District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional

[Uzi2]

And it’s SCOTUS’ job to interpret the words of the constitution and faithfully apply their meaning to the law.

Yes but it’s not SCOTUS’ job enforce those laws. That responsibility falls on the executive branch of government, not the judiciary.

Again, this has nothing to do with SCOTUS or even the courts in general. SCOTUS has said that interest balancing is not a valid reason for infringing on gun rights. Public safety concerns hold no weight when it comes to the second amendment, which itself is a product of interest balancing. You’re barking up the wrong tree here, blame the current administration for the border crisis.

You’re conflating things here. Again, it’s the Executive Branch looking to disarm people, and in fact it was the Executive Branch that tried to disarm this illegal. It was the Judicial Branch that said it couldn’t be done consistent with this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations.

Nope, the government can’t infringe on their rights but doesn’t have to facilitate them either. An armed populace is the exact thing anti-gunners want to avoid, no matter if they’re in this country legally or not.


Please cite where “the people” only refers to US Citizens. The Framers were very intelligent men and every single word in the Bill of Rights was carefully considered before ratification. If they intended to only protect the rights of citizens, they would’ve said as much IMHO.

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you here, but that’s not what this case is about. Courts can only rule on issues presented before them, and this case simply involved the law banning possession of firearms by illegals. It’s the job of the executive branch to enforce these immigration laws and prevent this illegal from ever entering into this country in the first place, not the court’s.

Ok, you're going to parse every sentence I write and I don't have all day to counter every one of your points.

I think we are on the same page with regard to who's trying to disarm citizens, I understand fully that it is the executive branch doing it, in conjunction with the legislative branch and the court has to step in and start swinging the bat to straighten out some things.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Those old afffay & surety laws had a “to the terror of the people” clause. Some consider carrying guns, if not mere possession of guns, as a “terror” but that’s where non-discretionary “shall issue” policies draw a line - if you’re not prohibited, you can have guns.

Once adjudicated a felon, one is not “dangerous” by necessity, but one might be a situational risk. Financial fraud can get a felon banned from licensure in financial trades. But would a tax cheat felon be a “terror” to the people if armed? Would an armed robber felon be a risk as a tax advisor?

All of this is why SCOTUS will most likely rule in Rahimi that the key criteria for dangerousness is violence. Those who are physically violent dangers to themselves or others are the only ones who can be disarmed.

Rahimi, by all accounts, is a dangerous felon and a terror. I wish the choice was, should such people be allowed guns when they’ve served their sentence or are paroled, or should they be sentenced longer and not paroled to avoid letting them out at all. But that’s not the choice we have in this case. In reality, the choice of whether an any felon will possess a gun is up to the felon - laws do not stop them.

This case isn’t about felon in possession laws though, it’s about whether or not you can be disarmed while under a civil domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). There’s another case before SCOTUS pending cert that deals non-violent felons, it’s Range v. Garland. Range will most likely be GVR’d in light of the court’s decision in Rahimi.

I can see where some struggle with the idea of allowing felons who served their sentence or were paroled to have guns, but still banning tax cheats from being bankers.

Tax cheats aren’t physically violent dangers to society, and they don’t have a constitutional right to be bankers. Nor are certain felons dangerous after the completion of their sentences. Only violent felons should be disarmed for life.

But SCOTUS will likely rule very narrowly on Rahimi to not throw the baby out with the bath water, as the anti-gun advocates hope for. At best, a minority of the majority will add to the corpus distinguishing dangerous from non-dangerous felons as a topic to be addressed in future 2ndA cases.

The issue with Rahimi is that it’s a facial challenge. Facial challenges mean that there is absolutely no situation in which any application of the law is constitutional. This is obviously not the case here, as the record clearly indicates that Rahimi is a dangerous person. He admitted to these facts and consented to the DVRO, and any due process arguments were waived.

Therefore, SCOTUS will indeed rule narrowly against Mr. Rahimi himself and uphold the statute on its face as it applies to Mr. Rahimi. I predict either 7-2 or 8-1 depending on where Justice Thomas and Justice Alito fall in the dissent. However, the decision will leave open many as-applied challenges to the law for future plaintiffs in cases down the road.

