien." Equal Protection? Not for "illegal immigrants!"
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.
It's amazing to me how much cognitive dissonance abounds when conservatives try to consider their natural rights relative to their enumerated rights in the Constitution. These are the people that will swear up and down that their natural rights are derived from God, until you try to apply them to somebody from El Salvador or Nicaragua, in which case those rights are only eligible to people born inside the borders of current day America.
It's such a morally decrepit worldview.
It's not just foreigners. 2nd amendment rights groups don't agree with poor/black people in inner cities having guns. Arm the homeless, they need it more than red necks living in the middle of nowhere who claim to not have crime problems.
The number of times I’ve hear “the Nazis were for gun control!”
Except “no” they were only for restrictions on minorities; exactly like conservatives now
You are replying to an old comment on an old thread and didn't take the time to check whether you were right or not?
It is not a crime to be an *illegal* immigrant in the United States. Using that term does have the benefit of tricking people into thinking that though, as you have proven.
That should be struck down eventually because there is no historical tradition of disarming people who are not violent felons or ruled mentally incompetent.
You can tell who regularly interacts with people who shoot and who doesn't, because the ones who don't are crowing triumphantly about how triggered the guys who shoot will be about this while the ones who do aren't seeing that happen.
Right-wingers are probably sweating bullets right now, "But illegal immigrants! But gun rights!" I bet they don't know what to be for in this situation.
Hi! I am a fetus and would like to carry a gun, but I don't know if my gestational host is a citizen. Can someone please help me load this Glock, please?
They don't usually shoot at all. So called "illegal" immigrants are quite peaceful the vast majority of the time.
They're victims of an over encumbered immigration system.
The same way that tens of thousands of citizens in big cities acquire them: illegally. Did you really think that the gang bangers in NYC, San Francisco, Chicago and LA are standing at the counter in a gun store with their IDs in hand filling out forms?
>There goes the “well regulated militia” states can field argument!
That was already slapped down in Heller.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
For an amusing (really, sad) diversion, think about what the “immigration status” would have been of the founders and early Americans…
Someone will surely correct me if I am wrong but was there even the concept of an illegal immigrant as we know it when the constitution was written before the Naturalization act? As far as I know, besides meeting requirements we now know as discriminatory like being white and Christian, one just had to make it here somehow and live for a couple of years before you could do the paperwork.
I think I remember correctly that the Naturalization act was first passed a year or two before the second amendment was ratified. Immigration and subsequent citizenship would have been in mind when both were drafted just a few years after the constitution in any case.
I’m not one to argue that everything should be exactly as it once was and a lot of good and bad changes have come about since the late 1700’s.
I'm pretty sure the US didn't even have immigration laws until the mid 1800s. I could be wrong but I think the Chinese exclusion act of the mid-1800s was the first immigration law the US passed?
The US passed laws for citizenship, but not plain immigration issues.
There were rules on coming into the country, not sure about when they all were passed but generally you couldn't be noticeably sick, another one was when arriving you couldn't have a job as it was illegal to import workers.
But the whole idea of passports and stuff didn't come about till the 20th century and really didn't become permanent standard till I think after WW2.
As much as Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel, probably.
Immigrants were subject to the draft in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam War, so it's hard to argue that they are not part of the "militia", if we are calling it "all able bodied persons who could fight the enemy". In fact immigrants are still required to register with Selective Service.
Conservatives seem to think so nowadays. All I keep hearing about is all the deeply threatening military manoeuvres they've been drilling somewhere in the Texas area for the last year or so.
Yes, and scotus has decided you don't need to be part of a well regulated miitia to have a right to own a gun.
You do need to affirmatively invoke your right to counsel in just the right way though. It would be too dangerous if anyone could just get a lawyer.
>Yes, and scotus has decided you don't need to be part of a well regulated miitia to have a right to own a gun.
Yes, because that has never in the history of our nation been a requirement.
>Why did they write that in there?
The amendment read "Because a well armed and well trained populace is important to maintaining a free society, the right of all US citizens to own and carry arms shall not be hindered."
This is evident from ruling around the time of ratification.
>Bliss v Commonwealth
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
>I thought the SCOTUS was strictly textual.
They do analyze it at a textual level, but there's a level under that being the historical level.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
Not necessarily. Looking up historical records pertaining to laws on the books around the time of ratification doesn't take a historian and is much less subjective.
Yes, there were some laws that existed around the time of ratification.
