What could possibly be the downside to arming the new illegal population that has been foisted on the US?
Obama appointed judge has found 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(5) uconstitutional. This Federal law, prohibits possession of firearms by undocumented aliens.
- Thread starter Lead Belly
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
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:
Cool 'Horn Luke
Come on. Love me, hate me, kill me, anything.
If not now....when? It's time to hit the reset.
Giving illegals weapons-- even those MS-13 bangers that came through the borders...what a cluster.
Last edited:
Agree.
Bring it.
- Oct 7, 2015
- 3,691
- 96
When it comes to the constitution, you can "mean" anything. It has to clearly state it. Once you start applying intent and twisting it to meet your views, you have ventured into dem territory, and the constitution is meaningless.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
- Oct 7, 2015
- 3,691
- 96
Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
seeker_two
My posts don't count....
Not like they weren't armed already.....
Question is....why are WE still following their laws?
Question is....why are WE still following their laws?
In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that “an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population” could not be deported without an “opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.” 1 In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that “once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.” 2
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.” 3 The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, “[e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” 5 Accordingly, notwithstanding Congress’s indisputably broad power to regulate immigration, fundamental due process requirements notably constrained that power with respect to aliens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.6
Yet the Supreme Court has also suggested that the extent of due process protection “may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.” 7 In various opinions, the Court has suggested that at least some of the constitutional protections to which an alien is entitled may turn upon whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country.8 Thus, while the Court has recognized that due process considerations may constrain the federal government’s exercise of its immigration power, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States. link
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.” 3 The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, “[e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” 5 Accordingly, notwithstanding Congress’s indisputably broad power to regulate immigration, fundamental due process requirements notably constrained that power with respect to aliens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.6
Yet the Supreme Court has also suggested that the extent of due process protection “may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.” 7 In various opinions, the Court has suggested that at least some of the constitutional protections to which an alien is entitled may turn upon whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country.8 Thus, while the Court has recognized that due process considerations may constrain the federal government’s exercise of its immigration power, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States. link
Immigrants are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
When it comes to key constitutional provisions like due process and equal treatment under the law, the U.S. Constitution applies to all persons – which includes both documented and undocumented immigrants – and not just U.S. citizens.
When it comes to key constitutional provisions like due process and equal treatment under the law, the U.S. Constitution applies to all persons – which includes both documented and undocumented immigrants – and not just U.S. citizens.
The Second Amendment only restricts the government from infringing; and gives one example why.
Our right to self-protect, i.e. including bearing arms, is inherent and cannot be given nor taken away; and has nothing to do with the Constitution, laws or governments.
Opinions vary, that's mine.
Last edited:
Gun control laws from the very beginning have always been about the political elite keeping weapons out of the hands of whom they deem unworthy.
The Japanese tried it centuries ago banning firearms so regular Joe's couldn't smoke a samurai from a distance. They made all the noise about honor and stuff but it was really about power and money. It took a long time and money to train a Samurai. Then he would typically become a paid thug for some warlord who would use the guy to extort people. It just not would do to have some peasant be able to wreck them thugs.
The English freaked about it when all those pissed off Irishmen came back from the Great War.
Here in the U.S. it was about keeping Blacks from having them.
The British wanted to confiscate some things that morning on Lexington green.
Kinda hypocritical of us to tell other people you have no right to defend yourself, family, or property.
From my cold dead hands is just so much bullshit then?
Am I comfortable with it? No, not really. The catch is if "they" can be banned from the 2A then how long before "we" are? See first sentence.
The Japanese tried it centuries ago banning firearms so regular Joe's couldn't smoke a samurai from a distance. They made all the noise about honor and stuff but it was really about power and money. It took a long time and money to train a Samurai. Then he would typically become a paid thug for some warlord who would use the guy to extort people. It just not would do to have some peasant be able to wreck them thugs.
The English freaked about it when all those pissed off Irishmen came back from the Great War.
Here in the U.S. it was about keeping Blacks from having them.
The British wanted to confiscate some things that morning on Lexington green.
Kinda hypocritical of us to tell other people you have no right to defend yourself, family, or property.
From my cold dead hands is just so much bullshit then?
Am I comfortable with it? No, not really. The catch is if "they" can be banned from the 2A then how long before "we" are? See first sentence.
"Undocumented alien", by definition, means no paperwork. No DL.
Have you ever gone in to your LGS and tried to make a firearm purchase without a DL?
Have you ever gone in to your LGS and tried to make a firearm purchase without a DL?
- Oct 7, 2015
- 3,691
- 96
If they can't be kept from having guns neither can we. I wonder what this will do to the firearm purchase process since they likely can not pass the current requirements
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Because it has always been about control. The .gov does not like sharing the monopoly on power.
Chairman Mao said it in his Little Red Book. Power flows from the barrel of a gun. Everything else is a lie.
Latest posts
-
Are S&W M&P 9 full size (Gen 1) & Shield Gen 1 good pistols?- Latest: TEXAS "All or nothing"
-
-
-
-
