Foreign Nationals and Firearms Possession

[DarthRevan]

I am still looking for a logically consistent explanation as to how the 2A can be denied to non-citizens without also using that same logic to deny all other BOR enumerated rights (including the 3rd, 4th and 5th) to non-citizens.

I'm not sure that's possible here. You'll end up finding the ramblings of someone thinking that rights belong only to citizens and no one else.

 

[milktree]

I am still looking for a logically consistent explanation as to how the 2A can be denied to non-citizens without also using that same logic to deny all other BOR enumerated rights (including the 3rd, 4th and 5th) to non-citizens.

There isn’t an explanation. If you believe it’s ok to strip 2A rights from non citizens, you probably also believe it’s ok to strip 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights from non citizens too.

 

[Lip]

There isn’t an explanation. If you believe it’s ok to strip 2A rights from non citizens, you probably also believe it’s ok to strip 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights from non citizens too.

So if someone sneaks into your house they are entitled to it and all it offers? Does your local club restrict access to members? Your argument is asinine.

 

[meh]

Unless the right is expressed as "of the people", it applies to everyone, including visitors. The interpretation of "of the people" is "people of the United States of America". Hence, the 2A does not apply to visitors, since they are not "THE People". If you look at the 1A carefully, you will see that it contains different language for different things. THE freedom of speech applies to everyone, everywhere, regardless of whether they are currently under US jurisdiction or not. That is possible because it doesn't express that right in terms of who possesses it, rather as a restriction on what sorts of laws the government (our government) can pass that might impinge on the natural right of freedom of Speech. OTOH, it isn't immediately clear, at least at face value, that visitors have the constitutional right "peaceably to assemble and to petition the government". These functions seem to me to be plainly intended for citizens to exercise the democratic process. It does not follow that visitors cannot, of course. Not everything that people should be allowed to do is to be found is to be found in the Constitution.

 

[meh]

For example, if the 2A can be denied to someone here on a student or work visa, then the same logic would allow that person to be subject to warrantless searches as well as the requirement to quarter troops in their homes during peacetime.

As long as it is legal for a non-resident to own a home, the 3A clearly covers them, because they would be the "owner". Similarly, the 6A applies to anyone who is "accused". One takes each amendment in turn, examining what the text actually says. I'm trying to follow Scalia's philosophy here.

But the 4A is interesting, and I think the proverbial jury is still out on its breadth, particularly with respect to illegal aliens. See, for example US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. Even for citizens it depends on where you are. Still, I get the impression that the court has taken a somewhat broader view of "the people" in the 4A than in the 2A. If that is the case, the interpretation of the 4A might not be as "consistent" as you require.

 

[greencobra]

If you believe it’s ok to strip 2A rights from non citizens, you probably also believe it’s ok to strip 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights from non citizens too.

yep, but of course they still get welfare, food stamps and housing assistance. we're not total heretics after all.

 

[Lip]

yep, but of course they still get welfare, food stamps and housing assistance. we're not total heretics after all.

They shouldn't. But hey we gotta feed them all. They have rights you know.

 

[milktree]

yep, but of course they still get welfare, food stamps and housing assistance. we're not total heretics after all.

That's a red herring, it's a separate issue.

Rights are rights, regardless of whatever else is going on. You can't just dismiss someone's rights because of other unrelated factors.

 

[Portagee]

So if someone sneaks into your house they are entitled to it and all it offers? Does your local club restrict access to members? Your argument is asinine.

By law, legal permanent residents (green card holders) benefit from the same rights as US citizens (except for voting)
I waited 11 years to come to this country, been here for 26 years. (didn't sneak in)

I am, and should be able to defend myself by any means necessary (just like you can)
I also benefit from all other amendments.

I usually tell my friends that I'm more American, than most Americans that I know. (bunch of snowflakes)


I'm a business owner, started from scratch, employ a dozen Americans (no illegals, unlike some of my competitors)

And yes, the food is awesome. Come over my house, I'll cook you a nice dinner.

 

[fishgutzy]

Interesting. In Hawaii and I think Las Vegas, there are ranges that cater to mostly Japanese tourists. The I saw in Hawaii even had full auto guns.

And Chinese tourists.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Set for argument on April 23rd. Search - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[Rob Boudrie]

By law, legal permanent residents (green card holders) benefit from the same rights as US citizens (except for voting)

Believe it or not, a MA asst AG argued in federal court that green card holders do not enjoy the protections of any of the bill of rights. He lost.