More importantly, the methodology we can expect from this decision will be a very big victory for the 2nd Amendment. At a minimum, we can expect SCOTUS to say that Rahimi is undoubtedly part of “the people” in the 2A. We can also expect a new pro-2A dangerousness standard to be set, thereby allowing more individuals to be armed and making it harder for the government to disarm individuals. Finally,
they will say that dangerousness can only be determined by a court after a trial with robust due process protections.

The anti-gunners wanted to use this case’s bad facts to try to weaken Bruen in some way. It’s obvious that they’re not going to get their wish.

 

[OnTheRoad]

"...People OF the United States..."

NOT

"...People IN the United States..."

Looks pretty unambiguous to me.

 

[Uzi2]

"...People OF the United States..."

NOT

"...People IN the United States..."

Looks pretty unambiguous to me.

Exactly.....and that is why "naturalization" laws were developed to create an orderly influx of people who would at some point under specific laws, "BECOME" citizens so that the country could fill the necessary populating of the country during its early westward expansion.

 

[MAGA99]

Illegals are all felons, they have zero rights in my eyes.

 

[Drix]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That means the citizens of the United States, AND THEIR POSTERITY..........NOT FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.

Was your family here before 1787? If not turn your guns in bro.

 

[Uzi2]

Illegals are all felons, they have zero rights in my eyes.

No, they're not felons, but are criminals just the same, and criminals should not be allowed to garner any benefits from any government entity at a cost to the taxpayer.

OK, cue up the "public defender" responses.......

 

[JDL]

It's Leftist logic. The judge had 2 choices. Rule that illegals entered the country illegally and therefore have committed a crime or rule that illegals are not illegal and therefore committed no crime and have all the rights of any US citizen.

As much as it must have pained the Judge granting 2A rights the greater Leftist cause is that there are no illegals and flooding the country with them is the more important agenda.

This

 

[MaverickNH]

It's Leftist logic. The judge had 2 choices. Rule that illegals entered the country illegally and therefore have committed a crime or rule that illegals are not illegal and therefore committed no crime and have all the rights of any US citizen.

As much as it must have pained the Judge granting 2A rights the greater Leftist cause is that there are no illegals and flooding the country with them is the more important agenda.

Even if Leftists could tax the wealthy and corporations into oblivion, once there’s nobody left to tax more, we’d be stuck with 10s of millions who would feel deprived of their “rights” to shelter, sustenance, health care, education, etc.

The Catch 22 is, we need low-skilled immigrant labor to do all the jobs that American won’t do (and don’t need to do in a welfare state). But we cannot afford to just up and give them a standard of living that many Americans can’t even afford. My grandparents worked unskilled labor in the mines and mills, so that my parents could work skilled labor jobs in factories and offices, so their kids (me and my 3 siblings) could get professional jobs. A shortcut from unskilled labor to middle-class lifestyle just isn’t there. Not here or in any sustainable society.

 

[HARRYM]

Even if Leftists could tax the wealthy and corporations into oblivion, once there’s nobody left to tax more, we’d be stuck with 10s of millions who would feel deprived of their “rights” to shelter, sustenance, health care, education, etc.

The Catch 22 is, we need low-skilled immigrant labor to do all the jobs that American won’t do (and don’t need to do in a welfare state). But we cannot afford to just up and give them a standard of living that many Americans can’t even afford. My grandparents worked unskilled labor in the mines and mills, so that my parents could work skilled labor jobs in factories and offices, so their kids (me and my 3 siblings) could get professional jobs. A shortcut from unskilled labor to middle-class lifestyle just isn’t there. Not here or in any sustainable society.

Well, they are gonna try it. I always believed the US would head down this dangerous path but I honestly believed I wouldn't be alive to see it.

 

[Coyote33]

It just seems to be unconstitutional for US citizens to possess guns. Everyone else it's OK.

Just who's Constitution is it anyways?

