RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/8/2012 10:18:25 PM

SternSkipper

Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

The word illigal actually has a meaning

Well ... when you spell it right it does.

_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.

Tinfoilers Swallow

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 21

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/8/2012 10:32:46 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

unlawful for any person

Of all the hundreds if not thousands of people I know, I have yet to count more than 4 people who can tell me the variants of that word and its full historical to present application.

Technically an unborn child is not a legal "person", nor is an alien.

put that in your pipe.

I no longer smoke... and frankly I heard the unborn produce a hash smoke.
So I guess you're saying that we'll be going to to the supreme court to ask the question "Do Muppets enjoy personhood?".

I could post a few scotus cases for you to go with your pointy hat.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 5/8/2012 10:35:30 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to SternSkipper)

Post #: 22

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/8/2012 10:43:29 PM

DarqueMirror

Posts: 1262
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

DENVER -- A federal appeals court has rejected an illegal immigrant's claim that the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to bear firearms.
Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar of Gillette, Wyo., had argued that the U.S. Constitution guarantees are guaranteed certain other rights to illegal aliens, such as the right to due process.
The Second Amendment provides that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," and Huitron-Guizar argued that he was part of "the people."But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that Huitron-Guizar fell under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which forbids gun possession by nine classes of individuals, including illegal aliens. The court conceded that there is some argument about the meaning of "the people" and U.S. citizens, but found that Congress had lawfully exercised its power to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens."That Congress saw fit to exclude illegal aliens from carrying guns may indicate its belief, entitled to our respect, that such aliens, as a class, possess no such constitutional right," the court said.
Huitron-Guizar, 24, was born in Mexico, brought to Wyoming at the age of 3 and never obtained U.S. citizenship.
In March 2011, officers served a search warrant at his home and found a rifle, a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun and a semi-automatic pistol.
He entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession of firearms transported or shipped in interstate commerce. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and is to be deported thereafter.
Huitron-Guizar's attorney, Ronald Pretty, said Tuesday that he believed such cases involving constitutional definitions of "people" as opposed to "citizens" could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The circuit court of appeals did find the Constitution did not clearly define U.S. citizenship.
"We know, for instance, that the founders' notion of citizenship was less rigid than ours, largely tied to the franchise, which itself was often based on little more than a brief period of residence and being a male with some capital," the panel noted.

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Post #: 23

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/8/2012 10:49:08 PM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Since you asked, I think the people in this country illegally should be summarily tossed out. I believe the constitution should be amended to prevent people from automatically being citizens just because they were born on US soil. I am rabidly anti immigration, and I don't care who knows it. So no, I don't think they should own firearms, since they shouldn't be here at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

To semisweet, Do you really think that people in this Country illigally should be able to own firearms ? The word illigal actually has a meaning..

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 24

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/8/2012 10:57:36 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

They came here for several centuries for the same reasons – freedom and hope -- and then a Frenchman created a statue that embodied their hopes and dreams. And it embodied America's promise as well. "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..." THE STATUE OF LIBERTY

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Post #: 25

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 2:04:22 AM

joether

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

I'm actually surprised so many conservatives are agaisnt the idea of someone having a firearm to protect themselves from being robbed or killed. I'm going to (try) to play devil's advocate here....

According to the law in that state...

quote:

Colorado allows a person to carry a firearm in a vehicle, loaded or unloaded, if its use is for lawful protection of such person or another's person or property. [C.R.S. 18-12-105(2)] Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, you cannot carry the weapon concealed on or about your person while transporting it into your home, business, hotel room, etc. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6] The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms.

SOURCE

It states right that, that a 'person', not a 'US Citizen', can obtain and keep a firearm. One would have to make the arguement that 'person' implies 'US Citizen' and not 'anyone in general within the state's borders'. Likewise doing so, could be argued as a form of gun registration/restriction, which apparently...

quote:

The State of Colorado prohibits gun registration. CRS 29-11.7-102

(Same Source)

...is also prohibited.

