Would that decision null and void the required 4473?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional
- Thread starter indyblue
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
An Obama appointed judge that grants Illegal people have guns? Would there be the same decision for citizens? Something doesn't smell right about this decision to me.
Constitutional rights have never been reserved for citizens only.
Heller addressed militia in the second amendment as the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation.
This ruling was decided on the Bruen decision about how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right.
Onebad06vtx
Expert
If Biden wins/cheats again,we are really screwed!
Stuff like this is unbelievable !
Stuff like this is unbelievable !
This has been covered in other threads already, but the bottom line is that the Constitution does cover non-citizens, even those here illegally.
ETA: Was the plaintiff in the case previously convicted of being in the US illegally and ordered to leave or be deported? The article doesn't specify. That *may* play into it.
Loading…
constitution.congress.gov
ETA: Was the plaintiff in the case previously convicted of being in the US illegally and ordered to leave or be deported? The article doesn't specify. That *may* play into it.
Last edited:
His children, if born here, would be citizens. Their family came here to put down roots. You don't know for what reason someone is here. It could be to put down roots. It could be for human trafficking, drug trade, money laundering, flying lessons.
I've discussed this before with a friend and I believe on here.
Set the legal/illegal question aside, I believe EVERYONE on United States soil has the same rights, even alleged criminals.
If someone is visiting here legally but overstays their VISA then they are operating out of the bounds of the law. However, as they are HERE then if they are accused of a crime they are allowed to hire an attorney, mount a defense, etc. Otherwise we could just shoot them in the head and dump t heir body somewhere legal as they have no rights. Now that's just silly, but that would be a logical conclusion of the position of non-citizens not having Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Consider also that a person here illegally still has a right to free speech. They can write a letter to an editor complaining about the system and the predicament they are in. They can write a letter to the Senator of the state they are residing in telling him/her about the unfairness of their current position.
Consider an illegal immigrant who is a pregnant female. She decides to kill her unborn child at eight (8) monthes. What argument is there to prosecute her for violating her unborn child's rights? The child hasn't been born yet, ergo not an American citizen. As it isn't yet an American citizen it doesn't have rights, or would someone argue otherwise?
I could go on and on for what we could do to a person who is here illegally IF they don't have rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In my opinion it is better to be far more liberal in the interpretation of rights than narrow. The more narrow(ly?) we define rights the worse it is for all of us.
Regards,
Doug
Set the legal/illegal question aside, I believe EVERYONE on United States soil has the same rights, even alleged criminals.
If someone is visiting here legally but overstays their VISA then they are operating out of the bounds of the law. However, as they are HERE then if they are accused of a crime they are allowed to hire an attorney, mount a defense, etc. Otherwise we could just shoot them in the head and dump t heir body somewhere legal as they have no rights. Now that's just silly, but that would be a logical conclusion of the position of non-citizens not having Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Consider also that a person here illegally still has a right to free speech. They can write a letter to an editor complaining about the system and the predicament they are in. They can write a letter to the Senator of the state they are residing in telling him/her about the unfairness of their current position.
Consider an illegal immigrant who is a pregnant female. She decides to kill her unborn child at eight (8) monthes. What argument is there to prosecute her for violating her unborn child's rights? The child hasn't been born yet, ergo not an American citizen. As it isn't yet an American citizen it doesn't have rights, or would someone argue otherwise?
I could go on and on for what we could do to a person who is here illegally IF they don't have rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In my opinion it is better to be far more liberal in the interpretation of rights than narrow. The more narrow(ly?) we define rights the worse it is for all of us.
Regards,
Doug
Taking your thoughts at face value, why would anyone become a citizen if you're entitled to the same rights as a non citizen? I understand libertarians don't ascribe much value to borders, but this is outright ridiculous. Without some meaningful distinction, what you're arguing for is a globalist wet dream where nobody belongs anywhere and the corporations win slave labor from anywhere. Sound crazy? Tyson, the chicken people, just fired huge numbers of Americans and are actively recruiting illegals from New York at lower pay with massive benefits. They stated they are actively seeking more illegals to hire preferentially. This is what happens when there is no distinction and just a small example of the ruin that will come from it.
No…. Citizens are hear legally, hell even citizens of other countries are fine. If you break the law to get here then none of our rights should apply to you. Not sure if that’s how it is but that is how I think it should be.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out this administration was handing out pistols as they walk across the border. Poor illegals probably don't have anough hands to carry all of the other free **** they're getting, I guess a gun would just be too much of a burden.
"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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I've seen it said on INGO that the right to bear arms and self-defense is God-given. If that is true, it cannot apply only to US citizens. If it is not true, then you must believe that the Constitution grants you the right as a citizen, instead of protecting a pre-existing right given by God to all people.
I wasn't saying it was right, I wasn't even saying this was my view. What an intellectually dishonest display of mental midgetry.Rights only for white people? Wow, ok. Haven't seen that on INGO for a while.
Is the right to bear arms God-given or not?
We were talking about the original thoughts of the founders. No I don't believe rights are god given, you have rights because you exist. With those come responsibilities. That is a philosophical debate and not at all related to the pragmatism required to have a functioning country. See my other post containing the Tyson chicken problem for more context.
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?