 

[Parker Schreiber]

If, as NYSRPA suggests, you have to stop looking at restrictions as of 1868, then the decision is correct. There were no restrictions on non-citizens carrying nor any federal laws restricting immigration until later.

The question I have on this case is why he was on release and being allowed (and required) to work rather than being held for deportation?

 

[Joeldiaz]

If, as NYSRPA suggests, you have to stop looking at restrictions as of 1868, then the decision is correct. There were no restrictions on non-citizens carrying nor any federal laws restricting immigration until later.

The disagreement on the outcome of this case isn’t at the historical level of the Bruen analysis though, I think we all can agree that there’s no historical tradition of banning illegals from carrying arms. The disagreement is at the textual level of the Bruen test, which is whether or not illegal immigrants are considered part of “the people” as implicated by the plain text of the 2A.

Btw, not just NYSRPA but SCOTUS themselves have said it is pre-1868 founding era regulations that count, not post-1868 reconstruction era. Post-1868 laws can be used only as a confirmatory analytic. To the extent that a post reconstruction era law contradicts a founding era law, you go with the time of the founding.

 

[peterk123]

As far as I'm concerned, an illegal with a weapon is an enemy combatant.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Where else in The Bill of Rights does it say that God-given rights are only given to U.S. Citizens? Can we subject illegals to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment?

The way I see it is if you step foot on our shores and you are granted the right to free speech and equal protection under the law then by corollary one has also the right to keep and bear arms. Even if a person were visiting from another country for a vacation but wanted to carry a gun for protection while on vacation. That should be legal. That's what rights are supposed to look like. You don't have to ask permission you just have it. I wouldn't be surprised if in 1791 when people got off a boat from another country that there was no such thing as the TSA looking for firearms or that they even cared or were concerned that foreigners were carrying firearms.

 

[peterk123]

The way I see it is if you step foot on our shores and you are granted the right to free speech and equal protection under the law then by corollary one has also the right to keep and bear arms. Even if a person were visiting from another country for a vacation but wanted to carry a gun for protection while on vacation. That should be legal. That's what rights are supposed to look like. You don't have to ask permission you just have it. I wouldn't be surprised if in 1791 when people got off a boat from another country that there was no such thing as the TSA looking for firearms or that they even cared or were concerned that foreigners were carrying firearms.

Right on! That's the whole point with Biden's open border thing. Come one come all. Here is your free cell phone and gun.

 

[MFSP101]

Are there other country’s that will/would let a US citizen just enter their country and obtain a firearm?

 

[Joeldiaz]

Are there other country’s that will/would let a US citizen just enter their country and obtain a firearm?

I would imagine no but there is no other country that has as robust of a right to keep and bear arms as the United States does, so it’s not really a good comparison.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Right on! That's the whole point with Biden's open border thing. Come one come all. Here is your free cell phone and gun.

SCOTUS doesn’t care about those kinds of policy concerns. They only care about properly interpreting and applying the US Constitution as it is written, and I don’t think that if an illegal immigrant arms ban case were to come before them, they would rule in the way that you’d like.

You seem to forget that there are more laws on the books than just gun laws. Just because the 2A might say that illegal immigrants have a right to keep and bear arms, that doesn’t mean they can enter the country whenever they please. Remember that these people have entered the country illegally, they’re not tourists. They can be punished for that crime without having to convict them of a gun crime.

The Constitution provides congress with several options to address the issue illegal immigration. However, to quote Justice Scalia in Heller, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

 

[Parker Schreiber]

The disagreement is at the textual level of the Bruen test, which is whether or not illegal immigrants are considered part of “the people” as implicated by the plain text of the 2A.

The Supreme Court has a 2A case, Garland v. Range, on its docket this term to interpret "the people."

 

[Joeldiaz]

The Supreme Court has a 2A case, Garland v. Range, on its docket this term to interpret "the people."

Range hasn’t been granted certiorari yet. It was heard in conference several months ago but we haven’t heard anything since. Chances are SCOTUS is holding onto it and it will be GVR’d in light of their decision in Rahimi.

