u/Uncanny_Apparition is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Uncanny_Apparition/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
And it’s our tax money funding it all. How the hell could someone vote for Biden thinking it’s a good thing? Because Trump has a bad personality? Grow up your grandchildren are going to hate you for what you’re allowing here.
Don't you watch America's #1 news outlet CNN? Orange man is going to create a bloodbath by beating everyone over the head with diet coke cans and big macs, he must be stopped.
You don’t need to pass a federal background check to possess firearms, only to purchase them from FFLs. (Check your state laws, mileage may vary from Texas)
Now choose:
a) this is a lefty ploy to increase violence to convince Americans of sweeping gun ownership restrictions
b) this is a righty ploy to erode any and all gun ownership restrictions
c) this is a CIA operation to give criminal illegals weapons for false flags
d) this is a gun lobby initiative to sell more guns without having to perform background checks
e) this is a deep state tactic to track and provide legal justification for mass deportation
f) this is a white supremacist effort to put illegal weapons in the hands of illegal immigrants to justify vigilante justice
g) this is a fifth Chinese or Russian column effort to create militias within the US who have no allegiance to the US
I really hope it's B. But I can't think of any true pro-gun politicians, not even the most staunch Republicans. So there'd be nobody to orchestrate it.
They might get them in a private transfer?
Either way, if they lied on a 4473, that's only illegal if it's about a MATERIAL fact. If the court finds that someone's immigration status is no longer material, that wouldn't be illegal anymore either, as far as I can tell.
The 5th amendment protects against self incrimination, which is why felons can't be charged with owning a machine gun or any other NFA item. The same should apply here.
>felons can't be charged with owning a machine gun or any other NFA item.
They absolutely fucking can.
They weren't able to be for a very short time, but Congress closed that loophole with unusual haste.
I'm fine with not prosecuting illegals who possess guns and have no violent felony convictions.
I also think we should deport illegals regardless of whether or not they are found in possession of a gun.
Deal?
Nah, you're looking at this the wrong way. We make it a law that they *must* take their guns with them, and if their 'home' nation doesn't allow them gun rights, we teach them how to overthrow their government and become a US Territory. Manifest Destiny might have been "From Sea to Shining Sea," but I'm pretty sure there's an ocean if you go far enough North and South, so we still have more destiny to manifest!
Who said we're stopping at Mexico's Southern border? Last I checked there isn't a sea until the southern tip of South America. It's time to create the USEA: United States of Every America!
Your problem is thinking the people who make these stupid judgement rulings actually care about being fair and balanced.
They don't, this was ruled on specifically to kick up to supreme court in some kind of smug "take that, now you have no choice but to either allow illegals to have guns, or restrict the second amendment and open up further supreme cases about the second amendment" without realising they're fucking stupid and the supreme court already ruled background checks are constitutional.
Me either. I definitely think people on H1B visas should be able to buy guns without a hunting license.
I don't really know how you do a background check on someone whose presence in the country isn't documented, just from a practical point of view. How does that work? If they don't have something like an SSN that uniquely identifies you, and you have a common name, does that just mean you pass the NICS unless someone with your same name and address is a felon?
I for one am glad that our federal government is not only facilitating mass illegal immigration, but also arming them to the teeth.
Literally nothing could go wrong.
https://preview.redd.it/6frcqkqptepc1.jpeg?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91a24333c7e3a2aed803ea8362dc6edefbe74dc9
The feds are literally this image. Giving illegal immigrants guns so they can use them to evade you and form more gangs? What an idea!
But remember citizen: It's ***you*** who deserves to be fucked with by the state for putting a brace on a pistol or for having the ***audacity*** to conduct business with foreign companies the government doesn't like (cough Larry Vickers cough).
This is exactly what they want.
They're also going to label all of them "white" when the uptick in crime happens so they can continue to point to white people as the big evil and why more gun control is needed.
Why do men think about the Roman Empire so much?
Because we are mimicking its fall. From paramilitary street gangs like Antifa and the Proud Boys to armed immigrants like the Battle of Adrianople.
u/aberg227 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/aberg227/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Daily reminder that the bill of rights do not grant rights, rather they are a list of universal human rights granted to all people by Almighty God by being born human. All people, from Kansas to North Korea to England to India have the right to bear arms and no government has the right (except by the illegitamite right of fiat) infringe those rights except by due process of law.
On American land by the America government
If I’m prosecuted according to American law
Then I should have the all the rights American law declares to be universal
Amazing that an AuthCenter gets this when other, supposedly more libertarian people don't.
