Do Undocumented Immigrants Have The Right To Keep And Bear Arms?

[SkyChief]

Amendment II states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

(I bolded the word people)

Per the Amendment, the right is not exclusively for American citizens. It is for the people. Therefore, if the immigrant stands on U.S. soil, then he or she instantly becomes part of the people, and thusly should enjoy full protection of the Second Amendment (and all other Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights).

If you voted no, please explain your reasoning. And anti-gun people - please don't make the silly argument that only Militia members have the right to keep and bear arms. Please.

 

[Allan]

Without question they have 2A rights.

 

[Grand Mal]

Amendment II states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

(I bolded the word people)

Per the Amendment, the right is not exclusively for American citizens. It is for the people. Therefore, if the immigrant stands on U.S. soil, then he or she instantly becomes part of the people, and thusly should enjoy full protection of the Second Amendment (and all other Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights).

If you voted no, please explain your reasoning. And anti-gun people - please don't make the silly argument that only Militia members have the right to keep and bear arms. Please.

If I take the train from Vancouver to Portland for a craft-brewery weekend do I have the right to bear arms?

 

[tshade]

Amendment II states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

(I bolded the word people)

Per the Amendment, the right is not exclusively for American citizens. It is for the people. Therefore, if the immigrant stands on U.S. soil, then he or she instantly becomes part of the people, and thusly should enjoy full protection of the Second Amendment (and all other Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights).

If you voted no, please explain your reasoning. And anti-gun people - please don't make the silly argument that only Militia members have the right to keep and bear arms. Please.

It is well-established that they have the right to bear arms. Why do you ask???

 

[StillBallin75]

If I take the train from Vancouver to Portland for a craft-brewery weekend do I have the right to bear arms?

Yes

 

[SkyChief]

It is well-established that they have the right to bear arms. Why do you ask???

I meant to ask should - not do. Time expired to edit.

 

[Superfly]

Of course. How else would they protect themselves against the scary Republicans who think they are here to steal their jobs and rape their wimmens?

 

[tshade]

I meant to ask should - not do. Time expired to edit.

Should??............. No. Guns are to be respected. Right now even citizens are too loose with them.

 

[StillBallin75]

Of course. How else would they protect themselves against the scary Republicans who think they are here to steal their jobs and rape their wimmens?

Bigotry, racism/fascism is the number one reason I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

Marginalized groups do not have the luxury of thinking the cops are on their side.

This goes doubly for "illegal" immigrants, where one wrong interaction with a cop can upend your life or livelihood. And these are the people who actually never want to go to the police for help.

 

[Grand Mal]

Yes

Do I have the right to buy a gun?

 

[Gatsby]

I meant to ask should - not do. Time expired to edit.

No, they shouldn't. But then, no one should have a right to bear arms. It might be wise to *allow* people to bear arms in certain circumstances, but it shouldn't be a right.

If the question is more about illegal immigrants' rights, as opposed to gun rights, then I guess we should treat them the same way we treat anyone else when it comes to the 2A.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Amendment II states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

(I bolded the word people)

Per the Amendment, the right is not exclusively for American citizens. It is for the people. Therefore, if the immigrant stands on U.S. soil, then he or she instantly becomes part of the people, and thusly should enjoy full protection of the Second Amendment (and all other Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights).

If you voted no, please explain your reasoning. And anti-gun people - please don't make the silly argument that only Militia members have the right to keep and bear arms. Please.

Nope. The people means citizens.

When they want to be less specific, they say "no person", etc, as in amendment V. Everyone gets due process, but only citizens can bear arms.

 

[eman623]

They do now.

Federal Judge Rules Illegal Immigrants Can Own Guns Under Second Amendment​

MSN

 

[Superfly]

Bigotry, racism/fascism is the number one reason I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

Marginalized groups do not have the luxury of thinking the cops are on their side.

This goes doubly for "illegal" immigrants, where one wrong interaction with a cop can upend your life or livelihood. And these are the people who actually never want to go to the police for help.

Exactly. This man was murdered - for a misdemeanor.

Trial starts for Arizona border rancher charged with killing migrant on his property

March 22, 2024 PHOENIX (AP) — An Arizona rancher went on trial Friday in the fatal shooting of a migrant on his property near Mexico as the national debate over border security heats up ahead of this year's presidential election. George Alan Kelly, 75, has been charged with second-degree...

debatepolitics.com

 

[donhughesmusic]

I'd vote for no for one reason. The Constitution was written for citizens of this country. If you're not a citizen, or even a documented immigrant, it doesn't apply. Right or wrong, taking my personal feelings out of it, that is the law.

