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

RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 6:36:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Seems like they're giving "a well regulated militia" a really really broad definition as opposed to unconnecting or negating that clause. Essentially the court held that an american citizen, barring any let or hindrance for cause of the full utilization of his citizenship rights; is an army of ONE. i.e. there is no 'magic number' that is a necessary and sufficient condition for the definition of militia, as there in a cohort.

tj444 -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 6:36:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Out of an estimated ten million illegal aliens in this country the feds tracked a drivers license and ss number to a facebook page to deport someone who had been in the country for more than twenty years. Imo, what likely happened is he pissed someone off that knew or suspected he was illegal and saw his FB page, etc and ratted on him to the cops or ICE.. That kinda thing (a complaint to the city for building code violations, not reporting income to the IRS, someone illegal being reported, etc) happens a lot in the US imo.. The govt on all levels encourages that, which imo is so sleazy, rat on your neigbour, rat on your co-worker, rat on your relative, rat on your business competitor, rat on your pot smoking parents.. reminds me of the nazis telling kids to turn in their parents. One of my German ancestors would listen to the Allied radio in the dark (you could be shot for that), anyone of his 8 kids could have turned him in to the SS and been rewarded.. JMO.. [sm=2cents.gif]

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 6:47:41 AM)
How do you read this that way? What the Court did was gut the language regarding the militia by describing it has prefatory and disconnecting it from the operative clause describing the actual right. In the decision itself, Scalia devotes pages and pages to explaing his reasoning for the disconnect. 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. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Seems like they're giving "a well regulated militia" a really really broad definition as opposed to unconnecting or negating that clause. Essentially the court held that an american citizen, barring any let or hindrance for cause of the full utilization of his citizenship rights; is an army of ONE. i.e. there is no 'magic number' that is a necessary and sufficient condition for the definition of militia, as there in a cohort.

mnottertail -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 7:05:34 AM)
In his peroration of affirmation: In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. I took poetic license, IAM. I'm a linguist, not a lawyer. (army of one concept bolded, I ran with that bitch, made verdant use of it.) LOL. (take anything I say cum granis salis; this is theater in the round) Ron

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 7:20:09 AM)
More like there is a sting operation going on. Which would explain why there have been a cluster of cases involving illegals in so many Circuits in such a short time. The Feds are pushing the issue, and this dumb bastard made it easy. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Out of an estimated ten million illegal aliens in this country the feds tracked a drivers license and ss number to a facebook page to deport someone who had been in the country for more than twenty years. Imo, what likely happened is he pissed someone off that knew or suspected he was illegal and saw his FB page, etc and ratted on him to the cops or ICE.. That kinda thing (a complaint to the city for building code violations, not reporting income to the IRS, someone illegal being reported, etc) happens a lot in the US imo.. The govt on all levels encourages that, which imo is so sleazy, rat on your neigbour, rat on your co-worker, rat on your relative, rat on your business competitor, rat on your pot smoking parents.. reminds me of the nazis telling kids to turn in their parents. One of my German ancestors would listen to the Allied radio in the dark (you could be shot for that), anyone of his 8 kids could have turned him in to the SS and been rewarded.. JMO.. [sm=2cents.gif]

tj444 -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 8:14:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet More like there is a sting operation going on. Which would explain why there have been a cluster of cases involving illegals in so many Circuits in such a short time. The Feds are pushing the issue, and this dumb bastard made it easy. I dunno, I dont think so unless there is more to this story than is public so far.. sure ICE is going after illegals but they are targeting illegals that are considered a security threat or have a criminal history.. the cops dont want illegals to not report serious crime cuz they are afraid of being deported themselves.. Obama has said only deport serious criminals and those previously deported, and security threats.. Imo, someone told ICE about him and his FB page doesnt make him look good at all, it makes him look like a criminal & scary even if it was just for show.. yes he was super dumb and arrogant to think there would be no consequences, i agree with that fully.. so in that respect, he was his own worst enemy.. had he not owned any guns, it very well might have been a very different situation... I guess if he doesnt know how to speak Spanish he had better start learning it fast..

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 8:21:00 AM)
As I said, I read the pleadings from the trial court and the appeal. They are public, but not publicized. That is where I got my impression that there is something more going on, that and the cluster of other cases. My offer to email the charging document still stands. Or find someone with a PACER account to see all the pleadings. The defendant's lawyer sucked, by the way. I can't imagine him faring well in front of the Supremes. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet More like there is a sting operation going on. Which would explain why there have been a cluster of cases involving illegals in so many Circuits in such a short time. The Feds are pushing the issue, and this dumb bastard made it easy. I dunno, I dont think so unless there is more to this story than is public so far.. sure ICE is going after illegals but they are targeting illegals that are considered a security threat or have a criminal history.. the cops dont want illegals to not report serious crime cuz they are afraid of being deported themselves.. Obama has said only deport serious criminals and those previously deported, and security threats.. Imo, someone told ICE about him and his FB page doesnt make him look good at all, it makes him look like a criminal & scary even if it was just for show.. yes he was super dumb and arrogant to think there would be no consequences, i agree with that fully.. so in that respect, he was his own worst enemy.. had he not owned any guns, it very well might have been a very different situation... I guess if he doesnt know how to speak Spanish he had better start learning it fast..