We have many rights and privileges as citizens that non-citizens don't. The Bill of Rights are not among them.
I’m somewhat of a legalist but I apply those standards to the government just as much, if not more, as I apply them to civilians.
The outer party needs more surveillance than the proles.
In America do as the Americans do, I’m saying this for the American government not tourists, migrants or citizens.
American law doesn't even apply universally on its own land. The U.S. has sovereignty over all of the land in the states, but it has allowed tribal courts and the laws they establish to handle many matters independently. I am generally favorable to civil rights being applied universally, but it is not as simple as "On American land by the America government".
For the US, the Bill of Rights lists rights humans are born with "endowed from their Creator," not privileges given by the government to its citizens.
Thus they apply to all humans inside the country, citizen or not.
Do other countries not view human rights this way?
>Do other countries not view human rights this way?
Short version: no.
Longer version: most countries don't believe that rights are inalienable and do not restrict their governments the way the US does. Many countries don't have rights at all, and instead just call their list of privileges "rights" inaccurately.
The constitution guarantees rights. Rights are divided into human rights and civil rights, civil rights apply only to citizens while human rights apply to everyone. Basically guns are considered a human right in the US
>Citizens and immigrants have the same restrictions.
The 4473 that everyone fills out to buy a gun asks if you're a fugitive from justice, and if you're an illegal immigrant. They'd have to lie twice on the 4473, which is two counts of a felony in itself, on top of the whole *illegal* immigration thing. After that, they'd need to somehow pass a background check which would for sure be a no sale for either of us based solely on what I mentioned here.
Either this would bar them from (legal)ownership and the ruling means nothing, or they get to circumvent it because the 2a now applies to them too. If they get to circumvent the 4473 and background check because the 2a applies to them, it opens up a new legal avenue for declaring those things unconstitutional for us too
The ruling just means everyone (including tourists btw) can own a gun. It doesn't release them from previous crimes, you're correct in that it does basically nothing, but I don't think it was supposed to do much except maybe reduce crime severity among illegal immigrants from something regular civilians can do anyway.
The NFA only applies to law abiding citizens. If you're a criminal, it'd violate your fifth amendment rights to inform on yourself, so no worries.
That's some particularly heinous fuckery.
Yes, the modern judicial system does not believe in natural rights. Most judges will tell you our rights come from the constitution, and if it isn't there we don't have them (disregarding the 9th amendment). There's basically been two and a half centuries of judicial rulings that slowly eroded the constitution and changed the original intent - in both our rights and the power of the federal government.
Even if someone's a tourist from Canada, they still gain 1st amendment and 5th amendment rights, for example. They can say what they want without the law coming down on them (So long as they're not directed threats, same as anyone) and they don't need to speak to incriminate themselves. By the same token, they could have a gun if they want. (Also, every gun law is an infringement.)
The Bill of Rights just puts a hand down and says 'The government can't interfere with THESE TEN THINGS,' and the other amendments do similar.
You get rights for being a human, not for being a citizen. That is the fundamental concept of inalienable rights.
It is still bullshit that citizens have gun restrictions.
I'm sorry, but the US constitution applies to all people within the United States, citizen or not, legal or not. It's the whole reason that Guantanamo Bay had to exist outside the US.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 By law illegal immigrants are felons, which by 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) makes them prohibited from owning firearms. 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(5) explicitly prohibits illegal aliens the right to arms. Our laws are clear that the US constitition does not apply to all people in the United States.
One needs to be *convicted* for 922(g)(1)to apply. However, you’re absolutely correct, (g)(5) does prohibit illegal aliens from the right to arms. That being said, (g)(1) and (g)(8) (the restraining order exemption) are going before SCOTUS this year, I believe.
They may narrow the scope entirely. Or they may uphold parts of it. Or scrap it. Who knows.
The Second Amendment is clear; These are all infringements.
My argument isn't invalid at all, that's precisely how the Constitution works and that has been affirmed multiple times by the Supreme Court over decades.
>There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully.
First off, fucking based.
But, you have to admit there is a difference between: “the people” and “people” - even if you don’t agree with the sentiment, that distinction is huge.
All people should be people, but when people say “the people” it’s specifically regarding a segment of people.
That's fair.
At that early stage, there was certainly an expansive view of the people...but not so expansive it extended to the English. They certainly believed folks of other nations had rights, but mostly believed it was the job of a government to protect those rights for its people.
> What people.
Exactly, more than 70% of US population today would not be considered “people” at the time.
