• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Second Amendment Also Covers Those In US Illegally

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
MADISON, Wis. —*People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from*Mexicoillegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.

Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his*Second Amendment*right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.

The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.

Court: Second Amendment Also Covers Those in US Illegally - ABC News

I am curious if those on the left are happy about this, or does it cause some conflict?
 
Doesn't the right have the mindset that more guns make the world a better and safer place? How does an individual with a gun that has an official document make us safer, as opposed to an individual with a gun without official documents?

I agree. I still think people that are here illegally should be deported, every one of them.
 
Court: Second Amendment Also Covers Those in US Illegally - ABC News

I am curious if those on the left are happy about this, or does it cause some conflict?

The 2nd amendment says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Unless there is some 18th century definition of the people that meaning only citizens that I do not know about then illegals and other people have the right to keep and bear arms. Those who are caught here illegally should be jailed and then deported to the furthest point away from us in their country.So I am not speaking from a pro-amnesty bias.
 
I agree. I still think people that are here illegally should be deported, every one of them.
Why? How is deporting brown people without official documents going make the U.S. Better in any way?
 
Why? How is deporting brown people without official documents going make the U.S. Better in any way?

It has nothing to do with "brown" people. It has to do with people from another country, whether they are from China, Russia or Mexico, that are here without permission from our government. I have to bey the laws. Why do people that don't have permission to be here be allowed to ignore our laws? Just because they are "brown"?
 
It has nothing to do with "brown" people. It has to do with people from another country, whether they are from China, Russia or Mexico, that are here without permission from our government. I have to bey the laws. Why do people that don't have permission to be here be allowed to ignore our laws? Just because they are "brown"?
An individual sneaking across the border, busting their ass doing some menial suck job that neither you or I would ever take is displaying the American spirit all the way and tip of the chapeau to them.
 
An individual sneaking across the border, busting their ass doing some menial suck job that neither you or I would ever take is displaying the American spirit all the way and tip of the chapeau to them.

You are right. I won't take a job doing menial stuff. I have already done those menial jobs. I am retired. I do my own work now. I just got done splitting 4 cords of firewood today after I cut down 10 trees, limbed them, blocked them and pulled them up the side of a mountain. I didn't hire it out, I did my own remodel. The framing, sheet rock, electrical, plumbing and made and installed the cabinets that I made. I hired out the roof to two friends. My wife didn't want my old ass on the roof. They are both Irish and willing to do what you call menial work. I don't buy your argument. It doesn't wash. I told you my work history earlier today. Take it or leave it. I don't care.
 
You are right. I won't take a job doing menial stuff. I have already done those menial jobs. I am retired. I do my own work now. I just got done splitting 4 cords of firewood today after I cut down 10 trees, limbed them, blocked them and pulled them up the side of a mountain. I didn't hire it out, I did my own remodel. The framing, sheet rock, electrical, plumbing and made and installed the cabinets that I made. I hired out the roof to two friends. My wife didn't want my old ass on the roof. They are both Irish and willing to do what you call menial work. I don't buy your argument. It doesn't wash. I told you my work history earlier today. Take it or leave it. I don't care.
The ice cream scoop kid at your local Dairy Queen isn't going to take a job pounding bolts into cattle skulls, especially with the wage that ConAgra foods is willing to pay for performing
that task, Ever, those days are long gone. Our natives will never do those jobs.
 
The ice cream scoop kid at your local Dairy Queen isn't going to take a job pounding bolts into cattle skulls, especially with the wage that ConAgra foods is willing to pay for performing
that task, Ever, those days are long gone. Our natives will never do those jobs.

I disagree but you keep saying it and I am going to keep disagreeing.
 
I disagree but you keep saying it and I am going to keep disagreeing.
Why would the ice cream scoop kid at Dairy Queen take a job pounding bolts into cattles skulls for the same wage or less than what he's making scooping ice cream at Dairy Queen? Wouldn't you rather scoop ice cream then pound bolts into cattle skulls?
 
Our international neighbors to the north and south, Canada and Mexico, do not have a 2nd Amendment like we do. I can bring my rifle, carbine or shotgun into Canada for a limited amount of time, but need to remove it/them eventually and thusly leave Canada too. I cannot bring a handgun into Canada under any circumstances. (A handgun is a gun you that can shoot with one hand, as R. Lee Ermy says -- meaning a pistol or revolver.)

Mexico does not allow any firearms into their country across their borders.

The USA is unique in having a 2nd Amendment, but Federal and State legislation ignores it in most cases.

"The People" probably means the people who can vote, in the US Constitution and in the 2nd Amendment. That's how it has been interpreted under Federal law apparently.

Based on the way Canada and Mexico deal with this issue, I would say the US Federal position on illegal immigrants is reasonable.
 