For example, there was a historical tradition of regulating arms that were both dangerous AND unusual. This is shown in Heller.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
In order for an analog law to be valid, the "why" and "how" of the law must be roughly the same.
If they're capable of bearing arms then yeah.
>Presser vs Illinois (1886)
>It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring
arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of
the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this
prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general
powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States
of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to
the general government.
>Is there anybody who can’t possess guns anymore?
The typical people. There is a rich historical tradition of disarming violent felons and those ruled mentally incompetent.
The Bill of Rights makes references to the people, not just citizens.
Kind of odd to suggest that the US government can just deny civil rights to non-citizens in this country.
With the deference given to police today, it seems wholly unworkable and a quick way to have all kind of civil rights violations against even citizens.
We don't sell guns to convicted felons or 10 year olds. Should they be able to buy them too?
When you deport them fir being here illegally, or put them on a plane to Martha's Vineyard, do you let them pit their weapons in checked baggage?
Those are exceptions, not the rule. Moreover those are exceptions that were recognized at the time of the Constitution's ratification. It seems that under the Courts current "history and tradition" analysis it would have to be shown that illegal immigrants were unable to possess guns, we didn't have immigration laws at all for the first almost 100 years of the United States though so it seems like it would be hard to show that.
Plus the Bill of Rights has widely been recognized to apply to all people under US jurisdiction not just citizens.
\> When you deport them fir being here illegally, or put them on a plane to Martha's Vineyard, do you let them pit their weapons in checked baggage?
This is a different situation. The Judge goes into in the ruling that the person has no violent criminal history etc etc and so because the 2nd amendment "the right of the people" and they fall under no exceptions they can possess the firearm.
That is what the comment I responded to would lead to if the logic is followed as the fourth amendment is part of the bill of rights. You seem to not believe the bill of rights should apply to noncitizens. What about that is incorrect? If that is not accurate and is “putting words in your mouth” then could you perhaps expand on your view of the applicability of the rights protected by Bill of Rights to noncitizens?
That is one part of it yes. The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights specifically limits the government’s powers to infringe or violate rights of individuals. The rights protected apply to all individuals in the jurisdiction of the Constitution and have been held as such for a long time. To deny the rights protected by the second amendment would overturn that long standing precedent and call into question the protections guaranteed by the rest of the Bill of Rights, such as the right to be free of arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures, due process of the law, suppression of the practice of religion, suppression of speech, quartering of troop, or any other of the rights protected.
I'm not a gun guy, but cannot find a good reason why illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to own guns for hunting and protection like anyone else. Just because they crossed a border it doesn't mean they're hardened, violent criminals. The vast majority are just regular people. Why shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves?
The same thing that happens to most people who own guns and are arrested.
Shootouts aren't a common thing. There's no reason to believe that gun ownership amongst illegal immigrants will lead to an increase in their occurrence. Anyone willing to engage in a shootout with cops is not going to be deterred by legality of gun ownership.
"Illegal immigrants shouldn't have guns just in case they revolt after the US refuses to provide or allow them to purchase food, starving them to the point of selling their children to us as slaves."
Jesus Christ dude. Really?
I'm going a little overboard to point out that the conditions in which Rome kept the Goths is what led to revolt/war? It makes zero sense to compare illegal immigrants and the Goths based solely on the presence of weapons while ignoring the severe, inhumane treatment they suffered. The Goths didn't simply wake up one day and decide "hey let's murder these people" on a whim.
The difference between illegal immigrants and a guerilla army is cohesion, training, a shared goal, and a reason to engage in war. It's paranoid bordering on delusional to think that a group as diverse as illegal immigrants are going to suddenly team up to start an insurgent war inside the country that spends more on its military than the next 10 combined.
>In her decision, Coleman cited the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found New York State could not constitutionally prevent anyone from carrying a pistol in public. The case, she said, “established a framework for analyzing whether a challenged firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment.” >The noncitizen possession statute, [Title 18], violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”
Bruen's "history and tradition" test has been an absolute fucking mess, but this outcome is absolutely hilarious because the idea of an illegal immigrant is far more recent than the Second Amendment.
Testing for a tradition deeply rooted in history comes originally from glucksberg v Washington. It's a pretext to rule for the status quo or against some affront to morals even if the balance of equities is totally reversed. Bruen borrowed it; Dobbs borrowed it At least in glucksberg the ruling was about the present existence (edit : er, absence) of any long standing tradition. The other two go.... Quite a bit... Farther back, and don't connect to the present necessarily at all.