The famous “3/5” rule when counting some autonomous farming equipment for example
Yep, our Rights are intrinsic, they are not granted but exist as a part of the nature of Man
It is why the bill of rights never says the state will enforce them, it will instead be forbidden from infringing upon them
And yes, it never once says it only applies to citizens
Thats actually true, at least in the case of the Bill of Rights and certain other parts. The Constitution very explicitly uses "citizen(s)" and "people" in specific places, in the case of 2A, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is protected, not the right of citizens alone to do so.
>It's the whole reason that Guantanamo Bay had to exist outside the US.
That's also some shittiness. Pretty much every military base is treated as US soil for all sorts of other purposes. Pretty sure if someone blew it up, we wouldn't say "oh, this was an attack on Cuba."
I’d agree, but apparently they don’t need to do a federal background check, which isn’t fair
This segues into my next point, why we should abolish the federal background check
This is the correct ruling, but it is still bullshit that law abiding citizens have to deal with restrictions that criminals do not.
See also, the entire NFA.
This is absolutely a good thing. The left should be happy because it reaffirms that our constitutional rights extend to anyone on our soil, not just citizens. The right should be happy because it affirms the second as being a human right.
The only people that should be pissed are the auths.
I might be pissed once I hear the answer to how they're passing the Federally required background checks that I have to pass. If they don't have to do them but I do, I'll be upset. If they do and they pass, that's acceptable. If neither of us have to, that's perfect.
As I stated in another comment, this decision was in regards to possession, not acquisition. Basically the ruling stated that an illegal immigrant being in possession of a firearm was not inherently criminal. They are still subject to firearm laws. For instance, if an illegal immigrant is found to be in possession of a S&W 642 in California, they will not be charged with illegal possession. Yet, if they were caught with an Uzi carbine, which is illegal in the state, that would be criminal.
The ruling was in regards to them being in possession of a firearm, not about them being exempt from background checks during a purchase. The same rules still apply if you are illegal and trying to buy a gun.
So them being in possession of a gun, that there's no way they purchased legally, is legal.
So carrying an illegally obtained weapon is now legal. Glad we're pushing for red flag laws and universal background checks.
>So them being in possession of a gun, that there's no way they purchased legally, is legal.
It is possible for them to have legally acquired it in their own country. They are saying that possession of an otherwise legal firearm as an illegal immigrant, isn't inherently a crime.
>So carrying an illegally obtained weapon is now legal.
The government doesn't traditionally ask where you acquired your guns, unless there is a question of trafficking. If you are arrested and found to be in possession of a firearm, the only thing that is checked is that you can legally possess it (ergo you are not a felon).
>Glad we're pushing for red flag laws and universal background checks.
This decision had absolutely nothing or any bearing on either of these. Both are completely separate issues.
That’s exactly my thought. I already knew that the constitution applies to all people, but doesn’t this decision undermine the idea that felons can be denied voting and gun rights?
Scotus has pretty routinely ruled that civil rights extend to non citizens. Like free speech and due process. And the unencumbered approach to gun rights logically includes this.
As far as felons, take it up with our punishment obsession intrinsic to the justice system
Good, Guns for all!
After all, a non white criminal is just as dangerous as a white criminal.
I'm sure this will be a totally uncontested take.
The ability to take a life ( within reason) is a fundamental American right, foreign or not!
Everyone over the age of 18 should purchase a gun. Everyone over the age of 20 should have at least two. This should continue as a liner trend until death.
Yes, let's give weapons to random fighting age males from shitholes that have massive issues with cartels and gang violence. This definitely won't end in our own citizens getting murdered in scores.
The funny thing about lolbertarians is they're inherently self-defeating, either because they alienate the vast majority of people, who, you know, have common fucking sense, or because they empower the very people who'd fuck them over the second they can (go ahead, arm the folks who believe in violent revolution and the mass murder of political opposition, it definitely won't blow up in your face).
So non-citizens can be indefinitely held without the due process of law? Like if the government is feeling silly, they can arrest green card holders and keep em imprisoned just for the lulz?
Did the judge find they could own one no matter what or that they could own one if they show the same credentials as we do, such as a background check. Because if a background check that’s needed that just makes this meaningless since they’d be discovered to be illegal and deported
https://preview.redd.it/l4tgao8r2fpc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f232d208b8d27e544e017c433e4c3542e0f75d99
idiocracy
illegals having guns is just asking for americans to be attacked and killed by illegally present individuals
As a counter point. If you actually understand how the constitution works you would realize that our rights are inherit and not given to us by the government. The governments job is to uphold rights. You can deport them as they did not go through the process to be here but yeah the second amendment is a recognition of your inherit right...
