A U.S.

District

Court judge ruled earlier this month that completely prohibiting illegal immigrants from possessing firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment.

https://nbcmontana.com/amp/news/nation- ... s-illinois

I messed up the quote marks, but this is a very interesting decision which has a lot of implications to the rest of the constitution for illegal immigrants.

CDFIngers

So Illinois says my guns need to be registered or out of State (which they are) and illegal immigrants being bused to Chicago from Texas can possess firearms and be legal.

I gotta get out of this State - I gotta get out of this country.

VooDoo

Historically migrants, both legal and illegal, have been less prone to violent crime than those who were born here and are citizens.

less REPORTED crime. Many immigrants are subjected to horrible crimes that go unreported

senorgrand wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:35 pm less REPORTED crime. Many immigrants are subjected to horrible crimes that go unreported

Very much so, but I think the point was that migrants commit far fewer crimes, in order to remain "under the radar."

Still, the institutionalized mistreatment of people who simply lack "papers" is at best inhumane.

And, it continues to befuddle me how a nation of descendants of immigrants treats immigrants, just because their origin differs a bit. My history lessons are full of how people in this country mistreated Irish immigrants, Polish immigrants, Italian Immigrants, Jewish immigrants from anywhere, etc. etc. etc.

I also remember this country being called a "Melting Pot" of cultural influences.

We need more immigrants in this country. We are a graying society and not having enough children. First world problem (see what's happening in South Korea).

BearPaws wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:11 pm
Very much so, but I think the point was that migrants commit far fewer crimes, in order to remain "under the radar."

I'm pretty sure that's all immigrants, not just illegal ones. Which makes sense to me, since people fleeing violence in their own country, or just trying to make better lives for themselves, seem to me like the kind of people who are willing to work hard and endure hardship in order to acheive their goals. They don't sound like the kind of people who would turn to crime very easily.

I agree this is an interesting decision from a US district judge in the Northern District of Illinois. I doubt however that it survive review by the 7th Circuit in Chicago. It might be of interest to SCOTUS, but not hopeful.

I am not convinced undocumented immigrants are "the people." I heartily agree they are people and subject to protections, as such, but they are not citizens with regard to constitutional protection. That said, I take no issues with the spirit of the ruling.

Anyone think about the federal form required to buy legally in many states, lots of pesky questions in that for illegal aliens and homeless people as well. With states that require purchase through FFL I’m not sure how either illegal or homeless can buy a gun.

You may recall the shooting at NAS Pensacola in 2019. IIRC the gunman, a Saudi Air Force lieutenant purchased the handgun in the US for "hunting".
https://www.atf.gov/file/61841/download

This site explains how to complete the ATF 4473 form.
https://globalisationguide.org/usa/buy-gun-tourist/

highdesert wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 3:48 pm You may recall the shooting at NAS Pensacola in 2019. IIRC the gunman, a Saudi Air Force lieutenant purchased the handgun in the US for "hunting".
https://www.atf.gov/file/61841/download

This site explains how to complete the ATF 4473 form.
https://globalisationguide.org/usa/buy-gun-tourist/

Figures. The homeless are screwed since they won’t have a current residence anywhere.

featureless wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 1:59 pm I am not convinced undocumented immigrants are "the people." I heartily agree they are people and subject to protections, as such, but they are not citizens with regard to constitutional protection. That said, I take no issues with the spirit of the ruling.

Court precedent holds that the only rights specifically reserved to US citizens are the rights to vote or run for federal office.

Precedent also holds that the government has some leeway when it comes to applying due process and other protected rights. Oh, you thought I was going to narrow that down to just foreign visitors and immigrants, legal or undocumented? Hells no. Take a gander at, I don't know, the whole of American legal history? This whole board is about the leeway the government takes in the upholding of a protected and specified Constitutional right, now, innit?

Legal perspective here.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub

We might could look at the term "human rights" and at the Ninth Amendment. wings has a very good point that the right to vote and the right to run for Federal office, even with its caveats, are the only two rights the Constitution of any country should be able to defend. And that idea sure puts the kibosh on any country illegally making war on another.

Glad I planted chard in the garden. That I can understand. This? Might give me a migraine or the vapors.

CDFingers

wings wrote: Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:42 am

featureless wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2024 1:59 pm I am not convinced undocumented immigrants are "the people." I heartily agree they are people and subject to protections, as such, but they are not citizens with regard to constitutional protection. That said, I take no issues with the spirit of the ruling.

Court precedent holds that the only rights specifically reserved to US citizens are the rights to vote or run for federal office.

Precedent also holds that the government has some leeway when it comes to applying due process and other protected rights. Oh, you thought I was going to narrow that down to just foreign visitors and immigrants, legal or undocumented? Hells no. Take a gander at, I don't know, the whole of American legal history? This whole board is about the leeway the government takes in the upholding of a protected and specified Constitutional right, now, innit?

Legal perspective here.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub

I encourage rights being extended to "humans." But there are at least a couple recent 2A cases that contemplate "the people," specific to felons and 18 to 20 year olds. I am not at all familiar enough with other areas of law to know if undocumented immigrants fall into "the people." So, thanks for the clarification.

I forgot the "right to tax" when I considered the Constitution.

CDFingers

The weakness in the ruling is the elephant in the room, illegal. That concept needs to be unpacked first. The right to defend oneself is universal and by extension this applies to all people, but we have laws that make it clear a person has to be law abiding. So this case is far from over. Perhaps shouldn’t get into who lived here first….there’s a history of not treating first arrivals as people or even citizens until the 1920’s.

sikacz wrote: Thu Mar 21, 2024 10:51 amPerhaps shouldn’t get into who lived here first….there’s a history of not treating first arrivals as people or even citizens until the 1920’s.

[shakes his head...]

Here's a fascinating thread from reddit on this issue. Man. We got some deep thinkers in America.

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ ... er_second/

CDFingers

What we have is laws written with mixed terminology with no regard to how the term relates to other legal concepts or existing terms. Just like the “assault weapon” term used in the gun ban drive. Considering how many jurists we’ve had in our legislatures it might be time to consider being one a disqualification for elected office.

The Second Amendment is part of U.S. constitutional rights, but it applies a bit differently to non-citizens, especially those undocumented. Federal law generally restricts gun ownership for people who aren’t legally in the U.S., so it doesn’t just boil down to Second Amendment rights for everyone.Suppose someone wants to bring a legal document, like a foreign ID or other papers, to get the proper documentation sorted. In that case, they’d probably need an ACRO Apostille, especially if the document has to be validated internationally. This could be a starting point, as getting recognized paperwork might lead to more precise answers on rights and permissions.

The civil rights case of Standing Bear v. Crook may be a factor here. As I recall, the US Government's argument against Standing Bear being force-marched from his land was that the Poncas were, and I quote, "not persons within the meaning of the law". The judge ruled against the US Government in that case.

Since IANAL, I don't know how the courts have defined a "person within the meaning of the law", or even if that actually is considered a valid concept in American case law. Might be interesting in this 2A case, though....

As of April 2024, the case was appealed by the government and is at the 7th Circuit, headquartered in Chicago. As with an appellate court we don't know when it will schedule oral arguments and rule. The Reload has and interesting article.
https://thereload.com/analysis-scotus-i ... in-the-us/