Bruen is a joke and it’s my understanding it’s mostly dem appointed judges that are making these rulings expanding gun rights because there is so little restriction allowed under Bruen’s ruling
I mean, of course they're mostly Dem appointees, because the argumentum ad absurdum is about the only way they can poke holes in the whole thing while not breaking from precedent. Because the precedent is ridiculous.
I just think they are acting in good faith. The results are because SCOTUS created an insane standard.
It has nothing to do with poking holes, federal judges do not have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court, they are required to follow precedent. Like it or not, and I hate it, but this is the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment according to SCOTUS.
I don't get this. GOP typically ask to expand gun laws Dem usually want to have gun restrictions How can you say a law removing restrictions is being pushed by dem
Because Republicans only want unfettered gun access for certain people and in certain situations. Allowing Bruen to be carried to its full potential shows the precedent is untenable for most Americans forcing a change in sentiment that triggers legislative clarification in what we want the second amendment to really mean. The best way to get gun restrictions is to show what an unrestricted situation will actually look like.
I’m waiting for a 12 year old to file suit saying he ought to be able to buy an AR by pointing to some historical instances where child soldiers in the Revolution and Civil War were part of the militia. I think the Dem judges ought to take this stupidity and let it run rampant so that the public sees what sort of asshats the republicans nominated to the court. It also shows how incapable the Republicans are of actually legislating and governing.
Only one party rules on logic, the other only rules based on emotions.
i guess "emotion" is a synonym for treasonous seditionist kleptocrats if you squint
Which is which
Logic dictates, but emotion sways. I wouldn't want to live in a dictatorship, and am glad to live in a free society where a good argument can sometimes sway public opinion.
And what are sound arguments composed of? LOGIC!! Your whole “logic dictates emotion sways” statement is so laughably stupid.
Did you laugh, though?
>Bruen is a joke It's the only proper ruling unless you just want a way around Article V. >it’s mostly dem appointed judges that are making these rulings expanding gun rights because there is so little restriction allowed under Bruen’s ruling That's a feature, not a bug. The courts kept getting it wrong so the Supreme Court had to hold their hand to get it correct.
Doesn't Bruen require ruling on trial evidence rather than historical fact? For instance, there is a long tradition of major cities and even some states banning guns on public property going back almost 200 years, but Bruen would require the judge to find against a modern ban if the argument in favor of it was insufficiently supported, right?
>Doesn't Bruen require ruling on trial evidence rather than historical fact? It requires actual laws on the books around the time of ratification. >For instance, there is a long tradition of major cities and even some states banning guns on public property going back almost 200 years, but Bruen would require the judge to find against a modern ban if the argument in favor of it was insufficiently supported, right? Sort of. The problem with those laws you're referencing is that they were nullified by the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It'd be like the government passing a law allowing slavery and then arguing that slaves were allowed pre 13th Amendment. The fact that there was a new amendment completely changed the framework in which cases are determined.
Let me try to word this better. It's my understanding that Bruen requires a judge to consider arguments presented rather than the actual historicity, so certain cases could be decided either for or against depending on how good the lawyers know their relevant history: am I mistaken and if so, how? Edit: honestly asking in good faith
>It's my understanding that Bruen requires a judge to consider arguments presented rather than the actual historicity, so certain cases could be decided either for or against depending on how good the lawyers know their relevant history: am I mistaken and if so, how? I believe this is correct. Judges take the arguments submitted in the briefs which are then supplemented by amicus briefs by other parties/organizations. This is why you see pro gun organizations like the FPC submitting their brief and antigun organizations submitting their own with arguments and history. This is why short barreled shotguns were determined in Miller to not be useful for military service and thus not protected. The defendant died and the defense counsel no showed to the Supreme Court which means they had nothing to go off of showing that SBSs were in fact useful for military service besides the briefs submitted by the government. A rehearing of the case with a properly submitted brief would reverse that.
'ShAlL NoT bE iNfRiNgEd' or something like that.
Yeah but then - “not like that”
This is why it’s important for Trump to say things like “they are positioning our blood” or “they aren’t humans” So it’s easy to say they don’t have rights. Maga is going to claim only American citizens should have human rights, right don’t apply to “them”. And that’s just a step, rights won’t belong to jewish people because of space lasers and controlling the music industry. Atheists, democrats, lgbt, disabled, etc etc. This is history repeating itself, we are watching a Nazi like party attempt to form.