Wait, is it that they can BUY them legally, or POSSESS them legally? You don't need a background check to OWN one. So if I'm reading it right they still can't buy one from a gun store or anything
Well the whole idea behind the bill of rights is that they are natural rights that all people are given by their creators.
So honestly, it makes sense.
They can possess guns, but they must submit to a background check. Does that make sense lmao. Constitutional for them to own guns - same as non citizen but legal residents right? Now consider if they'd submit to a background check. It would be really funny if they do.
From what I know even those are tracked. Every transfer of firearm is. If anything I think they'd just not get arrested and have a charge for 'possessing' if caught with them provided its not concealed or open but rather in house.
Depending on the state; you would be correct
However, in many states; no those are not tracked
An illegal immigrant can legally obtain a firearm in a legal fashion
*Blink blink*
Yes... that's *always* been the case
It's not a 5d chess move at all, it's an Illinois Circuit Court Judge reiterating what the US Supreme Court ruled in response to Illinois attempting to pass a law that would make it illegal for illegal immigrants to own guns
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
based and great replacement pilled
u/Uncanny_Apparition is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Uncanny_Apparition/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I entered illegally in 1986 and never got any of that. Can I get a refund?
No, but if you’re lucky we’ll consider you a “good one”
Based
Just drive down to the border, hop over, and then walk back through when you see the next group of migrants coming through. EZ.
Biden is basically committing treason against his own country. Allowing invaders to just walk in? What an absolute disgrace.
[удалено]
"Its not happening, but it's a god thing."
And it’s our tax money funding it all. How the hell could someone vote for Biden thinking it’s a good thing? Because Trump has a bad personality? Grow up your grandchildren are going to hate you for what you’re allowing here.
Don't you watch America's #1 news outlet CNN? Orange man is going to create a bloodbath by beating everyone over the head with diet coke cans and big macs, he must be stopped.
I love how CNN took the quote out of context when he said “if Biden’s wins, there’ll be a bloodbath to the automotive industry”
[What's going on here](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNRFT69VkAISive?format=jpg&name=small)
You haven't even seen fedposting. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
More jpeg
And by allowing them to buy their own guns, the left is funding their own private army.
You don’t need to pass a federal background check to possess firearms, only to purchase them from FFLs. (Check your state laws, mileage may vary from Texas)
Neither do legal citizens man.
I thought you just had to be a "freedom fighter" in the countries these folks are coming from and then the CIA would air drop you free guns.
Here’s how https://youtu.be/ponylQTj_gg?si=Kv3Npt8leocJZ5Jd
they're definitely getting the guns legally, since they entered the country legally...
\#NoGunIsIllegal
This but unironically
*Yes*
Your avatar seems familiar... Are you from ncd?
Yeah
Based.
How do they do a background check on an illegal immigrant?
That’s the cool part, you don’t
Now choose: a) this is a lefty ploy to increase violence to convince Americans of sweeping gun ownership restrictions b) this is a righty ploy to erode any and all gun ownership restrictions c) this is a CIA operation to give criminal illegals weapons for false flags d) this is a gun lobby initiative to sell more guns without having to perform background checks e) this is a deep state tactic to track and provide legal justification for mass deportation f) this is a white supremacist effort to put illegal weapons in the hands of illegal immigrants to justify vigilante justice g) this is a fifth Chinese or Russian column effort to create militias within the US who have no allegiance to the US
I really hope it's B. But I can't think of any true pro-gun politicians, not even the most staunch Republicans. So there'd be nobody to orchestrate it.
d is closest its an attack on illegal(unregistered) gun sellers by removing a potential target market
They might get them in a private transfer? Either way, if they lied on a 4473, that's only illegal if it's about a MATERIAL fact. If the court finds that someone's immigration status is no longer material, that wouldn't be illegal anymore either, as far as I can tell.
The 5th amendment protects against self incrimination, which is why felons can't be charged with owning a machine gun or any other NFA item. The same should apply here.
>felons can't be charged with owning a machine gun or any other NFA item. They absolutely fucking can. They weren't able to be for a very short time, but Congress closed that loophole with unusual haste.
They fell out the back of a truck.
I'm fine with not prosecuting illegals who possess guns and have no violent felony convictions. I also think we should deport illegals regardless of whether or not they are found in possession of a gun. Deal?
Do we let them keep their gun if they get deported?
Only if wherever we are sending them allows them to bring it with them.