Why would the ice cream scoop kid at Dairy Queen take a job pounding bolts into cattles skulls for the same wage or less than what he's making scooping ice cream at Dairy Queen? Wouldn't you rather scoop ice cream then pound bolts into cattle skulls?

Butchering animals is a nasty job, yes, and is best done by someone with sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies.

Ice cream is easier, yes.
 
The ice cream scoop kid at your local Dairy Queen isn't going to take a job pounding bolts into cattle skulls, especially with the wage that ConAgra foods is willing to pay for performing
that task, Ever, those days are long gone. Our natives will never do those jobs.

ConAgra will pay the least amount it needs to do obtain the labor it requires. Are you saying that if there were no illegals willing to take the job at $8/hour that ConAgra would shut down that portion of the operation since no US citizen was willing to work for that amount?
 
Doesn't the right have the mindset that more guns make the world a better and safer place? How does an individual with a gun that has an official document make us safer, as opposed to an individual with a gun without official documents?

So, we can put you down as conflicted. No, you are way off the mark with your mindset assumption. Most people, on the right and on the left, believe more guns, in the right hands, make the world a better and safer place. A gun in the hands of a criminal or the mentally unstable is neither better or safer.

"Safer" would be defined by the intent of the person holding the gun would it not? Why would a document matter? Why would the gun matter? A persons intent is the same regardless of possession of either.
 
The 2nd amendment says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Unless there is some 18th century definition of the people that meaning only citizens that I do not know about then illegals and other people have the right to keep and bear arms. Those who are caught here illegally should be jailed and then deported to the furthest point away from us in their country.So I am not speaking from a pro-amnesty bias.

I believe the other Courts that came up with the opposite finding focused on your last sentence. If a person is here illegally, then they broke a law. Current law dictates that those with a criminal record cannot own a firearm. Given the division in the appeals Courts, this could end up in SCOTUS.
 
Could you be more specific? Which rulings between the US District Court judge and two 7th Circuit Court panels should the left be happy about?

None of those. I was looking at the bigger picture, and assumed others would to. My mistake. A longer comment would have cleared up what I was asking. Note taken.

There is a clear conflict between the rulings of two or more Appellate Courts, which would seem to be an invitation to SCOTUS. In my mind, this could end up deciding if illegal aliens are entitled to constitutional protection in total, rather than just bits and pieces of it.
 
Why? How is deporting brown people without official documents going make the U.S. Better in any way?

People of every nationality and color are crossing the border illegally. Why are you fixated on brown people? Do you have something against the others, that they are the only ones that should be deported?
 
The purpose of the constitution is to define and limit the power of government. It is not a document defining personal behavior. It explains some specific areas in which the government cannot interfere with human rights. The second amendment says government can't keep people from bearing arms. It doesn't say that state governments cannot regulate gun ownership. That is why we have so many gun laws that most people don't even understand how little freedom gun owners actually have. I hear calls for background checks. In most states - perhaps all states - legal gun sales require reporting the transaction to ATF. The ATF or any other government agency can then do as much background checking as it wants. Our state has a 10 day waiting period unless the buyer has a state issued gun carry permit. We have laws that allow background checks. The government simply has to go ahead and do background checks.

I hear calls for regulating gun show sales. We already have such laws. In our state - perhaps in all states - gun buyers must deal with the same requirements at a gun show as they do in a gun store. We actually have laws requiring private gun sales to involve a dealer with all the reporting requirements. People may or may not follow those laws but they are on the books.

We don't need more gun laws. We have enough to sink a ship. We need fewer crazy people. In the old days we had many asylums for crazy people and laws that permitted crazy people to be admitted to them against their will and without their permission. Perhaps we should go back to the old days.
 
An individual sneaking across the border, busting their ass doing some menial suck job that neither you or I would ever take is displaying the American spirit all the way and tip of the chapeau to them.




BS. Americans WILL do those menial jobs, just not as cheaply.
 
Court: Second Amendment Also Covers Those in US Illegally - ABC News

I am curious if those on the left are happy about this, or does it cause some conflict?



Generally speaking, I believe the right of all free people to keep and bear arms can be historically proven to be ancient, far predating the formal and official recognition of the 2A, and thus properly a right of all peoples everywhere, though often denied by paternalistic/nanny government.

The language of the 2A does not specify "citizens" so one can argue it applies to all.


I am however in favor of deportation for all those who enter the country illegally. A nation that isn't sovereign over what/who enters its borders, is a nation that will not long remain sovereign.
 
Doesn't the right have the mindset that more guns make the world a better and safer place? How does an individual with a gun that has an official document make us safer, as opposed to an individual with a gun without official documents?

Because, despite your playing with words that don't fit, one is an invader and the other is not.
 
Back
Top Bottom