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 8:29:07 AM)
LOL. Yes, theater in the round. I need to stop being so literal quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail In his peroration of affirmation: In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. I took poetic license, IAM. I'm a linguist, not a lawyer. (army of one concept bolded, I ran with that bitch, made verdant use of it.) LOL. (take anything I say cum granis salis; this is theater in the round) Ron

GotSteel -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 8:30:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Seems like they're giving "a well regulated militia" a really really broad definition as opposed to unconnecting or negating that clause. Essentially the court held that an american citizen, barring any let or hindrance for cause of the full utilization of his citizenship rights; is an army of ONE. i.e. there is no 'magic number' that is a necessary and sufficient condition for the definition of militia, as there in a cohort. I was never arguing that it required a quantity greater than one. I'm pointing out that the clause interpreted very broadly applies to most of us but not everyone. People who don't fall within the founders concept of a well regulated militia aren't guaranteed the right to bear arms, the mentally ill for example. Though the extent to which we can keep guns away from the mentally ill may be changing (because that's a great idea [8\|]) So after some explanation can you see what I'm saying? quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I can understand how people could come to the conclusion that illegal aliens don't constitute a well regulated militia.

mnottertail -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 8:37:11 AM)
Hey, we are both eating the same apple here, buddy. That case notwithstanding. No Yankee, no Tommy. I'm in.

thompsonx -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 10:14:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Out of an estimated ten million illegal aliens in this country the feds tracked a drivers license and ss number to a facebook page to deport someone who had been in the country for more than twenty years. Imo, what likely happened is he pissed someone off that knew or suspected he was illegal and saw his FB page, etc and ratted on him to the cops or ICE.. That kinda thing (a complaint to the city for building code violations, not reporting income to the IRS, someone illegal being reported, etc) happens a lot in the US imo.. The govt on all levels encourages that, which imo is so sleazy, rat on your neigbour, rat on your co-worker, rat on your relative, rat on your business competitor, rat on your pot smoking parents.. reminds me of the nazis telling kids to turn in their parents. One of my German ancestors would listen to the Allied radio in the dark (you could be shot for that), anyone of his 8 kids could have turned him in to the SS and been rewarded.. JMO.. [sm=2cents.gif] This explanation seems to be the most logical.

thompsonx -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 10:18:06 AM)
quote: More like there is a sting operation going on. Which would explain why there have been a cluster of cases involving illegals in so many Circuits in such a short time. Could you link us to those clusters and the different circuits they were in? quote: The Feds are pushing the issue, and this dumb bastard made it easy. My gawd you are intelligent...you read a news article and determined not only his iq but also parentage. Whats next lotto numbers?

tj444 -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 11:23:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet As I said, I read the pleadings from the trial court and the appeal. They are public, but not publicized. That is where I got my impression that there is something more going on, that and the cluster of other cases. My offer to email the charging document still stands. Or find someone with a PACER account to see all the pleadings. The defendant's lawyer sucked, by the way. I can't imagine him faring well in front of the Supremes. Unless a person has lots of money and can hire the best (which in my experience means the job gets done fast and well and tends to be the most economical way to go in reality).. its very hard to find a good but cheap lawyer.. so it doesnt surprise me that his lawyer sucked.. I know there have been stings by ICE but they seemed to target the serious illegal criminals.. one article I read said they caught about 2,400 of them.. What would be interesting to me is to find out what ruse(s) they used to find out where they were hiding and catch them.. those stories can be amusing..

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 2:08:36 PM)
I didn't get my info just from a news article, as I have mentioned. I read the pleadings, at the district and appeals court level. The complaining officer was actually part of Homeland Security, which I thought was interesting, and indicative of a sting. And yes, the Defendant was not very sharp, considering his circumstances. Fake SS card, fake Washington driver's license, and pictures of himself with his AK 47 on Myspace (not Facebook, as I previously stated). Enforcement of immigration laws in this country being what it is, he probably could have continued to live here indefinitely, if he hadn't been so stupid. But since calling him a dumb bastard seemed to offend you, Thompson, consider my earlier post edited to refer to him as a dumb fuck. Better? The Fifth Circuit case was US v. Portillo-Munoz http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-10086-CR0.wpd.pdf The Eight Circuit was US v. Joaquin Bravo Flores No. 11-1550 http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/12/111550P.pdf So far, the circuits all seem to agree about the constitutionality of the law. The Eighth didn't even bother to explain their reasoning. It will be interesting to see what the Ninth does with it. The challenged law has been in affect since 1968. Pretty odd coincidence that all these cases are coming up the courts at the same time, wouldn't you say?. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: More like there is a sting operation going on. Which would explain why there have been a cluster of cases involving illegals in so many Circuits in such a short time. Could you link us to those clusters and the different circuits they were in? quote: The Feds are pushing the issue, and this dumb bastard made it easy. My gawd you are intelligent...you read a news article and determined not only his iq but also parentage. Whats next lotto numbers?