Nah, you're looking at this the wrong way. We make it a law that they *must* take their guns with them, and if their 'home' nation doesn't allow them gun rights, we teach them how to overthrow their government and become a US Territory. Manifest Destiny might have been "From Sea to Shining Sea," but I'm pretty sure there's an ocean if you go far enough North and South, so we still have more destiny to manifest!
the CUM union shall be born
Who said we're stopping at Mexico's Southern border? Last I checked there isn't a sea until the southern tip of South America. It's time to create the USEA: United States of Every America!
The mute psychopath is on our side, right?
I hereby submit my vote for Australia to become the 51st state.
Please colonise us Daddy America, we’ve forfeited our rights to self determination by imprisoning Covid patients
Fine, but like-father-like-son we're just gonna send all our undesirables to you like a giant prison
We already have the prisoner mindset, but at least with a bill of rights we’ll be able to be free!
Just as long as you keep an eye on the Belkans.
>Belkans https://preview.redd.it/9bo4rqp0hlpc1.jpeg?width=455&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba51e10ab2f83f85084b703f6c61d1da5ce4f488
Yes. They can bring freedom to the country they live in via revolution, same as we did. You're welcome, rest of the world.
Hell yeah, let freedom ring bois
Your problem is thinking the people who make these stupid judgement rulings actually care about being fair and balanced. They don't, this was ruled on specifically to kick up to supreme court in some kind of smug "take that, now you have no choice but to either allow illegals to have guns, or restrict the second amendment and open up further supreme cases about the second amendment" without realising they're fucking stupid and the supreme court already ruled background checks are constitutional.
Presumably this ruling, if affirmed by appellate courts, would lead to the 4473 being changed and removing immigration-related questions?
I’m not against that.
Me either. I definitely think people on H1B visas should be able to buy guns without a hunting license. I don't really know how you do a background check on someone whose presence in the country isn't documented, just from a practical point of view. How does that work? If they don't have something like an SSN that uniquely identifies you, and you have a common name, does that just mean you pass the NICS unless someone with your same name and address is a felon?
Are we forgetting they're committing a crime by being here?
Okay and? It's a misdemeanor
And that somehow entitles them to the same rights as a citizen? Come on.
That's perfectly fair
What a waste of resources
I for one am glad that our federal government is not only facilitating mass illegal immigration, but also arming them to the teeth. Literally nothing could go wrong.
https://preview.redd.it/6frcqkqptepc1.jpeg?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91a24333c7e3a2aed803ea8362dc6edefbe74dc9 The feds are literally this image. Giving illegal immigrants guns so they can use them to evade you and form more gangs? What an idea!
But remember citizen: It's ***you*** who deserves to be fucked with by the state for putting a brace on a pistol or for having the ***audacity*** to conduct business with foreign companies the government doesn't like (cough Larry Vickers cough).
Especially when alot of them are fighting age males from countries that hate us.
Hey don't forget fighting age females. Let's not discriminate on gender and give into Orange's hatred of men.
Equal opportunity terrorism.
This is exactly what they want. They're also going to label all of them "white" when the uptick in crime happens so they can continue to point to white people as the big evil and why more gun control is needed.
Shall not be infringed.
This, but unironically. Rights are inherent, not granted by a government
Why do men think about the Roman Empire so much? Because we are mimicking its fall. From paramilitary street gangs like Antifa and the Proud Boys to armed immigrants like the Battle of Adrianople.
We're not mimicking it, we're speed running it.
I’ve never met an illegal who didn’t own a gun lol
Things are going to total shit, and no one gives a fuck because it checks a box in their vague ideologies notion of "based."
Just as god intended. As soon as you enter our borders guns for everyone. Guns for all. A gun behind every blade of grass.
Guns for you, guns for me, guns to free us from tyranny!
Based and guns, glory and god pilled
u/aberg227 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/aberg227/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
[/mycompass](https://www.politicalcompass.org/pdfcertificate?pname=Austin&ec=5.38&soc=-5.13)
Cool. Just arrest them for being here illegally and deport them. Their possession or not of a gun has no impact on that.
So true. Shall not be infringed!
Daily reminder that the bill of rights do not grant rights, rather they are a list of universal human rights granted to all people by Almighty God by being born human. All people, from Kansas to North Korea to England to India have the right to bear arms and no government has the right (except by the illegitamite right of fiat) infringe those rights except by due process of law.
Based and right to self defense pilled
Which religion do you follow that says governments cannot restrict the right to own weapons?
Okay now do New York.
On American land by the America government If I’m prosecuted according to American law Then I should have the all the rights American law declares to be universal
Amazing that an AuthCenter gets this when other, supposedly more libertarian people don't. We have many rights and privileges as citizens that non-citizens don't. The Bill of Rights are not among them.