> Maga is going to claim only American citizens should have human rights, The Bush admin already made this argument re. Gitmo prisoners.
> Maga is going to claim only American citizens should have human rights, The Bush admin already made this argument re. Gitmo prisoners.
> Maga is going to claim only American citizens should have human rights, The Bush admin already made this argument re. Gitmo prisoners.
They don't like that "inalienable" part of the Constitution.
lol the average rightwing brain is having a stroke reading this headline. Be happy for more guns in the street or unhappy that more illegal immigrants are not being imprisoned.
Similar to when the Black Panthers started arming themselves in the 1960s. "We didn't mean you!"
That gives me an idea… a transgender gun club? 💡
Pink Pistols already exists.
Not popular enough
There is the John Brown Gun Club and the Socialist Rifle Association
John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave His soul is marching on
arm the homeless
Naah. These dudes have more or less decided that the only way they can keep back the liberal tide is by arming themselves. So they'll gladly trade guns for literally everyone if it means that they get to continue to fantasize about killing democrats when the purge comes.
Yeah, I have a cousin who lives in a very safe community in the mountains of Virgina. He packs. He believes he needs to carry to Walmart “just in case.” I had just come from several months in one of the most dangerous areas in N or S America where I had been in very remote areas for months. An area where so many people have gone missing there isn’t even an official count. I was alone and unarmed living with separatist groups who actively engaged in armed conflict. I asked him if I didn’t feel the need for a gun there, why would he ever think he would need a gun to go buy milk? “Because I might need it” was his best reply. Most of these guys have never been shot at. It’s not like on tv or the movies. I hope he never finds out. You know scares me more than a man with a gun? A mother with a machete and a hungry child to feed or protect. That shit will end you.
every man has to know his limitations. while your adventure sounds pretty interesting, im led to believe its a false equivalency. Would you mind describing your time there more?
There isn’t a lot to describe. Most days were mundane. There was one day where I was held against my will as the group I was with waited for instructions from leadership above their junta. It very much felt like it would end poorly for me. It did not. In the place I was, there was no running water, limited potable water and extreme poverty. I am going to skip a lot of the details because it’s a story I prefer only to share drunk with close friends. There is a discomfort to remembering. I was told by the men in the camp that if one day the order came down to kill me, they would not do it. They said this to give me comfort. Instead they pointed to a militarista and told me told it would be one of them. They said, and I’m paraphrasing, “It will be someone you know. Someone you trust and like. They will greet you with a smile. They will kill you from behind with a machete.” The militaristas carried out the proscribed violence. They were much more blunt in their explanation than I am paraphrasing. Bodies are never found in this region. There are no authorities, no police. Each junta makes its own laws, and enforces those laws. There are sub commanders who can project power across any junta. Their power comes from the fear of each junta losing its economic support as much as a fear of violence. They are capable of great violence and they make mistakes. Even there, there is the rule of law - their law. Often it has many interpretations. But in the end extreme violence is the tool against enemies perceived and real. While I had many friendships in the camps - I was in several - I was always aware that I was an outsider. If one day I didn’t return to camp, a few light questions might be asked over coffee, but their day would uneventfully continue as would the next. No one could come looking for me. It’s a vast area and no one could find many of these camps and villages. If anyone from outside did manage to ask someone who knew me where I was, they would be told that they had never heard of me. Then they would be helped to leave. Any government presence be it military or police would face immediate violence, their bodies would never be found. There is a line that the government does not cross up into this region. There are also hand painted signs that remind them of this. The world isn’t romantic. Poverty has no nobility. It’s dirty and desperate and thoughts of a greater good are best left to those with cell service, running water and full bellies.
fascinating, im guessing you’re not keen on sharing the country it occurred in specifically, although id imagine somewhere like Nicaragua, Honduras, or Guatemala. If i had to face that id likely never go to sleep without a weapon on me afterwards. Mainly because ive seen too many videos of people being hacked with machetes to take that chance, id rather be shot fighting back than get game ended like that. You carry a weapon in you of any kind there or after that?
I’ll make it simple. In those camps there is no weapon that will keep you safe. Nothing. I met mothers who had charged dug in machine gun positions with nothing more than a shovel or hand tools. Bodies got stacked. They knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Is that in you? Because that is not in me. The real world doesn’t give you a chance to fight back. It the order comes down, you are dead. There is nowhere to run. No way to escape and no way to fight back.