 

[anatta]

I honestly never thought about it. if they are "illegal" -and they are by definition illegal entry -do they have 2A rights?

 

[anatta]

By Casey C. Sullivan, Esq. | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Non-citizens have a right to bear arms, even if they are in the country illegally, the Seventh Circuit ruled late in August. The ruling overturns a district court finding that the Second Amendment doesn't protect unauthorized aliens. In so holding, the Seventh created a split with the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, all of which have ruled otherwise.


But, there's a catch. While the right to bear arms extends to unauthorized non-citizens in the U.S., the Second Amendment also allows for limits. That includes a federal law banning unauthorized immigrants and nonimmigrant visa holders from possessing firearms, the court concluded.

Non-Citizens Have a Right to Bear Arms -- With 1 Major Catch - FindLaw

Non-citizens have a right to bear arms, even if they are in the country illegally, the Seventh Circuit ruled late in August. The ruling overturns a district court finding that the Second Amendment doesn't protect unauthorized aliens. In so holding, the Seventh created a split with the Fourth...

www.findlaw.com

 

[Grand Mal]

I'd vote for no for one reason. The Constitution was written for citizens of this country. If you're not a citizen, or even a documented immigrant, it doesn't apply. Right or wrong, taking my personal feelings out of it, that is the law.

Does a non-citizen have a right to free speech or free association?

 

[reflechissez]

I'd vote for no for one reason. The Constitution was written for citizens of this country. If you're not a citizen, or even a documented immigrant, it doesn't apply. Right or wrong, taking my personal feelings out of it, that is the law.

You've got some more reading to do.

 

[GIJane]

They do now.

Federal Judge Rules Illegal Immigrants Can Own Guns Under Second Amendment​

MSN

Since a lot of you seem to be Liberal thinkers, and judging by recent events you seem to be anti, 2A, I am somewhat surprised you think this is a good idea.


My final statement: When this all goes to shit, I don't want any of you bitching about people having guns.

And as one person said "The People" obviously means citizens.

 

[StillBallin75]

No, they shouldn't. But then, no one should have a right to bear arms. It might be wise to *allow* people to bear arms in certain circumstances, but it shouldn't be a right.

If the question is more about illegal immigrants' rights, as opposed to gun rights, then I guess we should treat them the same way we treat anyone else when it comes to the 2A.

"No one should have the right to bear arms."

When people say this, what they are inevitably arguing is that THE STATE has the right to bear arms, and should have the ultimate say in who should or shouldn't bear arms, and that they should enforce these rules at the end of a rifle barrel paid for by the very taxpayers whose rights they are violating.

People who make the argument that "only certain people should be allowed to bear arms" should think super long and super hard about who exactly is doing the "allowing," and whether or not you'd be comfortable if the group doing said allowing was the worst person you could imagine.

 

[anatta]

May a nonimmigrant alien who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa possess a firearm or ammunition in the United States? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit, admitted...

www.atf.gov

An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit, admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, certain official representatives of a foreign government, or a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business.
[18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B) and 922(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32]

 

[Gatsby]

"No one should have the right to bear arms."

When people say this, what they are inevitably arguing is that THE STATE has the right to bear arms,

States have powers, not rights. But I realize I'm splitting hairs here. Yes, I would largely agree with this sentiment.

and should have the ultimate say in who should or shouldn't bear arms,

Yes.

and that they should enforce these rules at the end of a rifle barrel paid for by the very taxpayers

Yes.

whose rights they are violating.

I'm saying this shouldn't be a right.

People who make the argument that "only certain people should be allowed to bear arms" should think super long and super hard about who exactly is doing the "allowing," and whether or not you'd be comfortable if the group doing said allowing was the worst person you could imagine.

I dunno, every other developed Western democracy manages to have gun control and safe cities without becoming an authoritarian hellscape.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Do jus solis citizens have the right to demand to see your papers if they suspect you might be undocumented?

 

[trixare4kids]

Nope. The people means citizens.

When they want to be less specific, they say "no person", etc, as in amendment V. Everyone gets due process, but only citizens can bear arms.

Amendment II states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

(I bolded the word people)

Per the Amendment, the right is not exclusively for American citizens. It is for the people. Therefore, if the immigrant stands on U.S. soil, then he or she instantly becomes part of the people, and thusly should enjoy full protection of the Second Amendment (and all other Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights).

If you voted no, please explain your reasoning. And anti-gun people - please don't make the silly argument that only Militia members have the right to keep and bear arms. Please.

What Hamish wrote above.