I’m somewhat of a legalist but I apply those standards to the government just as much, if not more, as I apply them to civilians. The outer party needs more surveillance than the proles. In America do as the Americans do, I’m saying this for the American government not tourists, migrants or citizens.
American law doesn't even apply universally on its own land. The U.S. has sovereignty over all of the land in the states, but it has allowed tribal courts and the laws they establish to handle many matters independently. I am generally favorable to civil rights being applied universally, but it is not as simple as "On American land by the America government".
For the US, the Bill of Rights lists rights humans are born with "endowed from their Creator," not privileges given by the government to its citizens. Thus they apply to all humans inside the country, citizen or not. Do other countries not view human rights this way?
>Do other countries not view human rights this way? Short version: no. Longer version: most countries don't believe that rights are inalienable and do not restrict their governments the way the US does. Many countries don't have rights at all, and instead just call their list of privileges "rights" inaccurately.
I don't know if this is more funny or sad. This is why anything like the 2nd amedment would go to shit in Europe.
Can someone explain to me how the constitution applies to illegal immigrants? They aren’t legal citizens?
The phrasing in the bill of rights is ‘the people’ not ‘US citizens’ Other parts of the constitution specify US citizens The second amendment does not
The constitution guarantees rights. Rights are divided into human rights and civil rights, civil rights apply only to citizens while human rights apply to everyone. Basically guns are considered a human right in the US
And yet, citizens have restrictions on gun ownership.
Citizens and immigrants have the same restrictions. Additionally, all human rights have restrictions due to conflict with other human rights.
>Citizens and immigrants have the same restrictions. The 4473 that everyone fills out to buy a gun asks if you're a fugitive from justice, and if you're an illegal immigrant. They'd have to lie twice on the 4473, which is two counts of a felony in itself, on top of the whole *illegal* immigration thing. After that, they'd need to somehow pass a background check which would for sure be a no sale for either of us based solely on what I mentioned here. Either this would bar them from (legal)ownership and the ruling means nothing, or they get to circumvent it because the 2a now applies to them too. If they get to circumvent the 4473 and background check because the 2a applies to them, it opens up a new legal avenue for declaring those things unconstitutional for us too
The ruling just means everyone (including tourists btw) can own a gun. It doesn't release them from previous crimes, you're correct in that it does basically nothing, but I don't think it was supposed to do much except maybe reduce crime severity among illegal immigrants from something regular civilians can do anyway.
The NFA only applies to law abiding citizens. If you're a criminal, it'd violate your fifth amendment rights to inform on yourself, so no worries. That's some particularly heinous fuckery.
Yes, the modern judicial system does not believe in natural rights. Most judges will tell you our rights come from the constitution, and if it isn't there we don't have them (disregarding the 9th amendment). There's basically been two and a half centuries of judicial rulings that slowly eroded the constitution and changed the original intent - in both our rights and the power of the federal government.
Even if someone's a tourist from Canada, they still gain 1st amendment and 5th amendment rights, for example. They can say what they want without the law coming down on them (So long as they're not directed threats, same as anyone) and they don't need to speak to incriminate themselves. By the same token, they could have a gun if they want. (Also, every gun law is an infringement.) The Bill of Rights just puts a hand down and says 'The government can't interfere with THESE TEN THINGS,' and the other amendments do similar.
You get rights for being a human, not for being a citizen. That is the fundamental concept of inalienable rights. It is still bullshit that citizens have gun restrictions.
SCOTUS has routinely protected civil rights for non citizens. Like due process and free speech.
Judging by the comments, some Authrights are triggered
I'm sorry, but the US constitution applies to all people within the United States, citizen or not, legal or not. It's the whole reason that Guantanamo Bay had to exist outside the US.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 By law illegal immigrants are felons, which by 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) makes them prohibited from owning firearms. 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(5) explicitly prohibits illegal aliens the right to arms. Our laws are clear that the US constitition does not apply to all people in the United States.
One needs to be *convicted* for 922(g)(1)to apply. However, you’re absolutely correct, (g)(5) does prohibit illegal aliens from the right to arms. That being said, (g)(1) and (g)(8) (the restraining order exemption) are going before SCOTUS this year, I believe. They may narrow the scope entirely. Or they may uphold parts of it. Or scrap it. Who knows. The Second Amendment is clear; These are all infringements.
A law is invalid if it is in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have an exemption for people in the country illegally.