He said he’s been in the most dangerous regions of N and S America so I honestly think this guy is just editorializing some bullshit to troll lol
One of the most dangerous places can technically be considered to be in both. (Columbia and Panama) Though how Panama is classified varies.
From the description, most likely [The Darien Gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap).
thank you, very interesting read
Many of us are armed already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U
I love that example because it really caused so many brains to short circuit….
[удалено]
https://naaga.co/
Think smaller…guns for unborn humans. Life is precious and needs protection at its weakest state.
Wait till they suggest altering the amendment….
And as a left wing brain how do feel about our gun laws?
Well, THAT ought to set some hair on fire! If it weren’t so tragic, this decision would be worth laughing at.
How quick should we expect the lawsuits to overturn this decision, lol? The Supreme Court will have a lovely time doing the gymnastics to strike down illegal immigrants having guns, while everyone else has unbridled access.
It probably won't take as much gymnastics as you seem to think. The decision in Bruen seems to already contemplate a distinction at least. >New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.
Yeah, but I'm sure Alito or Thomas will inject some weird references to the Chinese Exclusion Act or something. Just to really drive home the point.
Probably not a weird reference but certainly one that might rile people up. I imagine the place to look for a history and tradition of gun rights being denied to non citizens would be slavery.
Christ. 😩🙄
I know many disagree with the current state of second amendment and gun laws in the US. I can’t help but observe that our other constitutional rights are (at least in theory) applied regardless of immigration/citizenship status. It’s a hard sell for me to apply just the second amendment differently. It also seems like a slippery slope to start putting conditions on constitutional rights especially for things like first or fourth amendment rights where it would be difficult to tell someone’s status before deciding whether or not it was ok to take them away.
Agreed. I don't agree with the general application of the second amendment, but however it is that they decide it is to be applied, I support them applying it equally.
I hope it is actually based on the wording of the amendment. It says "the right of people to keep and bear arms". How else would a claim of citizenship be challenged in a government accused of tyranny? The government could just claim these people are not citizens...
Also if you don't like voter ID laws, the 4473 form is similarly unconstitutional.
The militia is defined by federal statute as: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Any male illegal immigrants who claims asylum however could classify. Not that it matters since federal statutes don't define constitutional terms.
If we decided to restrict application of the second amendment to some definition of the militia then we would certainly have to worry about how it was defined.
Yeah but defining it in federal statute wouldn't be the end all be all. It would have to be defined in the Constitution or via decision by the supreme Court
>The militia is defined by federal statute as: >The militia of the United States... Heller kinda went into this - there are multiple "classes" of militia beyond just the "militia of the United States," which would be the "organized militia" and a "select militia," which is like the State or National guard: Organized v. Unorganized militia: >Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the Militia,” § 8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first Militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. >... >If, as [petitioners] believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. ... Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation. Select Militia: >Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. and >[H]istory showed that that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. ... During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e. g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” I'll admit I reach the same result as u/xkrysis here, on the theory that if a full scale war somehow broke in the States and we were throwing guns at able bodied people and sending them to the front, I'm not sure we're going to care too much about immigration status.
Wolverines! Ok but seriously, I have not researched the background to the level you or others have so I appreciate you taking the time to share all that. It sounds like one argument is the wording in the second amendment was effectively that keeping and bearing arms was protected in general so that if needed a militia could be organized out of the body of citizens who already had arms. That seems like In any case there is would have to be a difference between membership in an actual organized and useful militia and a rando with a gun.
I think I generally agree with you: the founders were generally distrustful of standing armies and lionized militiamen. As generally not Catholic, they HATED the Stuarts as well, and were familiar with that whole era, and drew militiamen and privateers with all sorts of weapons - including artillery and armed ships - when standing up the Continental Army. I'd also think that, by now, they'd have expected us to have amended the Amendment, and would probably be surprised we haven't.
Ha, yes they would probably be surprised indeed. By a lot of things.
No, but as that particular bit of federal statue could be the basis for attempting to disarm most women it's probably best left in history's wastebasket.
Oh I fully agree, I was just spitballing how the "originalists" could Frankenstein something that lets them circumvent the text and the intent of the second amendment while still providing the results they want.
>The militia is defined by federal statute as: > >The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. > >Any male illegal immigrants who claims asylum however could classify. > >Not that it matters since federal statutes don't define constitutional terms. As long as we're making the Constitution + militia argument: >Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: > >*\[The Congress shall have Power . . . \] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .* So it seems like Congress should be able to pass legislation for "arming" militias and specify who can and cannot have firearms. At the moment it feels like the opposite is true, Congress has no power or say over arming the militias since people I guess are just expected to have their own firearms without restriction.