Furthermore, Range is about non-violent felons, not illegal immigrants. There isn’t any dispute that the felon in that case is an American. The question there would be whether non-violent felons are considered “the people” and if so (they most definitely are), is there a historical tradition of banning gun possession for them.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

They crossed the border illegally. Broke the laws of the United States. Justice is a meal and a ride back to sender. Do it the right way.

Added: I'm a immigrant. Family waited 7 yrs to enter. Parents had jobs and a place to live with family.
So, get in line and wait.

 

[peterk123]

SCOTUS doesn’t care about those kinds of policy concerns. They only care about properly interpreting and applying the US Constitution as it is written, and I don’t think that if an illegal immigrant arms ban case were to come before them, they would rule in the way that you’d like.

You seem to forget that there are more laws on the books than just gun laws. Just because the 2A might say that illegal immigrants have a right to keep and bear arms, that doesn’t mean they can enter the country whenever they please. Remember that these people have entered the country illegally, they’re not tourists. They can be punished for that crime without having to convict them of a gun crime.

The Constitution provides congress with several options to address the issue illegal immigration. However, to quote Justice Scalia in Heller, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

Ya right. So explain to me why so many decisions go right down the party lines?

I agree with you in principal, but not in reality.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Ya right. So explain to me why so many decisions go right down the party lines?

I agree with you in principal, but not in reality.

Here’s the truth and the practical reality when it comes to liberal vs conservative judges & justices:

For the most part, liberals are goal oriented when deciding a case. They truly believe in their heart of hearts, for better or worse, that government is a force for good. You can generally always count on them to rule on a case in a certain way that favors the government, no matter what the law says. They view themselves as legislators in black robes and will always step up when they believe that the legislature has fallen short.

On the other hand, conservative justices for the most part care about the journey, not the destination. They are doing what they’re supposed to do which is to properly interpret and apply the law to the best of their ability, no matter where it may lead. This is why you will sometimes see supposedly conservative judges and justices seemingly issue or support decisions that give rise to liberal outcomes.

 

[ridleyman]

I’m not so sure it’s that black and white upon reflection. The term “the people” appears more than once in The Bill of Rights. SCOTUS themselves have said that the 2nd Amendment is not a disfavored right to be treated differently than any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights doesn’t “give” people their rights. Rather, it enshrines and codifies preexisting rights given unto us by God.

So if we apply SCOTUS logic, would illegal immigrants not be afforded 8th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments? Would they not be afforded 4th amendment protections against warrantless searches? How about the 6th amendment right to counsel? 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination?

I’m not saying either one of us is right or wrong, I just think this is something SCOTUS hasn’t tackled yet in the context of 2A and until they do, we don’t have a sure answer.

I was under the impression that a prisoner or someone committing an illegal act or someone wanted by the law for said act pretty much loses their rights, particularly if a warrant has been issued by a judge. And because this person is in the country illegally, and therefore committing a crime, they shall have their rights suspended, with the exception of those rights afforded all suspected or adjudicated criminals (the ones you listed).

 

[Dennis in MA]

an Obama appointee handed down that ruling?

It was a CRAZY narrow ruling. And convoluted. But yeah, rights are rights. 1A, 4A, 5A. Do those apply to non-citizens? I think we all know the answer to that.

Rights are rights. God given. Inalienable. Even for those Inn Aliens.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Even if Leftists could tax the wealthy and corporations into oblivion, once there’s nobody left to tax more, we’d be stuck with 10s of millions who would feel deprived of their “rights” to shelter, sustenance, health care, education, etc.

The Catch 22 is, we need low-skilled immigrant labor to do all the jobs that American won’t do (and don’t need to do in a welfare state). But we cannot afford to just up and give them a standard of living that many Americans can’t even afford. My grandparents worked unskilled labor in the mines and mills, so that my parents could work skilled labor jobs in factories and offices, so their kids (me and my 3 siblings) could get professional jobs. A shortcut from unskilled labor to middle-class lifestyle just isn’t there. Not here or in any sustainable society.