The person in question is right to ask the question, that if they are entitled to a lawyer in their defense, and all the other privilages granted under the US Consitution. Because that was the reason for the document: To explain what boundries and controls the goverment has within the view of the persons under its control and borders. Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar states that his possession of firearms is in keeping with concept under the 2nd Amendment (which is a defense used by so many Americans for why they should have firearms too): to defend himself from being robbed or killed. But because his status is an 'illegal alien' this particular amendment (unlike the 6th for example, cus he's given a lawyer named Mr. Pretty) is ignored. Its not like he broke a state law having the firearms!

I guess I'm not understanding why the conservatives on here (whom normally are infavor of the 2nd) are against this guy having a firearm for the exact same reason most Americans have them: for self-defense. It seems since he broke a law, that eliminates his 'right' to have a firearm for his defense. Apparently folks have forgotten that 'John 8:7' talked about this very concept....metaphorically speaking of course!

Again, I'm not taking this guy's defense, but merely playing devil's advocate. If this guy's 2nd amendment right can be 'taken away' because he broke a law; than anyone, anywhere, who speeds even 1 mph over the limit and breaks the law should ALSO have their firearms taken away (until they pay the penalty of the crime). The US Constitution is not set up to handle 'how the courts deal with one classiscation of people' verse another. Its all to easy for such a policy to become so corrupt and dishonest that good Americans are put away behind bars while the scum and villians are allowed to roam free.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 26

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 6:24:47 AM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Whatever. I'm sick of paying for their freedom and hope. It seems to come at the expense of my own. Perhaps unlimited and uncontrolled immigration made sense in the days of manifest destiny. It doesn't anymore.

I am more interested, and somewhat surprised, by a court putting any limits on the Second Amendment. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the higher courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

They came here for several centuries for the same reasons – freedom and hope -- and then a Frenchman created a statue that embodied their hopes and dreams. And it embodied America's promise as well. "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..." THE STATUE OF LIBERTY

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 27

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 8:09:15 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

Ok looks like I need to check this case out at the law library.

“The privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens...Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship...” — Jones v. Temmer (Aug. 1993) 829 F. Supp. 1226

and of course the states who are chartered to "protect your RIGHTS" are the ones who created this, the people never voted on any of the shit we have to OBEY today!

Welcome Neo to the desert of the REAL!

Use this one instead:

(123 u. s. 131) THE ANARCHISTS' CASE.1
Ex parte SPIES and others.
(October 2 J, 1887.)
ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT.

That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since.

Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247;

Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552;

Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434;

Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76;

Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91;

Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479;

Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325;

Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278;

Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557;

Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90;

U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552;

Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296;

Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101;

Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79;

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580.

It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." It is also contended that the provision of the fourteenth amendment, which declares that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a state shall be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself. The objections are, in brief,

In other words they created a one shoe fits all statutory system that is UNDER their control, dont like it? too fucking bad, sue them! One by one! They will break your ass and suck up all your resources with their infinite public and stacked court decisions as the one above!

People think the states are their friends and the fed is their enemy, well the states created this shit.

So for those who do not see what went on here; you have been DEMOTED, your STATUS and STANDING has been reduced, the bundle of sticks they call rights are now missing most of them!

Welcome again Neo to the desert of the REAL!

and the beat goes on!

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 5/9/2012 8:28:57 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 28

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 8:26:36 AM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

I posted the link for the decision in an earlier post

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 29

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 8:32:44 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

I am pointing out that you had no say and continue to have no say in what goes on and the supporting cases as to why it is that way.

In its strict construction the only "person" ineligible to "own and bear" is a person who is IN PRISON.

The reason rights are being trampled is due to the above. That is why the words have been changed to protect the guilty! The states. New words "right to carry" versus "own and bear" etc etc etc.

the words are created then its only a battle over the words. The underlying principle in many cases is lost. That is why we have so many people who have no clue how much power they truly have or can have if they only KNEW their rights. No its not the courts responsibility to teach you your right nor uphold them in court. Those days are long gone. If you do not know them you dont have them.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 5/9/2012 8:36:00 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Post #: 30

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 8:32:48 AM

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Whatever. I'm sick of paying for their freedom and hope. It seems to come at the expense of my own. Perhaps unlimited and uncontrolled immigration made sense in the days of manifest destiny. It doesn't anymore.

