What Could Possibly Go Wrong w/ This Obamanation's Ruling?

[boxcar]

Illegal Immigrant Can Carry Guns: Federal Judge

Ruling from U.S. Supreme Court means the attempt to ban an illegal immigrant from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, [Obama-appointed] judge concludes.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/ill...jcqV1w8HAG0%3D

[davew]

and because of their special residency status, they do not need a permit to own or carry?

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by davew

and because of their special residency status, they do not need a permit to own or carry?

Under Bruen, nobody technically needs a permit. Some states are ignoring it.

The real question is “does the Bill of rights” etc apply to only U.S. Citizens or anybody in the country.

Do our rights apply as soon as you hit the ground in the U.S. ?

I say no…..you must be a citizen.

[Tom]

They are doing this eliminate the middleman.
This will replace having to give them gift cards.

Give a man a card, he eats for a day.
Give him a gun..........

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Under Bruen, nobody technically needs a permit. Some states are ignoring it.

The real question is “does the Bill of rights” etc apply to only U.S. Citizens or anybody in the country.

Do our rights apply as soon as you hit the ground in the U.S. ?

I say no…..you must be a citizen.

The burning legal question that must be asked and that is begging for a constitutional answer is: Was it the Framer's intention that every jot and tittle in all the U.S. Constitution apply equally to all the peoples of the world, regardless of their legal residence or citizen status, or was the Constitution primarily drafted for the benefits, protection and rights of the people who came here to settle?

We shouldn't forget that when the first British settlers came here, there was no such thing as immigration law. The natives of this land knew of no such thing, as we have today in our modern society.

Or when the Declaration of Independence was drawn up, did the drafters mean by "We the People" everyone or anyone in the world who sets foot on our land, or was that phrase used in a more restrictive sense?

I noticed in the judge's ruling that she appealed to the 14th Amendment, if I recall correctly, to justify her decision. Liberal judges often like to do this to extend the privileges of this one amendment to the Bill or Rights.

I hope this case makes it to SCOTUS.

[OntheRail]

This must of been a hard fence rail to set upon... which way to go for a liberal leftist that hate gun rights but blind-eye crimes by illegal aliens.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is for US citizens.

With their thinking anyone that walks into a store... is an owner of that store and is free to take whatever they want and just walk out the..... Wait a minute

[MargieRose]

This might rile up more people to demand severe gun control, if not banishment altogether. It may just be another liberal attempt to getting what they ultimately want.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The burning legal question that must be asked and that is begging for a constitutional answer is: Was it the Framer's intention that every jot and tittle in all the U.S. Constitution apply equally to all the peoples of the world, regardless of their legal residence or citizen status, or was the Constitution primarily drafted for the benefits, protection and rights of the people who came here to settle?

We shouldn't forget that when the first British settlers came here, there was no such thing as immigration law. The natives of this land knew of no such thing, as we have today in our modern society.

Or when the Declaration of Independence was drawn up, did the drafters mean by "We the People" everyone or anyone in the world who sets foot on our land, or was that phrase used in a more restrictive sense?

I noticed in the judge's ruling that she appealed to the 14th Amendment, if I recall correctly, to justify her decision. Liberal judges often like to do this to extend the privileges of this one amendment to the Bill or Rights.

I hope this case makes it to SCOTUS.

Whatever the framers' intentions were, what matters now is that it, apparently, doesn't matter:

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.

[Tom]

Definitley a case for the Supremes.
On one hand we have "We hold these truths to be self evident...."
And then we list a Bill of those Rights......

OTOH, women did not count in the Constitution at the time, and Blacks were 3/5.So this can be a tough one.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

This might rile up more people to demand severe gun control, if not banishment altogether. It may just be another liberal attempt to getting what they ultimately want.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. The Left would love nothing less than multiple mass murders in a short period of time to advance their agenda. The more people who die, the merrier they'll be. And God only knows how many hardened criminals we have already let in. In fact, they have already caught a Hezbollah terrorist at the Texas border.

[P.Rosa]

Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.

I believe that in both of the cases the aliens were in the USA legally.

[Tom]

These f****** border monkeys want be protected ny the laws, whih broke to get here.

Land mines
Motion detection machine guns
Attackdogs
Drone delivered mustard gas
Air strikes on caravans

Send the message, Come here illrgally and die. We respect your right to decide.

And btw, GFY.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

If non-citizens are able to own a gun, we may as well not even have a country and just call ourselves The Ununited World of Everybody.

[Inner Dirt]

Nobody ever gets on board with my proposal of how to deal with non citizen illegals. They should be treated the way we as US citizens are treated in their country for the same infractions or crimes. Do you know what happens to a USA citizen caught with a gun even in Mexican waters on a boat? How about if you get in a car accident in Mexico without Mexican insurance?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Under Bruen, nobody technically needs a permit. Some states are ignoring it.

The real question is “does the Bill of rights” etc apply to only U.S. Citizens or anybody in the country.

Do our rights apply as soon as you hit the ground in the U.S. ?

I say no…..you must be a citizen.

The Constitution disagrees with you, Mr. fascist. Ech of the Ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights refers to people or persons. The word citizen is not found in any of the Amendments, but it is found elsewhere in the Constitution which indicates the distinction is deliberate.

Interesting that I am defending the right of someone to possess firearms and you are opposing it.