You guys need to follow the far left (socialists/communists) a little more closely. This is exactly their plan. They want to bankrupt the system so that they can eliminate capitalism and that includes all private property. They are looking for a handover of the peaceful transfer of power from the us government when it finally fails to them so that they can burn the constitution and end modern day America because they feel that documents like the constitution only favor the slave owners. Once in power all private property rights will be revoked, houses, cars, power tools, socks, you name it. I own a deed to my house but the deed itself will be worthless since the new government seized all land and property. Then the government determines who will actually live in my house. Want to see what that looks like in real life? Look at Israel. When the move the fence a half mile further into gaza, a new crop of jewish settlers claim homes that belonged to people who were forced out of their homes.

The left wing view is to eliminate the kitchen from the house. This makes more space to allow others to live in your home. There will be no stove, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc. When you want to eat you go a communal eating center where you eat whatever slop is being served that day. If it's crickets sauteed in raccoon droppings.

The commies were smart. They infiltrated every aspect of the government with the singular aim of overthrowing it. And before someone says "democrats" these are not democrats. In fact the socialists/communists hate democrats more than any republican does.

 

[Joeldiaz]

I was under the impression that a prisoner or someone committing an illegal act or someone wanted by the law for said act pretty much loses their rights, particularly if a warrant has been issued by a judge. And because this person is in the country illegally, and therefore committing a crime, they shall have their rights suspended, with the exception of those rights afforded all suspected or adjudicated criminals (the ones you listed).

If they are convicted of that crime, we can deprive them of their rights. Until then, they are innocent until proven guilty. He wasn’t being charged for his undocumented status here in this case, this was solely the gun charge.

Also, you can enter the country legally and overstay your welcome and it’s still not a crime. I’m not sure if it applies to the defendant here, but just pointing out it’s not as black and white as you’re making it out to be. https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/upl...ted_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf (PDF Warning).

 

[Joeldiaz]

I just explained that the 2A is a prohibition on the federal government.

The entirety of the constitution and the added Bill of Rights was written to protect and apply to citizens of this country, not foreign nationals here illegally.

Can we subject illegals to cruel and unusual punishment?

It would not be the norm in a civilized society anywhere to do that and trying to equate that with "guns for illegals" is a long and inapplicable stretch, but if necessity dictated it, yes, we could. Who's going to stop us?
At that point in the game, we'd be at war amongst ourselves and between ourselves and government.

We interned thousands of Japanese during WWII.....and not a word was said about it, right wrong or indifferent, it just happened.

If this government didn't have such devious ulterior motives for their current treasonous actions, we (law enforcement AND citizens) could legally round up and deport every illegal alien in the country........but given that government has turned them all loose into our midst, it will/would be a difficult job.

The real issue here is that government is acting well beyond their legal capacity in some areas and being completely derelict of their duty in others.

The entirety of this post flies in the face of the idea of natural rights. People don’t have rights because they’re citizens of a country, they have rights because they’re human beings. Citizens’ rights get special protection by, and from the government. However, the government still shouldn’t be depriving noncitizens of their rights. The only difference is that the government doesn’t owe noncitizens the same protections it does citizens.

Just because the government has the power to deny people their rights (and have already in WW2), doesn’t mean they have the authority. The Framers mostly believed in natural rights and it was a big influence on how the Bill of Rights was written.

 

[Uzi2]

The entirety of this post flies in the face of the idea of natural rights. People don’t have rights because they’re citizens of a country, they have rights because they’re human beings. Citizens’ rights get special protection by, and from the government. However, the government still shouldn’t be depriving noncitizens of their rights. The only difference is that the government doesn’t owe noncitizens the same protections it does citizens.

Just because the government has the power to deny people their rights (and have already in WW2), doesn’t mean they have the authority. The Framers mostly believed in natural rights and it was a big influence on how the Bill of Rights was written.

The framers didn't even want the Bill of Rights included in the mix. They only accepted it because they knew that without it, the people of this country (their elected reps) would never have accepted the idea of a central federal government.