Then you will need to pay to get rid of them.. I read it takes about 400 days to go thru the process and deport someone and if held that time, its $130/day..

I think its more than freedom and hope for some, in certain areas they risk being killed by the drug cartels and such.. and a person has to be pretty desperate to risk their life trying to get into the US.. Many times I have been grateful for not having been born in Africa or Mexico or Russia or some such place.. and that was just a matter of luck..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Post #: 31

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 9:49:20 AM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Oh, is THAT what you were trying to say?

The second amendment is interesting in that much of the language is subject to interpretation, i.e. the language about the militia. That is why the recent second amendment cases have been so interesting, and have concentrated so much on historical linguistics. I will be interested to see what the the Supremes do with this latest twist of language, assuming that it gets this far. I also think it is interesting that the law that is being challenged has been in affect since 1968. Seems odd it was never challenged before, assuming that it wasn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I am pointing out that you had no say and continue to have no say in what goes on and the supporting cases as to why it is that way.

In its strict construction the only "person" ineligible to "own and bear" is a person who is IN PRISON.

The reason rights are being trampled is due to the above. That is why the words have been changed to protect the guilty! The states. New words "right to carry" versus "own and bear" etc etc etc.

the words are created then its only a battle over the words. The underlying principle in many cases is lost. That is why we have so many people who have no clue how much power they truly have or can have if they only KNEW their rights. No its not the courts responsibility to teach you your right nor uphold them in court. Those days are long gone. If you do not know them you dont have them.

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 32

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 9:52:09 AM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

I'm happy to pay to get rid of them, and there is nothing that says the process cannot be expedited
Or keep them out in the first place. WHich would be my preference.

In any case, as I already said, whatever. I am aware not everyone shares my views. In terms of this case, I am more interested in how the court handles the interpretation issue than anything else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Whatever. I'm sick of paying for their freedom and hope. It seems to come at the expense of my own. Perhaps unlimited and uncontrolled immigration made sense in the days of manifest destiny. It doesn't anymore.

Then you will need to pay to get rid of them.. I read it takes about 400 days to go thru the process and deport someone and if held that time, its $130/day..

I think its more than freedom and hope for some, in certain areas they risk being killed by the drug cartels and such.. and a person has to be pretty desperate to risk their life trying to get into the US.. Many times I have been grateful for not having been born in Africa or Mexico or Russia or some such place.. and that was just a matter of luck..

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to tj444)

Post #: 33

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 11:15:39 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Being an illegal he had committed a crime this would mean he could not own a firearm. Overturning this would require abolishing immigration laws or laws that ban criminals from firearms ownership, quite possibly both.

Crossing the boarder illegaly is a misdomeanor.
Being charged for crossing the boarder illegally the defendant remains innocent till proven guilty.
Immigration laws should rightly concern immigration matters. I remain unconvinced that immigration laws have anything to do with firearms ownership.

(in reply to BamaD)

Post #: 34

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 11:17:13 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Already felons are barred from owning guns. Stating that everyone should have them, including illegals, implies that illegals should have more rights than felons, which twists logic a bit.

Only certain sorts of felonies devolve to revocation of some or all of a persons 2nd ammendment rights.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 35

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 11:18:56 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

To semisweet, Do you really think that people in this Country illigally should be able to own firearms ? The word illigal actually has a meaning..

Why would you deny anyone the right and the ability to protect themselves and their family?

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 36

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 11:37:21 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Since you asked, I think the people in this country illegally should be summarily tossed out. I believe the constitution should be amended to prevent people from automatically being citizens just because they were born on US soil. I am rabidly anti immigration, and I don't care who knows it. So no, I don't think they should own firearms, since they shouldn't be here at all.