OsideGirl -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 2:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl It's actually kind of a moot point. Even in Wyoming, which has very lenient gun laws, an NICS check is required, which is a federal background check. So, even if it was stated that an illegal immigrant could legally own a gun, they most likely wouldn't be able to meet the legal requirements for owning a gun. Especially in places like CA that doesn't issue driver's licenses or register cars to illegal immigrants, which are two of the items used to established identity and residency. I dont know about illegal Mexican/Hispanics, they may not be able to get drivers licenses in CA but other illegal immigrants could (depending on what country they are from).. There is a spot on the driver license application that you can check if you dont have a SSN and they also dont ask for immigration docs (Visas, green cards, etc) to prove you are in the country legally as most other states do.. same thing with registering a vehicle, once you have a drivers license thats all you need to register a vehicle.. but another way around the vehicle registration thing is to form an LLC or corporation and register the vehicles in it.. One thing i find odd in the US is that your vehicle insurance card can be used as secondary ID but you cant use your bank card/credit card as ID.. you cant use vehicle insurance doc as ID in Canada but you can use your bank card/credit card so to me its very odd.. btw, you dont even need a US drivers license to buy vehicle insurance in the US for a US registered vehicle.. But, even if they could get a driver's license, they would still be subject to a NICS check, which is a federal background check. If they were not here legally, they'd get deported because they've just notified the government that they're here illegally.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 2:21:10 PM)
His lawyer was a public defender. Think about how strange that is. The guy has a constitutional right to counsel, but he doesn't have a constitutional right to own a gun. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet As I said, I read the pleadings from the trial court and the appeal. They are public, but not publicized. That is where I got my impression that there is something more going on, that and the cluster of other cases. My offer to email the charging document still stands. Or find someone with a PACER account to see all the pleadings. The defendant's lawyer sucked, by the way. I can't imagine him faring well in front of the Supremes. Unless a person has lots of money and can hire the best (which in my experience means the job gets done fast and well and tends to be the most economical way to go in reality).. its very hard to find a good but cheap lawyer.. so it doesnt surprise me that his lawyer sucked.. I know there have been stings by ICE but they seemed to target the serious illegal criminals.. one article I read said they caught about 2,400 of them.. What would be interesting to me is to find out what ruse(s) they used to find out where they were hiding and catch them.. those stories can be amusing..

thompsonx -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 3:03:11 PM)
quote: His lawyer was a public defender. Think about how strange that is. The guy has a constitutional right to counsel, but he doesn't have a constitutional right to own a gun. Do you wish to disentitle him from counsel or entitle him to gun ownership?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 3:18:42 PM)
He is entitled to due process and representation (even if it is just a PD), he isn't entitled to have a gun. I don't "wish" to change either. I am more interested in the language parsing that is going into these Second Amendment cases. But I am really flattered that you seem to care so much about my opinion. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: His lawyer was a public defender. Think about how strange that is. The guy has a constitutional right to counsel, but he doesn't have a constitutional right to own a gun. Do you wish to disentitle him from counsel or entitle him to gun ownership?

thompsonx -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 3:45:48 PM)
quote: He is entitled to due process and representation (even if it is just a PD), he isn't entitled to have a gun. I don't "wish" to change either. I am more interested in the language parsing that is going into these Second Amendment cases. But I am really flattered that you seem to care so much about my opinion. quote: His lawyer was a public defender. Think about how strange that is. The guy has a constitutional right to counsel, but he doesn't have a constitutional right to own a gun. Your two statements seem to be at odds with each other. As for your opinion I am always interested in how the mind of educated zenophobes and biggots work.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/10/2012 4:11:57 PM)
Whatever. I disagree that my two statements are at odds. By the way, do you mean "xenophobe and bigot"? In any case, since you don't seem to be interested in discussing the Second Amendment, or even this particular case, nothing more remains to be said. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: He is entitled to due process and representation (even if it is just a PD), he isn't entitled to have a gun. I don't "wish" to change either. I am more interested in the language parsing that is going into these Second Amendment cases. But I am really flattered that you seem to care so much about my opinion. quote: His lawyer was a public defender. Think about how strange that is. The guy has a constitutional right to counsel, but he doesn't have a constitutional right to own a gun. Your two statements seem to be at odds with each other. As for your opinion I am always interested in how the mind of educated zenophobes and biggots work.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875