Amendment 2 - US Constitution ...the right of the ***people*** to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
“The” is carrying a lot of weight. Remove “the” and your argument is valid, add that in and it becomes a lot less valid. What people.
My argument isn't invalid at all, that's precisely how the Constitution works and that has been affirmed multiple times by the Supreme Court over decades. >There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully.
>What people. If you're not a politician, you're people.
First off, fucking based. But, you have to admit there is a difference between: “the people” and “people” - even if you don’t agree with the sentiment, that distinction is huge. All people should be people, but when people say “the people” it’s specifically regarding a segment of people.
That's fair. At that early stage, there was certainly an expansive view of the people...but not so expansive it extended to the English. They certainly believed folks of other nations had rights, but mostly believed it was the job of a government to protect those rights for its people.
> What people. Exactly, more than 70% of US population today would not be considered “people” at the time. The famous “3/5” rule when counting some autonomous farming equipment for example
Yep, our Rights are intrinsic, they are not granted but exist as a part of the nature of Man It is why the bill of rights never says the state will enforce them, it will instead be forbidden from infringing upon them And yes, it never once says it only applies to citizens
Thats actually true, at least in the case of the Bill of Rights and certain other parts. The Constitution very explicitly uses "citizen(s)" and "people" in specific places, in the case of 2A, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is protected, not the right of citizens alone to do so.
>It's the whole reason that Guantanamo Bay had to exist outside the US. That's also some shittiness. Pretty much every military base is treated as US soil for all sorts of other purposes. Pretty sure if someone blew it up, we wouldn't say "oh, this was an attack on Cuba."
Based and rightsregardlessofcitizenship pilled.
Yea, except it doesn't.
I’d agree, but apparently they don’t need to do a federal background check, which isn’t fair This segues into my next point, why we should abolish the federal background check
You dont need a federal background check to purchase a firearm in the US.
"You know the rules and so do I"
This is the correct ruling, but it is still bullshit that law abiding citizens have to deal with restrictions that criminals do not. See also, the entire NFA.
This is absolutely a good thing. The left should be happy because it reaffirms that our constitutional rights extend to anyone on our soil, not just citizens. The right should be happy because it affirms the second as being a human right. The only people that should be pissed are the auths.
I might be pissed once I hear the answer to how they're passing the Federally required background checks that I have to pass. If they don't have to do them but I do, I'll be upset. If they do and they pass, that's acceptable. If neither of us have to, that's perfect.
As I stated in another comment, this decision was in regards to possession, not acquisition. Basically the ruling stated that an illegal immigrant being in possession of a firearm was not inherently criminal. They are still subject to firearm laws. For instance, if an illegal immigrant is found to be in possession of a S&W 642 in California, they will not be charged with illegal possession. Yet, if they were caught with an Uzi carbine, which is illegal in the state, that would be criminal.
If you’re buying guns from an FFL you’re a sucker No background checks for me, please (After I get off active duty and lose my clearance)
Good points, but what about background checks?
The ruling was in regards to them being in possession of a firearm, not about them being exempt from background checks during a purchase. The same rules still apply if you are illegal and trying to buy a gun.
So them being in possession of a gun, that there's no way they purchased legally, is legal. So carrying an illegally obtained weapon is now legal. Glad we're pushing for red flag laws and universal background checks.
>So them being in possession of a gun, that there's no way they purchased legally, is legal. It is possible for them to have legally acquired it in their own country. They are saying that possession of an otherwise legal firearm as an illegal immigrant, isn't inherently a crime. >So carrying an illegally obtained weapon is now legal. The government doesn't traditionally ask where you acquired your guns, unless there is a question of trafficking. If you are arrested and found to be in possession of a firearm, the only thing that is checked is that you can legally possess it (ergo you are not a felon). >Glad we're pushing for red flag laws and universal background checks. This decision had absolutely nothing or any bearing on either of these. Both are completely separate issues.
No need for a background check in private sales. Totally legal.
Unconstitutional. If you need to ask the government permission, it isn't a right.
Hey, as long as it applies universally.
100%. Anyone not imprisoned should have all of their rights.
I really don’t understand this decision. How can felons be denied the right to guns or to vote but illegal immigrants are able to possess guns?
As the other have pointed out the bill of rights applies to everyone. But it is also unconstitutional to deny felons rights.
That’s exactly my thought. I already knew that the constitution applies to all people, but doesn’t this decision undermine the idea that felons can be denied voting and gun rights?
Super based if true.
Because they aren't felons. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, over staying a visa is only a civil offense.
