The RKBA was and is an insurance policy against a tyrannical government. Non citizens have no right to overthrow someone else's government...Originally Posted by WobblyPossum
The RKBA was and is an insurance policy against a tyrannical government. Non citizens have no right to overthrow someone else's government...
Maybe that’s the track SCOTUS will take if they ever grant this case cert but, on its face, this decision is consistent with the precedents set in Heller and Bruen.
ETA: one could argue that illegal aliens are inherently a danger to the public, and thus restricting their access to firearms is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, but I’m not sure how far that argument would go depending on which justices are hearing the case.
In Heller (J. Scalia) the Court stated: "What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset."
In Reno v Flores, the Court (J. Scalia) held that illegal aliens have Fifth Amendment due process of law in the context of deportation proceedings.
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Court (CJ Rehnquist) the court indicated that the people referenced in the Fourth Amendment includes all people in the U.S. and with substantial connections to the U.S.
My quick search didn't find any cases in which the Court interpreted whether the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition for redress extends to illegal immigrants. My personal opinion is that illegal aliens do have the right to peaceably assemble and to petition for redress. You don't have to pay for that opinion, we don't have an attorney-client relationship.
The Illinois judge didn't discuss any of the cases I just mentioned. Nor did the judge analyze whether colonial era laws prohibiting firearms trade with natives was analogous to 922(g)(5)'s application to illegal aliens. The opinion was not particularly convincing.
You can't vote or get a DL in 47 states but that doesn't seem to be a yuge problem for most of them. They can still work for minimum wage. Interesting scenario here in WA. They can get a DL and work for $16.28/hr in ag, day labor or the food industry, and do, illegally of course.
Also here in WA a firearms transfer (purchase) has to be done by an FFL, so that would red flag an illegal. So if they have a firearm it was probably obtained illegally. Flying under the radar for most everything they do.
Last edited by Borderland; 03-20-2024 at 04:33 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Thanks. Regarding the Heller reference, would an illegal alien be part of the “political community” then? They clearly fall under the definition of the people in the Verdugo-Urquidez case as they’re people in the U.S. or with substantial connections here.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
Deportation proceedings are civil / administrative proceedings and not really relevant to criminal matters. Flores vs. Reno is a civil case regarding the detention conditions for juveniles during deportation proceedings.
With regard to criminal matters, it’s well established that all persons physically present in the U.S. including aliens illegally present in the U.S. have full constitutional / due process rights (4th, 5th & 6th amendments) in criminal investigations and proceedings.
The actual RKBA aspect is more analogous to voting rights which do not extend to aliens.
However, historically there were no restrictions on aliens owning or possessing firearms. Were those restrictions enacted with the GCA ‘68 or earlier ?
I cannot answer the question definitively as the Court has not addressed the issue. Moreover, the Court that decided Heller is not the Court that will (eventually) decide the issue. You're asking me to predict how a future Court will resolve the issue. All those disclaimers aside ...
The Court's definition of "the people" in Heller explicitly cites to Verdugo-Urquidez:
This is a broad interpretation of the people used by the Court. Moreover, Scalia knew that Verdugo-Urquidez involved a foreigner (Mexican who lived in Mexico and therefore did not have substantial contacts with the US) and he should have been aware that this definition of the people implicated illegal aliens living permanently in the US.What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
On the whole, I think the Heller opinion suggests the Heller Court would have found that illegal aliens who are living "permanently" in the US are included in the people who have the right to keep and bear arms.
Under Bruen, you now have to consider whether the US has an history and tradition of denying the RKBA to whole groups and whether that history and tradition is analogous to the law prohibiting illegal aliens from possession firearms. I'm not going to do that analysis because (1) it's more work than I want to do right now; and (2) I don't cotton to that viewpoint.
Reopened thread.
This is in General Discussion, meaning political discussion must be narrowly focused on the 2nd amendment issue. Not immigration reform, not general politics, etc.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
If I caused the lock, send me a message explaining my transgression so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks!
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
No, just happenstance that your post was last before the lock.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Reply With Quote