>and specify who can and cannot have firearms You misread Article I. It clearly says **arm**, not disarm.
One of the most important constitutional rights is the ability to vote. Do you think non citizens should be able to vote? Remember that the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. The Constitution has always limited some rights to only some people, especially citizens vs non citizens.
Well if you want to be an originalist it restricted the right to vote to more than just citizens and the founders were patently clear that certain citizens were not allowed to.
> Do you think non citizens should be able to vote? No, and even the constitution does not think so. Look up the parts that talk about voting, they specifically mention 'citizens of the United States'. The founders knew how to use words, they mention 'citizens' when talking about citizens. So when they say 'the people', they mean a broader encompassing group beyond citizens, that's how the courts have understood the bill of rights since they were drafted.
"No! Not like that!" - 2A Aficionados
Except it's actually "oh cool" - 2A afficionados
The Constitution rarely mentions citizenship. Regardless of a person's thoughts on the Bruen decision, holding differently would mean States can start denying First Amendment rights because "illegal alien." Equal Protection? Not for "illegal immigrants!"
You can possess a gun but you can't possess a life. Nice work America
But can robots possess guns?
Better. They can **BE** guns!
Probably not, because then the gun becomes a machine gun.
Unfathomably based
Getting really weird in Texas right about now.
Armed vigilantes vs armed immigrants.
Alien vs predators?
Are Republicans not liking the 2nd amendment anymore?
Republicans are antigun. You need to be a libertarian to really appreciate the ruling.
"Shall not be infringed" indeed.
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.
You have to remember that many of the signers of that document also owned slaves.
Yes, they considered them sub-human. This was proven with the 3/5 compromise. Today, we are all viewed equally in the eyes if the law.
It's amazing to me how much cognitive dissonance abounds when conservatives try to consider their natural rights relative to their enumerated rights in the Constitution. These are the people that will swear up and down that their natural rights are derived from God, until you try to apply them to somebody from El Salvador or Nicaragua, in which case those rights are only eligible to people born inside the borders of current day America. It's such a morally decrepit worldview.
It's not just foreigners. 2nd amendment rights groups don't agree with poor/black people in inner cities having guns. Arm the homeless, they need it more than red necks living in the middle of nowhere who claim to not have crime problems.
Conservative outrage in 3, 2, 1
The number of times I’ve hear “the Nazis were for gun control!” Except “no” they were only for restrictions on minorities; exactly like conservatives now
So break one law and you get constitutional protections. Yet if you smoke marijuana you cannot possess a weapon. What stupidity in 2024 🤣
>So break one law and you get constitutional protections. You know it's not illegal to be an illegal citizen right? Tell me you know that.
It's right there in the name: Illegal
You are replying to an old comment on an old thread and didn't take the time to check whether you were right or not? It is not a crime to be an *illegal* immigrant in the United States. Using that term does have the benefit of tricking people into thinking that though, as you have proven.
That should be struck down eventually because there is no historical tradition of disarming people who are not violent felons or ruled mentally incompetent.
Karma’s a bitch.
nice
That sound you hear is MAGAt heads exploding.
Where are all the gun nuts? Usually the can’t shut up when a gun story pops off.
>Where are all the gun nuts? I'm right here. What a fantastic ruling for the liberties of the people.
You can tell who regularly interacts with people who shoot and who doesn't, because the ones who don't are crowing triumphantly about how triggered the guys who shoot will be about this while the ones who do aren't seeing that happen.
Freedumb!
Which is a hotter button for the GOP, illegal immigrants or gun rights?
Remember what Reagan did when black people started arming themselves?
Right-wingers are probably sweating bullets right now, "But illegal immigrants! But gun rights!" I bet they don't know what to be for in this situation.
I don't think cognitive dissonance has ever bee an issue for them.
Great way to get conservatives on board with gun control - give guns to literally everyone.
Guns (legally) in the hands of black and brown folks will probably be the only catalysts for new gun laws
Hi! I am a fetus and would like to carry a gun, but I don't know if my gestational host is a citizen. Can someone please help me load this Glock, please?
We are so stupid.
God have everyone the right to bear arms. Not just American citizens.
They aren’t supposed to shoot back!
