An interesting Second Amendment ruling from the courts.

[Chobham]

This is something everyone can jump into.

Illegals have 2nd amendment rights?

 

[snailspace]

They also have rights to free shit

We havevrights to be taxed and attacked

 

[snailspace]

One of the great things about hawaii is that they have not reached us yet

 

[eigenschwarz]

Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give anybody rights.

It protects the rights of the people by enumerating the powers of the government in the original articles and then explicitly stating in amendments that the government may not do certain things, such as abridging freedom of speech, establishing an official church, etc.

The text of the Second Amendment is worth considering:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It explicitly says that the right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed. Does this not imply that this right is inherent to the people, and that the Amendment is merely recognizing an existing human right?

Therefore, yes, even non-citizens who illegally immigrated to the US have the right to arm themselves if you read the text of the Second Amendment literally.

 

[wizzard426]

Illegals are just that. Criminal Felons and as such they have no rights

 

[ll74]

Illegals are just that. Criminal Felons and as such they have no rights

Dumb take

 

[Chobham]

Illegals are just that. Criminal Felons and as such they have no rights

Not true Wiz. First offense is a misdemeanor.

 

[wizzard426]

Not true Wiz. First offense is a misdemeanor.

Regardless they go back

 

[eigenschwarz]

Illegals are just that. Criminal Felons and as such they have no rights

They aren't criminals or felons until they've been charged, publicly tried, and convicted. It's called "presumption of innocence" and "due process". Everybody is entitled to it. Even conservatives who would deny such rights to others. If you were ever suspected of a crime, misdemeanor or felony, you'd rightfully insist on your due process rights.

Otherwise, we could (and probably should) have summarily executed every Republican we even suspected of fomenting the attempted insurrection on Jan 6, including Trump himself, along with all of the participants.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Illegals are just that. Criminal Felons and as such they have no rights

So much for due process. You trumptards are tards.

 

[Chobham]

Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give anybody rights.

It protects the rights of the people by enumerating the powers of the government in the original articles and then explicitly stating in amendments that the government may not do certain things, such as abridging freedom of speech, establishing an official church, etc.

The text of the Second Amendment is worth considering:



It explicitly says that the right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed. Does this not imply that this right is inherent to the people, and that the Amendment is merely recognizing an existing human right?

Therefore, yes, even non-citizens who illegally immigrated to the US have the right to arm themselves if you read the text of the Second Amendment literally.

Yes and no. (And that's why this is so worth pondering.) The crux of the text is "the people." What constitutes "the people." Is that referencing citizens that are specifically under the umbrella of the Constitution, or are "the people" under a universal umbrella as Locke implied in his "Two Treatises of Government?"

 

[Rotadom]

The OP is conflicted. More illegals with guns equals more guns but it also means more illegals.

 

[eigenschwarz]

Yes and no. (And that's why this is so worth pondering.) The crux of the text is "the people." What constitutes "the people." Is that referencing citizens that are specifically under the umbrella of the Constitution, or are "the people" under a universal umbrella as Locke implied in his "Two Treatises of Government?"

Since I think the government needs to be kept on as tight a leash as possible (ideally held by the scruff of the neck), I favor the Lockean interpretation. I think James Madison and most of the other Framers did, as well.

If we interpret the people as meaning only citizens of the US, we introduce a means for the government to legally overstep its authority by denying certain people citizenship (which it already has the authority to do) or stripping citizens of their citizenship. I don't think that was Madison's intent when he wrote the constitution.

If you know a good necromancer, we could ask Madison directly and settle the matter.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Having known more than my fair share of immigrants both legal and illegal, I find myself of two minds on this. I'm dividing my thinking from "my immigrants and those immigrants" to "immigrants."


Did we not get folks to become citizens back during previous waves of immigration before they got to do things like vote, and wouldn't the Bill of Rights be conferred with citizenship?

 

[Rightguide]

This is something everyone can jump into.

Illegals have 2nd amendment rights?

I think not. They aren't citizens. If illegals are entitled to constitutional rights, what is the advantage of being a citizen?

 

[eigenschwarz]

Having known more than my fair share of immigrants both legal and illegal, I find myself of two minds on this. I'm dividing my thinking from "my immigrants and those immigrants" to "immigrants."

Did we not get folks to become citizens back during previous waves of immigration before they got to do things like vote, and wouldn't the Bill of Rights be conferred with citizenship?

Voting is one thing, but limiting protection of fundamental rights to citizens seems to contradict at least a century's worth of case law.

I guess originalism only applies when it leads to outcomes favorable to the richest among us, and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves. We need a new motto for the Supreme Court, because "equal justice under law" hasn't applied in the last half century or so. How about "Fuck you; I got mine"?

 

[kathyisgr65]

Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give anybody rights.

It protects the rights of the people by enumerating the powers of the government in the original articles and then explicitly stating in amendments that the government may not do certain things, such as abridging freedom of speech, establishing an official church, etc.

The text of the Second Amendment is worth considering:



It explicitly says that the right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed. Does this not imply that this right is inherent to the people, and that the Amendment is merely recognizing an existing human right?

Therefore, yes, even non-citizens who illegally immigrated to the US have the right to arm themselves if you read the text of the Second Amendment literally.

That's gonna be unpopular... even if clearly stated. Have fun w the crazy shit coming ur way.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I think not. They aren't citizens. If illegals are entitled to constitutional rights, what is the advantage of being a citizen?

SCOTUS has already ruled, the BOR apples to any person physically within the boundaries of the US. How they got there doesn't come into the equation. But then again your understand of equations is poor at best, Mr 2/10ths.

 

[eigenschwarz]

That's gonna be unpopular... even if clearly stated. Have fun w the crazy shit coming ur way.

My "ignore" button has a bump stock.

 

[kathyisgr65]

That's cool

 

[eigenschwarz]

I think not. They aren't citizens. If illegals are entitled to constitutional rights, what is the advantage of being a citizen?

The advantage is that the rest of us can't vote to exile your authoritarian ass.

 

[Rotadom]

I think not. They aren't citizens. If illegals are entitled to constitutional rights, what is the advantage of being a citizen?

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Voting is one thing, but limiting protection of fundamental rights to citizens seems to contradict at least a century's worth of case law.

I guess originalism only applies when it leads to outcomes favorable to the richest among us, and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves. We need a new motto for the Supreme Court, because "equal justice under law" hasn't applied in the last half century or so. How about "Fuck you; I got mine"?

Okay. I have come to like "my immigrants" very much. A lot of them are in process with getting their papers in order, like drivers licenses. They'd have to fill out the 4473 and pass the background, but that's the safeguard in place. Hell, if they can pass it, I'm not going to argue it.

 

[HisArpy]

Illegals are just that. Criminal Felons and as such they have no rights

No. Just flat out false.

Why? Because under your version of reality no illegal is entitled to due process in court or protection of any laws.

Which means that cops can slaughter them with impunity for the offense of being present here. Traffic stops can be conducted with maximum felony force. Hospitals can refuse emergency life saving medical care. They can be discriminated against when buying or renting homes. And so on and on and on.

Everyone present in the US has rights. Legally here or illegally here, the law still applies and protects everyone equally.

There is nothing in this new decision which changes that. It's only that those who wish to discriminate can use it to find a reason to be upset over the uncovering of the truth.

 

[wizzard426]

They have a right to remain silent until the bus drops them back off in Mexico, where they should have begged for asylum to begin with

Regardless, Mexico ships them back

Regardless, "cops slaughter" is the current talking point of the communists.

You have exactly the rights that you are willing to pick up a rifle and defend.

Go back and do that, there