District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional

[10mm]

The founders did believe rights are God-given, so it would seem you've managed to undercut your own argument.

The founders also allowed slavery and only whites to become true citizens. Are you saying that was correct too or are they perhaps fallible and just doing the best they could at the time with what they had? Come now, time to be intellectually consistent.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I have not read the entire decision… But if this was based on the illegals, not having been convicted of a felony… Wouldn’t that also overturn everyone who is a prohibited possessor under the Lautenberg amendment? Having been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Tinfoil hat on:

Is this an attempt to muddy the waters with US v Rahimi the domestic violence, restraining orders violates 2A case?

 

[MCgrease08]

The founders also allowed slavery and only whites to become true citizens. Are you saying that was correct too or are they perhaps fallible and just doing the best they could at the time with what they had? Come now, time to be intellectually consistent.

What in the world are you going on about? Slavery was repealed with the ratification of the 13th Amendment almost 160 years ago. For those following along at home, the 13th Amendment comes before the equal protection clause found in the 14th Amendment, which I already posted up thread and is the cornerstone of this discussion.

Your entire argument thus far seems to be built on the premise of pretending that the Constitution doesn't exist. It does. You can (and should) actually read it and see how things are, not the way you feel they aught to be.

 

[10mm]

What in the world are you going on about? Slavery was repealed with the ratification of the 13th Amendment almost 160 years ago. For those following along at home, the 13th Amendment comes before the equal protection clause found in the 14th Amendment, which I already posted up thread and is the cornerstone of this discussion.

Your entire argument thus far seems to be built on the premise of pretending that the Constitution doesn't exist. It does. You can (and should) actually read it and see how things are, not the way you feel they aught to be.

I honestly can't engage in an argument with someone who has so little reading comprehension or who chooses to miss the points that are clearly laid out. Just for the record, I own a couple copies of the Constitution (original and the present version) and the federalist papers. I have been an avid reader and student of the Constitution and surrounding documents for many years. You're just not listening and it's a fools errand to keep talking at this point.

 

[MCgrease08]

I assure you I'm not choosing to miss your points, I'm honestly struggling to understand them.

Again, it would appear you're making your comments based on how you believe things should be, not the way they actually are.

Of course not, but he's not a citizen therefore constitutional rights don't or at least shouldn't apply.

No I don't believe rights are god given, you have rights because you exist.

I have already said in this thread that people who come through legal channels should have protections, but not those of a true citizen.

I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar, and I've certainly been wrong in the past. I'm open to evidence from the Constitution that supports your points that those inside the US illegally have no Constitutional rights. But so far you don't seem to have provided any.

 

[indykid]

I find it funny that a federal judge in Illinois found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the USA illegally, yet legal residents of the state of Illinois must have a Firearm Owner Identification Card (FOID) before they are allowed those same second amendment rights. What am I missing?

 

[10mm]

I assure you I'm not choosing to miss your points, I'm honestly struggling to understand them.

Again, it would appear you're making your comments based on how you believe things should be, not the way they actually are.







I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar, and I've certainly been wrong in the past. I'm open to evidence from the Constitution that supports your points that those inside the US illegally have no Constitutional rights. But so far you don't seem to have provided any.

I had a long and well reasoned post lined up, but basically the answers I gave were to questions like "what are your opinion on" etc. I wasn't ever claiming that this is the law. I was defending my opinion and that's where the wires got crossed I think. Most of my posts are drawing moral equivalencies and showing how irrational it is to cling to some words on paper when most of us have perfectly functional minds and can demonstrate reason when given proper initiative.
I don't believe it to be wise to blindly follow the letter of the law without sound reason and I illustrated that point by showing the first congressional acts of immigration applied only to whites. I then asked you to remain consistent within that framework as this was the common will with the founders. (This begs a rhetorical question of, "if they were wrong there, what else?".)
The argument I keep getting is "The Constitution says so". It is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority or tradition. I have yet to hear a single reasoned argument aside from "Some other people thought for me so I shouldn't have to."
I can't seem to find reason from someone who wants criminal aliens to have weapons aside from those above.

 

[Leo]

Except for voting and holding certain offices, where does the Constitution deny rights to non-citizens?
Do not many of us argue that most rights are God given, that they are not granted by government?