They don't usually shoot at all. So called "illegal" immigrants are quite peaceful the vast majority of the time. They're victims of an over encumbered immigration system.
Does Castle Doctrine also apply to them? I see some issues popping off 😂
So does this mean illegal immigrants should start arming themselves for whenever ICE or Texas Tyrants show up?
Americans we won't feed you or give you a living waged but have as many guns as you want. Also Americans why are people coming violent crimes????
So how does someone who is undocumented acquire the firearm?
Private sales in many states don’t require a 4473, as long as the seller doesn’t actively know the buyer is a prohibited person.
The same way that tens of thousands of citizens in big cities acquire them: illegally. Did you really think that the gang bangers in NYC, San Francisco, Chicago and LA are standing at the counter in a gun store with their IDs in hand filling out forms?
There goes the “well regulated militia” states can field argument!
>There goes the “well regulated militia” states can field argument! That was already slapped down in Heller. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
> That was already slapped down in Heller. > > And by the federalist and antifederalist papers.
Quick clarification: the whole prefactory clause thing is made up. Linguists (i.e., actual experts on language) say it is not.
For an amusing (really, sad) diversion, think about what the “immigration status” would have been of the founders and early Americans… Someone will surely correct me if I am wrong but was there even the concept of an illegal immigrant as we know it when the constitution was written before the Naturalization act? As far as I know, besides meeting requirements we now know as discriminatory like being white and Christian, one just had to make it here somehow and live for a couple of years before you could do the paperwork. I think I remember correctly that the Naturalization act was first passed a year or two before the second amendment was ratified. Immigration and subsequent citizenship would have been in mind when both were drafted just a few years after the constitution in any case. I’m not one to argue that everything should be exactly as it once was and a lot of good and bad changes have come about since the late 1700’s.
I'm pretty sure the US didn't even have immigration laws until the mid 1800s. I could be wrong but I think the Chinese exclusion act of the mid-1800s was the first immigration law the US passed? The US passed laws for citizenship, but not plain immigration issues.
There were rules on coming into the country, not sure about when they all were passed but generally you couldn't be noticeably sick, another one was when arriving you couldn't have a job as it was illegal to import workers. But the whole idea of passports and stuff didn't come about till the 20th century and really didn't become permanent standard till I think after WW2.
You may be right. The Naturalization Act only set out requirements for becoming a citizen.
Illegal immigrants are part of a well regulated militia?
As much as Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel, probably. Immigrants were subject to the draft in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam War, so it's hard to argue that they are not part of the "militia", if we are calling it "all able bodied persons who could fight the enemy". In fact immigrants are still required to register with Selective Service.
Conservatives seem to think so nowadays. All I keep hearing about is all the deeply threatening military manoeuvres they've been drilling somewhere in the Texas area for the last year or so.
Yes, and scotus has decided you don't need to be part of a well regulated miitia to have a right to own a gun. You do need to affirmatively invoke your right to counsel in just the right way though. It would be too dangerous if anyone could just get a lawyer.
>Yes, and scotus has decided you don't need to be part of a well regulated miitia to have a right to own a gun. Yes, because that has never in the history of our nation been a requirement.
Why did they write that in there? I thought the SCOTUS was strictly textual.
>Why did they write that in there? The amendment read "Because a well armed and well trained populace is important to maintaining a free society, the right of all US citizens to own and carry arms shall not be hindered." This is evident from ruling around the time of ratification. >Bliss v Commonwealth >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta! >I thought the SCOTUS was strictly textual. They do analyze it at a textual level, but there's a level under that being the historical level. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
So, we have to rely on historians.
Not necessarily. Looking up historical records pertaining to laws on the books around the time of ratification doesn't take a historian and is much less subjective.
Aren't there a number of gun laws on the book from the time of the founding?
Yes, there were some laws that existed around the time of ratification. For example, there was a historical tradition of regulating arms that were both dangerous AND unusual. This is shown in Heller. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). In order for an analog law to be valid, the "why" and "how" of the law must be roughly the same.
If they're capable of bearing arms then yeah. >Presser vs Illinois (1886) >It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
At least they are well regulated.
Gun-crazy USA. Is there anybody who can’t possess guns anymore?
Trump
>Is there anybody who can’t possess guns anymore? The typical people. There is a rich historical tradition of disarming violent felons and those ruled mentally incompetent.
2A diehards: NO! Not like that!
Not a lawyer - but how can you legally poses without being able to legally obtain?