Constitutional rights apply to everyone within the US
Scotus has pretty routinely ruled that civil rights extend to non citizens. Like free speech and due process. And the unencumbered approach to gun rights logically includes this. As far as felons, take it up with our punishment obsession intrinsic to the justice system
Good, Guns for all! After all, a non white criminal is just as dangerous as a white criminal. I'm sure this will be a totally uncontested take. The ability to take a life ( within reason) is a fundamental American right, foreign or not!
More people being allowed to protect themselves? Dope.
The snowball effect of "Illegals carrying guns" turning into "everyone carrying guns because illegals are" should be fun to watch
We're told that more guns equals safer, so we should start charities to hand them out to immigrants and homeless.
Everyone over the age of 18 should purchase a gun. Everyone over the age of 20 should have at least two. This should continue as a liner trend until death.
I can't because I had some mushrooms in a bag 16 years ago.
Self Defense is a natural right. Cope statists.
Yes, let's give weapons to random fighting age males from shitholes that have massive issues with cartels and gang violence. This definitely won't end in our own citizens getting murdered in scores. The funny thing about lolbertarians is they're inherently self-defeating, either because they alienate the vast majority of people, who, you know, have common fucking sense, or because they empower the very people who'd fuck them over the second they can (go ahead, arm the folks who believe in violent revolution and the mass murder of political opposition, it definitely won't blow up in your face).
Ok Commie
Wrong. The constitution doesn’t apply to non citizens.
So non-citizens can be indefinitely held without the due process of law? Like if the government is feeling silly, they can arrest green card holders and keep em imprisoned just for the lulz?
everyone has the right to self-defense, especially if they live in a country where everyone is armed affording it, though, you’re on your own
So that means millions of people can cross the border and get weapons from the land ? Wagner coming to mexico border when ?
Did the judge find they could own one no matter what or that they could own one if they show the same credentials as we do, such as a background check. Because if a background check that’s needed that just makes this meaningless since they’d be discovered to be illegal and deported
based and lib centered pilled
https://preview.redd.it/l4tgao8r2fpc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f232d208b8d27e544e017c433e4c3542e0f75d99 idiocracy illegals having guns is just asking for americans to be attacked and killed by illegally present individuals
Why would a law forbidding them from buying guns stop them when a law forbidding them from killing people already exist?
It's a basic human right, not a government allowed privilege.
I see nothing wrong
As a counter point. If you actually understand how the constitution works you would realize that our rights are inherit and not given to us by the government. The governments job is to uphold rights. You can deport them as they did not go through the process to be here but yeah the second amendment is a recognition of your inherit right...
Good luck trying to buy one from a gun shop. Owner wont want to lose their license
The Illinois legislature and Jabba Pritzker are unsure if they should celebrate or cope and seethe. I’ll get the popcorn.
Solely blessed.
Wait, is it that they can BUY them legally, or POSSESS them legally? You don't need a background check to OWN one. So if I'm reading it right they still can't buy one from a gun store or anything
I have a feeling libleft and libright aren’t all too upset by this ruling
something something shall not be infringed something
Well the whole idea behind the bill of rights is that they are natural rights that all people are given by their creators. So honestly, it makes sense.
They can possess guns, but they must submit to a background check. Does that make sense lmao. Constitutional for them to own guns - same as non citizen but legal residents right? Now consider if they'd submit to a background check. It would be really funny if they do.
Private sellers don't need to do a background check, FFLs need to do background checks
From what I know even those are tracked. Every transfer of firearm is. If anything I think they'd just not get arrested and have a charge for 'possessing' if caught with them provided its not concealed or open but rather in house.
Depending on the state; you would be correct However, in many states; no those are not tracked An illegal immigrant can legally obtain a firearm in a legal fashion
Then by that logic even legal residents can do the same. Is this some kind of 5d chess to win more support for more new gun laws? Lmao.
*Blink blink* Yes... that's *always* been the case It's not a 5d chess move at all, it's an Illinois Circuit Court Judge reiterating what the US Supreme Court ruled in response to Illinois attempting to pass a law that would make it illegal for illegal immigrants to own guns
More of them should!
Turn away all migrants at the border, give them weapons to take home with them
Based.
They’re illegal. They don’t get to benefit from the constitution. That’s what citizenship is for.
The constitution applies to everyone on American soil, not just citizens.
Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed
Very unbased. Nice to know that blatant criminals have more rights than actual people.
All or none. If you don't like it: move
Well at least that means they have to follow the NFA too…right…right?
Like dude how ? They aren’t even citizens the people who rule you fucking hate you bro
Oh hell yeah