I am not a horrible person that mistreats others. That Constitution does not have any provision for the nation destroying crap going on right now.

The minute they take one penny of citizens wealth to give it to those who came here illegally, is the line. People want to talk like the cost is simple, loving humanitarian aid, and certainly there may be some of that. The biggest expense is the cost of keeping the invaders from robbing, raping and pillaging our communities, being done by those who cannot behave. People with nothing to lose have very little manners.

Take the Migrant shelter on West Irving road in Chicago. I have people around there. It was not a super high prosperity area, but the people within 20 blocks of the shelter are having their legal rights as citizens stripped away by the illegals. Because of violence, burglary, and robbery the small businesses are being destroyed. Customers will not go there anymore. Those who live in the area are being victimized. How many law abiding citizens should be destroyed to satisfy the demands of all the problems of the rest of the world? How many times should a person allow their homes and families to be robbed and beaten. How many times should they walk in puddles of **** on their front doorway?

Any society is a co-op. The Constitution is for those participating in that agreement. There are already laws describing how to become part of the nation. Invading and demanding are not part of the process.

 

[Shadow01]

Agree, but I will not

I personally believe anyone walking around free has the God-given right to keep and bare arms, so I look at gun control issues through that lens, no matter the situation. It helps me be consistent in how I apply my thinking. Many people on INGO and otherwise, say they believe man has the right to keep and bare arms, but are up in arms about this court ruling (pun intended).

Either everyone has rights or no one does. Because if you believe we can pick and choose who has rights based on some arbitrary measure, then it's only a matter of time before an arbitrary measure is used to decide whether YOU have rights.

agree, but I will not elevate my concern for rights of illegals over the already abridged rights of existing citizens.

abridged version…. Get in line.

 

[Onebad06vtx]

Just another ploy for the democrats to show that guns are bad,when these thugs are killing innocent people!

 

[Sigblitz]

Constitutional rights have never been reserved for citizens only.

It was against federal law for an illegal immigrant to receive a firearm.

 

[10mm]

It was against federal law for an illegal immigrant to receive a firearm.
View attachment 341159

Huh, neat.

 

[Sigblitz]

So can I only sell to illegals in Illinois, or does he have to meet me here?

 

[ancjr]

I just skimmed to get here... but I can flatly state that I don't like any reading of the Constitution that grants rights to anyone.

 

[Sigblitz]

So can I only sell to illegals in Illinois, or does he have to meet me here?

I'd advise against it. After being here a short time, they can meet a resident test for the purpose of paying taxes.

 

[Sigblitz]

I'm starting to see this as a win for gun rights. I still think the summary judgment jumped the shark.

 

[MCgrease08]

Agree, but I will not

agree, but I will not elevate my concern for rights of illegals over the already abridged rights of existing citizens.

abridged version…. Get in line.

There is no line to get into. It's not a zero sum game. Humans either have rights or they don't. Someone else having rights doesn't take them away from you.

Now if we're talking about entitlements, that's a whole different story. It seems like a lot here are conflating the two things.

 

[Shadow01]

There is no line to get into. It's not a zero sum game. Humans either have rights or they don't. Someone else having rights doesn't take them away from you.

Now if we're talking about entitlements, that's a whole different story. It seems like a lot here are conflating the two things.

If I have a choice to put my efforts behind the illegal curtailing of rights against citizens or against illegals, I will put the rights of citizens ahead of illegals every day and in every situation. The concern for illegals needs to be put at the tail end of the line. we will get to it when all the others infringements ag citizens have been resolved.

 

[MCgrease08]

If I have a choice to put my efforts behind the illegal curtailing of rights against citizens or against illegals, I will put the rights of citizens ahead of illegals every day and in every situation. The concern for illegals needs to be put at the tail end of the line. we will get to it when all the others infringements ag citizens have been resolved.

And what happens when the government decides you're the one that's illegal?

 

[Shadow01]

And what happens when the government decides you're the one that's illegal?

I guess I will have to decide if that’s a bridge too far or not. Besides that would mean I can get gift cards full of money from several states and I could probably vote a dozen times or more with no issues.


there are enough pending battles that need to be fought in the courts for citizens before we start pushing court cases for illegals to the front. I can’t justify a court system being tied up by a group that hasn’t paid taxes in place of taxpayers that have been patiently waiting for their day.