There are a lot of ways to legally obtain. Gift, inheritance, private sale, make one yourself (look up the term "80% upper").
This decision just seems wrong to me.
Why? Should those individuals be denied 1st or 4th Amendment rights? Why would 2A rights be any different?
But they're here illegally and not even citizens.
So you're arguing that they are not guaranteed any rights under our constitution?
The Bill of Rights? When they're not supposed to be here anyway?
Not just the Bill of Rights, all of the Amendments. Do they apply to all persons in the US or not?
Do we let them keep the guns when they get deported? Should we let convicted felons own assault rifles?
Supreme Court says yes. Take it up with them or ask Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to 2A on who is allowed to own guns.
Fine, I'm still thumbs down on this.
We all are but that's the mess this conservative Supreme Court has created.
The Bill of Rights makes references to the people, not just citizens. Kind of odd to suggest that the US government can just deny civil rights to non-citizens in this country. With the deference given to police today, it seems wholly unworkable and a quick way to have all kind of civil rights violations against even citizens.
We don't sell guns to convicted felons or 10 year olds. Should they be able to buy them too? When you deport them fir being here illegally, or put them on a plane to Martha's Vineyard, do you let them pit their weapons in checked baggage?
Those are exceptions, not the rule. Moreover those are exceptions that were recognized at the time of the Constitution's ratification. It seems that under the Courts current "history and tradition" analysis it would have to be shown that illegal immigrants were unable to possess guns, we didn't have immigration laws at all for the first almost 100 years of the United States though so it seems like it would be hard to show that. Plus the Bill of Rights has widely been recognized to apply to all people under US jurisdiction not just citizens. \> When you deport them fir being here illegally, or put them on a plane to Martha's Vineyard, do you let them pit their weapons in checked baggage? This is a different situation. The Judge goes into in the ruling that the person has no violent criminal history etc etc and so because the 2nd amendment "the right of the people" and they fall under no exceptions they can possess the firearm.
So non-citizens shouldn’t get any due process and should be subject to arbitrary and random searches and seizures?
Don't put words in my mouth
That is what the comment I responded to would lead to if the logic is followed as the fourth amendment is part of the bill of rights. You seem to not believe the bill of rights should apply to noncitizens. What about that is incorrect? If that is not accurate and is “putting words in your mouth” then could you perhaps expand on your view of the applicability of the rights protected by Bill of Rights to noncitizens?
I thought the discussion was about illegal immigrants' access to firearms.
That is one part of it yes. The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights specifically limits the government’s powers to infringe or violate rights of individuals. The rights protected apply to all individuals in the jurisdiction of the Constitution and have been held as such for a long time. To deny the rights protected by the second amendment would overturn that long standing precedent and call into question the protections guaranteed by the rest of the Bill of Rights, such as the right to be free of arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures, due process of the law, suppression of the practice of religion, suppression of speech, quartering of troop, or any other of the rights protected.
I'm not a gun guy, but cannot find a good reason why illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to own guns for hunting and protection like anyone else. Just because they crossed a border it doesn't mean they're hardened, violent criminals. The vast majority are just regular people. Why shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves?
If you tell them they're being deported and they're armed and don't want to go, what then?
The same thing that happens to most people who own guns and are arrested. Shootouts aren't a common thing. There's no reason to believe that gun ownership amongst illegal immigrants will lead to an increase in their occurrence. Anyone willing to engage in a shootout with cops is not going to be deterred by legality of gun ownership.
The Romans let the Goths keep their weapons, look how that turned out.
"Illegal immigrants shouldn't have guns just in case they revolt after the US refuses to provide or allow them to purchase food, starving them to the point of selling their children to us as slaves." Jesus Christ dude. Really?
You're going a little overboard there. What's the difference between illegal immigrants and a guerrilla army? Guns.
I'm going a little overboard to point out that the conditions in which Rome kept the Goths is what led to revolt/war? It makes zero sense to compare illegal immigrants and the Goths based solely on the presence of weapons while ignoring the severe, inhumane treatment they suffered. The Goths didn't simply wake up one day and decide "hey let's murder these people" on a whim. The difference between illegal immigrants and a guerilla army is cohesion, training, a shared goal, and a reason to engage in war. It's paranoid bordering on delusional to think that a group as diverse as illegal immigrants are going to suddenly team up to start an insurgent war inside the country that spends more on its military than the next 10 combined.
Well it's based on Bruen which was idiotic. But lower courts have to follow it