Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally

[lockedout]

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — 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 Mexico illegally 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. http://journaltimes.com/news/news-st...5a3024b7a.html

Should illegal aliens have the right to bear arms in America?

[Polyxo]

I think there's a reason why we don't have an "outlaw" designation for people.

[Skilrathos]

No since they obviously can't pass a background check. I fully support the right the bear arms but I think that any weapon being purchased should require a background check since hunting rifles/shoguns do not require one currently.

[lockedout]

No since they obviously can't pass a background check. I fully support the right the bear arms but I think that any weapon being purchased should require a background check since hunting rifles/shoguns do not require one currently.

Hunting rifles and shotguns don't require a background check?

[Deleted]

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — 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.

Hilarious.

[Kaleredar]

Republicans will have to fight against the second amendment?


My god, what odd comedy the world has wrought.

[Hammerfest]

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." - Abraham Lincoln

[Khalus]

IMO ~ "The People" refers to US Citizens, not illegals. Our wonderful government at work yet again...le sigh!

[Deleted]

Hunting rifles and shotguns don't require a background check?

I've had background checks buying ARs. Not sure about shotguns but would guess those too. No waiting period where I live though, just takes about 10 minutes. Same for a handgun.

[Skilrathos]

Hunting rifles and shotguns don't require a background check?

I should rephrase. Not an in-depth background check like handguns. The last time I bought a rifle all they did was check to see if I had any felonies.

[alzoron]

If you want to be technical about it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

It doesn't say anything about American rights; it says everyone's rights.

[Stormdash]

It's just a different way to get to the same place -- it's still illegal for illegals to own a gun, but because the restriction passes constitutional scrutiny, not because the constitutional protection doesn't apply at all.

- - - Updated - - -

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." - Abraham Lincoln

This was actually Justice Robert Jackson, 1949.

[Deleted]

If you want to be technical about it:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. "


It doesn't say anything about American rights; it says everyone's rights.

Uh, that is the Declaration of Independence. Not the Constitution.

[Matchles]

Well, when you pervert the 2nd Amendment from its original intention of arming a citizen militia to a general right to self-defense, then you are going to get this sort of issue.

[Stormdash]

Well, when you pervert the 2nd Amendment from its original intention of arming a citizen militia to a general right to self-defense, then you are going to get this sort of issue.

The citizen militia is something that be made regular by calling up all those individual firearm owner/operators. The only "perversion" of the 2nd Amendment takes place when constitutional dilettantes have the gall to suggest that #2 on a list of 10 things that restrict the power of the government in favor of individual liberties, for some reason is actually a grant of power to the government to raise and keep an arsenal of weapons on behalf of the public, or whatever hot mess the Heller minority twisted themselves up in knots trying and failing to make sound coherent.

[Independent voter]

If the laws that protected us didn't protect foreigners then foreigners would never come here.

[WskyDK]

The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Per the constitution society http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
(I have no idea who this organization is, but the above statement is in keeping with all I've seen about natural rights.)

[Matchles]

The citizen militia is something that be made regular by calling up all those individual firearm owner/operators. The only "perversion" of the 2nd Amendment takes place when constitutional dilettantes have the gall to suggest that #2 on a list of 10 things that restrict the power of the government in favor of individual liberties, for some reason is actually a grant of power to the government to raise and keep an arsenal of weapons on behalf of the public, or whatever hot mess the Heller minority twisted themselves up in knots trying and failing to make sound coherent.

There is nothing you have stated here that supports the ruling in Heller. First, the 2nd Amendment was a federal vs. state issue, as evidenced by the text of the Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Following from that the individual states, (or DC in this instance) should have every right to place whatever firearm restrictions they would like on their citizens. The purpose of the militia is to protect the individual state, not the citizen. The ban of a class of weapon or requiring gun locks does nothing to prevent the forming of a militia.

Second, the dissent in Heller was making the argument that had been upheld for the vast majority of all our lifetimes. The collective rights theory that citizens did not have an individual right to possess firearms was the standard ever since U.S. v. Miller in 1939. That is until the court reinterpreted Miller in Heller to be a narrow exception rather than the rule. The D.C. handgun ban had been in place for more than 30 years prior to Heller too. Those "activist judges" that I hear so much complaint about is usually the conservative side of the current Supreme Court.

[Poopymonster]

Republicans will have to fight against the second amendment?


My god, what odd comedy the world has wrought.

I.... I can't....

Someone pass me the popcorn, this is gonna be good.

[kyoloco]

Republicans will have to fight against the second amendment?


My god, what odd comedy the world has wrought.

oh its good to be alive sometimes