How would you define "in this country illegally"?
You claim citizenship by nature of the fact that you were born here of parents who were born here. How far back do you trace your liniage before you find an illegal alien...Being declared naturalized by some other illegal lien does not legally confirm citizenship...do you see where I am going here?
Why are you "rabidly anti immigration?
Could you explain the connection between being an illegal alien and being deprived of the right to own a firearm?
I can understand depriving an individual of the right to own a gun if they had shown a disregard for that right by using guns to stick up liquor stores or murder.
Would you susped the laws against torture because someone were an illegal alien?
You may not be aware that crossing the boarder illegally is a misdomeanor. Knowingly hiring someone who has crossed the boarder illegally is a felony punishable by a fine of $250,000 and five years in the federal pen for each violation.
I understand the govt has a bounty program which remits to the snitch some percentage of the fine. If corporation x has 1000 illegal aliens working for them the fine is going to be $250 million...would 1% of that make a dent in your mortgage?
Which do you feel would be the least expensive and most effective way to rid our country of those who have crossed the boarder illegally?
Grab up all the brown people who cannot prove that they are here legally and chuck them out?
Or:
Arrest and prosecute those who hire them?
If you choose the former please explane how that would not make you a biggot?
Why do you feel that this country should stop all immigration?

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Post #: 37

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 11:39:36 AM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/this_week/pdf/11-8051.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I'm curious why a search warrant was served ? Got any links ?

That still doesn't answer my question. Not that it has that much to do with the discussion at hand but why did they search his place to begin with ?

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)

Post #: 38

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 11:46:33 AM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

I am not seeking converts. I feel the way I do, and I don't have to explain or rationalize it to you or anyone else. The only reason I even brought it up is because another poster directly asked me. Discussing my view on immigration was not my interest in the case or the intent of my OP. Discussing the parameters of the second amendment is far more interesting to me.
How do you know how I "claim citizenship"?
What I will say, again because you asked, is that illegals use far more than their share of social services, contribute little, and I am tired of paying for it.
Prosecuting employers for hiring illegals would be a great start. Ending health care and other benefits of any kind to illegals would also help. The companies and individuals that hire illegals do so for their own benefit and profit, all the while externalizing the social costs to the rest of us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Since you asked, I think the people in this country illegally should be summarily tossed out. I believe the constitution should be amended to prevent people from automatically being citizens just because they were born on US soil. I am rabidly anti immigration, and I don't care who knows it. So no, I don't think they should own firearms, since they shouldn't be here at all.

How would you define "in this country illegally"?
You claim citizenship by nature of the fact that you were born here of parents who were born here. How far back do you trace your liniage before you find an illegal alien...Being declared naturalized by some other illegal lien does not legally confirm citizenship...do you see where I am going here?
Why are you "rabidly anti immigration?
Could you explain the connection between being an illegal alien and being deprived of the right to own a firearm?
I can understand depriving an individual of the right to own a gun if they had shown a disregard for that right by using guns to stick up liquor stores or murder.
Would you susped the laws against torture because someone were an illegal alien?
You may not be aware that crossing the boarder illegally is a misdomeanor. Knowingly hiring someone who has crossed the boarder illegally is a felony punishable by a fine of $250,000 and five years in the federal pen for each violation.
I understand the govt has a bounty program which remits to the snitch some percentage of the fine. If corporation x has 1000 illegal aliens working for them the fine is going to be $250 million...would 1% of that make a dent in your mortgage?
Which do you feel would be the least expensive and most effective way to rid our country of those who have crossed the boarder illegally?
Grab up all the brown people who cannot prove that they are here legally and chuck them out?
Or:
Arrest and prosecute those who hire them?
If you choose the former please explane how that would not make you a biggot?
Why do you feel that this country should stop all immigration?

< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 5/9/2012 11:50:30 AM >

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 39

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't a... - 5/9/2012 11:52:24 AM

Iamsemisweet

Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline

The court apparently did not think it was relevant enough to even mention in their written decision, so who knows? Maybe the warrant was issued simply because the defendant was illegally in possession of a firearm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/this_week/pdf/11-8051.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I'm curious why a search warrant was served ? Got any links ?

That still doesn't answer my question. Not that it has that much to do with the discussion at hand but why did they search his place to begin with ?

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to lovmuffin)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.188