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

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

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

Message

Iamsemisweet -> Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 4:28:20 PM)
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.

Mupainurpleasure -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 4:55:50 PM)
I had thought the constitution applied to goverment action on U.s. soil. I know habeus corpus used to. I cant see this standing if only because to let it do so menas the rest doesnt apply to them as well

BamaD -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 5:09:32 PM)
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.

lovmuffin -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 5:31:24 PM)
I'm curious why a search warrant was served ? Got any links ?

subrob1967 -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 6:23:59 PM)
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. That's only for those convicted of a felony, being illegal here is a misdemeanor.

DarkSteven -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 6:59:25 PM)
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.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 7:02:45 PM)
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 ?

Real0ne -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 7:17:20 PM)
Who it applies to is pretty well spelled out here. Not much has changed really. quote: Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State. so if they want to "spell it out" for the rest of the historically challenged courts, there it is. That and the most an immigrant can ever be is a United States 14th amendment citizen which has abridged privileges to a State Citizen.

Real0ne -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 7:21:31 PM)
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. now that part is unconstitutional. even though there are supreme court rulings that the use of statutes by legislatures are not the end all in law the states still approach it from that aspect. It wont change till people wise up and realize their rights and that wont happen till there is a peanut counter up everyones butt.

SternSkipper -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 7:56:23 PM)
quote: 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. I'm pretty sure that whatever bench you go in front of, "people" or "the people" means at a minimum someone with a lawful presence in the United States. Not much more to say. It's been the law of the land for more than 40 years ... And here's who can't have guns: Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited. AS QUOTED FROM Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9 (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Also last year an open letter was send to all gun dealers stating that it was the ATF's position that holders of medical marijuana cards made the prohibited individuals as well. So don't go whipping out the pot card when they ask for a second form of ID at the Walmart 8-).

SternSkipper -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 7:57:52 PM)
quote: so if they want to "spell it out" for the rest of the historically challenged courts, there it is. Nothin about muppets, huh?[:D]

OsideGirl -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 8:04:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 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. That's only for those convicted of a felony, being illegal here is a misdemeanor. Only the first time., after that it's a felony. That said....here in CA to buy a firearm requires a CA ID/DL, and a car registration or utility bill showing the same address followed by a DOJ background check. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to have DL or register car in CA. They wouldn't be able to fulfill the requirements to purchase a firearm legally.

BamaD -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 8:04:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 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. That's only for those convicted of a felony, being illegal here is a misdemeanor. Being illegal may only a misdemeanor but it is one which carries with it deportation. Also domectic disturbances are misdemeanors which bar people from firearms ownership by federal law since the mid 90's. Thus it is still grating rights to illegals that some citezens do not have.

BamaD -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 8:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 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. That's only for those convicted of a felony, being illegal here is a misdemeanor. Only the first time., after that it's a felony. That said....here in CA to buy a firearm requires a CA ID/DL, and a car registration or utility bill showing the same address followed by a DOJ background check. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to have DL or register car in CA. They wouldn't be able to fulfill the requirements to purchase a firearm legally. The federal form for instant background check ask if you are a US citezen lying on that form is a felony.

servantforuse -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 8:16:39 PM)
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..

OsideGirl -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 8:19:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 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. That's only for those convicted of a felony, being illegal here is a misdemeanor. Only the first time., after that it's a felony. That said....here in CA to buy a firearm requires a CA ID/DL, and a car registration or utility bill showing the same address followed by a DOJ background check. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to have DL or register car in CA. They wouldn't be able to fulfill the requirements to purchase a firearm legally. The federal form for instant background check ask if you are a US citezen lying on that form is a felony. Exactly. I don't know about all states, but in CT and CA, I had to go through background checks which confirmed my identity and any past criminal activity. If someone cannot meet the requirements, they're not entitled to own a firearm. Signing on that dotted line says, "I hearby swear the information given has been truthful...."

Real0ne -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 8:34:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 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. That's only for those convicted of a felony, being illegal here is a misdemeanor. Being illegal may only a misdemeanor but it is one which carries with it deportation. Also domectic disturbances are misdemeanors which bar people from firearms ownership by federal law since the mid 90's. Thus it is still grating rights to illegals that some citezens do not have. A constitution is a contract with the gub. "free" as in "UNenfranchised" people have the most rights. That is people with no contracts, contracts treaties, constitutions ALWAYS forfeit rights. No ones rights come from a constitution, they are antecedent to ANY constitution EVER made. I posted the supreme court cases stating that. If you look at the many crests you will see the collar and chains symbolizing enslavement to the franchise. be it uk or us

Real0ne -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 8:40:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: so if they want to "spell it out" for the rest of the historically challenged courts, there it is. Nothin about muppets, huh?[:D] 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.

BamaD -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 10:07:49 PM)
No , of course not I think you were responding to someone else. 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..

SternSkipper -> RE: Appeals Court holds that Second Amendment doesn't apply to illegals (5/8/2012 10:16:50 PM)
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?".[:D]

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625