View Poll Results: Does an unlawfully present person have the right to keep and bear arms?
Yes.
8
28.57%
No.
20
71.43%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll
Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
#46
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
But are those restrictions applied to gun shows ?
It would seem to me having a license to own firearms combined with more extensive background checks might be an improvement though certainly would need other measures to somewhat reduce the problem- I lived in 3 states in America, the more restrictive the gun laws didn't correlate to less gun violence in fact as Chicago and Baltimore have shown quite the opposite.
It would seem to me having a license to own firearms combined with more extensive background checks might be an improvement though certainly would need other measures to somewhat reduce the problem- I lived in 3 states in America, the more restrictive the gun laws didn't correlate to less gun violence in fact as Chicago and Baltimore have shown quite the opposite.
#47
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: The People's Republic of Evanstion, IL
Posts: 332
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
How many people have actually read the second amendment ? I have not but my very knowledgeable stepson informs me that it states that members of a militia have the right to bear arms, not the average citizen, however that average citizen may own a hunting rifle. No person who is not a member of a militia has the given right to own a semi automatic weapon.
The law has been widely miss conceived over many years.
Just saying what I have been informed and not looking for an argument
The law has been widely miss conceived over many years.
Just saying what I have been informed and not looking for an argument
That verdict largely broke the link between Militia and Individual's Right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller
#48
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
How many people have actually read the second amendment ? I have not but my very knowledgeable stepson informs me that it states that members of a militia have the right to bear arms, not the average citizen, however that average citizen may own a hunting rifle. No person who is not a member of a militia has the given right to own a semi automatic weapon.
The law has been widely miss conceived over many years.
Just saying what I have been informed and not looking for an argument
The law has been widely miss conceived over many years.
Just saying what I have been informed and not looking for an argument
They intended for an armed citizenry who would be able to resist a corrupted government. The Second Amendment is not about self defense or hunting.
Actually the more pressing question is it who or whom?
#49
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a few years ago that a person unlawfully present found with a .22 cartridge had Second Amendment rights, but that his possession was still unlawful as the prohibition was long-standing.
As a naturalized citizen who happened to pick up his CCL this morning, I don't see where this is even a question!
ETA: The 'Right to Bear Arms' is in th Constitution, a document that does not apply to anyone outside the law in this way!
ETA: The 'Right to Bear Arms' is in th Constitution, a document that does not apply to anyone outside the law in this way!
The question that is unresolved is whether a court will overturn the prohibition on people unlawfully present owning guns, they clearly have a 2nd Amendment right, that much is established.
#50
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
Unfortunately just because something is legal at a federal level does not make it legal at the State level. As I stated, Washington, even a green card holder will spend time in jail for owning a gun. The feds only get involved crossing from State to State. I assume you did not cross at the Washington border.
Also because something is illegal, it does not prevent people breaking the law either willingly or through ignorance.
Also because something is illegal, it does not prevent people breaking the law either willingly or through ignorance.
Friend of mine who lives in White Rock shoots in the US and he was unaware of this restriction until CBP denied him entry one day. Competitions yes, practice no. Enforcement is very spotty but it is on the books.
I'm sure there was a logical reason for it at some point. As for the alien firearm permits that were mentioned (for people who are non-immigrants but resident in Washington), good luck trying to get one.
This is the official blurb which if you live in Washington or BC is worth having a quick read through: WA State Licensing (DOL) Official Site: How to get your license - Alien Firearms License
Read the "related laws" bit.
#51
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
As I pointed out in my initial post, they do. US vs Verdugo-Urquidez established that anyone with "substantial ties" to the US has full constitutional rights.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a few years ago that a person unlawfully present found with a .22 cartridge had Second Amendment rights, but that his possession was still unlawful as the prohibition was long-standing.
You don't have to be a citizen to get a permit, in fact it's been ruled in multiple jurisdictions that such a requirement violates the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. e.g. Fotoudis v City and County of Honolulu
The question that is unresolved is whether a court will overturn the prohibition on people unlawfully present owning guns, they clearly have a 2nd Amendment right, that much is established.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a few years ago that a person unlawfully present found with a .22 cartridge had Second Amendment rights, but that his possession was still unlawful as the prohibition was long-standing.
You don't have to be a citizen to get a permit, in fact it's been ruled in multiple jurisdictions that such a requirement violates the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. e.g. Fotoudis v City and County of Honolulu
The question that is unresolved is whether a court will overturn the prohibition on people unlawfully present owning guns, they clearly have a 2nd Amendment right, that much is established.
#52
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
What about veterans with a dishonourable discharge, do they not have 2nd Amendment rights? Or those who have spent more than a year in jail, heck, some of them go on to lead very productive lives but can't even vote.
#53
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
A dishonourable discharge is considered the equivalent of a felony, so that's a criminal prohibition.
A person unlawfully present hasn't broken any criminal laws necessarily, may only be civil.
This is why it's an interesting question. Clearly they have substantial ties, they haven't committed any criminal acts - so is the prohibition on their owning firearms constitutional? 7th circuit fudged it, I think sooner or later a court is going to rule that it's unconstitutional to ban them from owning firearms and then you're going to see total weirdness ensue because right-wingers tend to be for the RKBA but against illegal immigration. And left-wingers tend to be against guns but for an amnesty.
This issue ties them together.
A person unlawfully present hasn't broken any criminal laws necessarily, may only be civil.
This is why it's an interesting question. Clearly they have substantial ties, they haven't committed any criminal acts - so is the prohibition on their owning firearms constitutional? 7th circuit fudged it, I think sooner or later a court is going to rule that it's unconstitutional to ban them from owning firearms and then you're going to see total weirdness ensue because right-wingers tend to be for the RKBA but against illegal immigration. And left-wingers tend to be against guns but for an amnesty.
This issue ties them together.
#54
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
A dishonourable discharge is considered the equivalent of a felony, so that's a criminal prohibition.
A person unlawfully present hasn't broken any criminal laws necessarily, may only be civil.
This is why it's an interesting question. Clearly they have substantial ties, they haven't committed any criminal acts - so is the prohibition on their owning firearms constitutional? 7th circuit fudged it, I think sooner or later a court is going to rule that it's unconstitutional to ban them from owning firearms and then you're going to see total weirdness ensue because right-wingers tend to be for the RKBA but against illegal immigration. And left-wingers tend to be against guns but for an amnesty.
This issue ties them together.
A person unlawfully present hasn't broken any criminal laws necessarily, may only be civil.
This is why it's an interesting question. Clearly they have substantial ties, they haven't committed any criminal acts - so is the prohibition on their owning firearms constitutional? 7th circuit fudged it, I think sooner or later a court is going to rule that it's unconstitutional to ban them from owning firearms and then you're going to see total weirdness ensue because right-wingers tend to be for the RKBA but against illegal immigration. And left-wingers tend to be against guns but for an amnesty.
This issue ties them together.
#55
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
ICE is only aware of about 3 million people who are out-of-status so I think it will be a very cold day in Hell before the number drops to a de minimus level.
#56
Re: Do people unlawfully present have a right to keep and bear arms?
I can't t find ICE figures, mine came from Pew research backed up to some degree by DHS ( whose latest report, 2014, put the number at 11.3-11.8 million).