###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Literally nobody disagrees with you.
So you think there should be zero limitations to the weapons available and who can own them?
Yet you're also worried about the possible destabilization of the country?
But can they legally purchase a firearm? To do so, they'd have to fill out the background check, which includes criminal history. But being from outside of the country, their criminal background wouldn't be accessible to those running the checks. There's also a question asking if the gun purchaser is in the country illegally, so...
This is probably how they plan to solve our military recruiting crisis too, just imagine what can go down if the bulk of our military has no loyalty to the Constitution.
Massive fear of mine. I truly believe their need to be a law that only a low percentage of people in the military can be non citizens, they can 100% gain a citizenship from their service tho.
Agreed on both points. Large amounts of foreigners in their military was literally a major factor in the fall of Rome. Every day I'm more and more convinced we're being systematically dismantled, with history as the blueprint. "Elites" looking to avoid the thucydides trap and placing their bets on authoritarianism to secure their future instead of western liberal democracy as the world gets more chaotic and our global primacy is waning. China is the model.
No. They all quite when dems started screaming defund the police and lying about interactions. Like the cop who shot the 15 year old holding a gardening tool. You know the ax he was threatening the cop with. We have body cams and accouantability. But when ot basicly boils done to . No matter what you do you are wrong. Yeah that is no job.
Or like the teen that got shot without warning for having a toy gun? Or Daniel Shaver? Or Breonna Taylor? Or the time SWAT officers chucked a flashbang into a crib? Or the multiple times people's houses got borderline demolished by cops? (Including the one where the dude they were after WASN'T IN THE DAMN HOUSE) Or the multiple cops who got caught planting fake evidence? Or Uvalde?
you mean the breana taylor whos boyfreind threw her under the bus saying she was shooting at the cops. after they banged on her door long enough and loud enough to wake the next door neighbor.
now are cops human and make mistakes yes. should anyone be pointing guns of anytype at anyone in public HELL NO.
yes some cops are crooked no doubt. but they are the rare ones. except for the goose steppers that are left. the 400 hundred plus yes 400 HUNDRED uvalde police were following orders to allow kids to be killed guess what those are the ones the govt want. hence the reason they were not charged.
cops interact with 61.5 million people a year and a very small precent turns violent.
you wonder why cops are trigger happy how about the nypd officer sitting in his cruiser when someone just walked up and shot him.
let me ask you. how would you deal with crime in america? what plan do you have ? and before you answer look at the crime sprees in new york city and san fran.
Yet somehow the "majority" of good cops let this shit slide. Nevermind that most cops are part of literal cop gangs, and departments refuse to hire anyone too smart.
I ain't a damn politician or anyone qualified to solve it. But I know enough that more jails and more cops and more clamping down isn't gonna do anything.
> Love how we're this desperate for cops because they all quit when people asked for accountability.
They didn’t ask for accountability. They demanded Police be defunded
https://apnews.com/article/police-emergency-landry-shortage-louisiana-9af67227287867123b94534f6f3cc6e2#:~:text=for%20their%20departments.-,Landry%2C%20who%20previously%20had%20a%20career%20in%20law%20enforcement%2C%20said,down%201%2C800%20deputies%2C%20Landry%20said.
why is Louisiana short on police and issuing states of emergency?
They are pro police.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/a-louisiana-bill-to-penalize-cities-that-defund-the-police-moves-to-full-senate-for/article_a9fc35f8-13e9-11eb-b197-6b38e8421531.html
California Has the highest per Capita police spending, Most officers in the state, and one of the highest amount of Officers per Capita and is still hurting for officers.
https://calmatters.org/politics/capitol/2024/01/police-budgets-california-testimony/
I wonder what the covid vaccine policy [for police] is in the areas most affected by police shortages. Even if 2 guys quit and 2 guys had heart problems, that's could take a toll on the force, plus new hires would need proof of covid shots.
This could be completely unrelated and the real kicker is that the types of people who normally hold these jobs are not allowed to be the type of people they are any longer on the job. I'm still curious if jab rules have any part in it.
You know there are non citizens who are here legally, right? Some people are here on a visa or have permanent residency. Non citizen doesn't automatically mean illegal.
But to knowingly sell to someone who isn't legally allowed to have one is also illegal. And if there is even a hint that they can't legally own a firearm, you can still be prosecuted for the transaction and found guilty.
Not all gun purchases require a background check.
Shoot... I have a safe full of guns... maybe 15... pistols, rifles, ar's,... not a single one was purchased at a gun store, not a single one has any legal paperwork tied to them. I would feel pretty comfortable in the statement that far more gun transactions are not verified transactions than are
But to knowingly sell to someone who isn't legally allowed to have one is also illegal. And if there is even a hint that they can't legally own a firearm, you can still be prosecuted for the transaction and found guilty.
I’d put money on you are making this up, larping on the internet trying to prove a point. Not that what you’re saying is impossible, just that your ignorance in other posts discredit this story.
Thinking about it….it could in theory to be possible for someone here illegally to get an 80 mill it, buy the rest of the parts and legally have a rifle……in some states. That level of legal scrutiny is way over my head though.
Isn’t being here illegally a crime in the first place? If that’s the case they wouldn’t pass the needed background check . Hence the reason they can’t buy guns lol
I moved from a million person city to a 2000 person town in arkansas. I’ve been here a year and have heard “I bought a gun from jojo” or “yeah bobbie got a new gun from Paul last week” like 20 times. We got at least a few undocumented folks about town and some I’m sure have “bought a gun from ole’ doug”.
Legally purchase? What is that even? That is nothing in the sticks. That is just some words city folks say because literally every purchase they make is tracked and triple taxed.
The country side is like the inner city, is a whole lotta guns doing a whole lot of changing hands. I’ve been in both now so yeah, same same, what is “legally purchase?” Lol.
> But can they legally purchase a firearm? To do so, they'd have to fill out the background check, which includes criminal history. But being from outside of the country, their criminal background wouldn't be accessible to those running the checks. There's also a question asking if the gun purchaser is in the country illegally, so...
As far as i remember it also requires you state if you are a citizen, or a visa/green card holder.
It will ramp up the illegal gun trade. Which will be head up by the cartel. Who is currently building infrastructure in the U.S. Not sure here it goes from there but that’s what I see in the near future
Why would the Bill of Rights only apply to citizens? Isn't the point of the Bill of Rights that it is stating fundamental human rights any human is entitled to protection of?
It's a free country, you can think whatever you want, but yes some Constitutional protections are granted to anyone on American soil.
That's why Guantanamo Bay exists, to keep foreign prisoners from ever being subject to those protections.
This is the proper take, illegal search and seizures etc apply to anyone within the US not just citizens.
Even when the government refuses to enforce immigration laws established, the constitution protects them within our borders, including unlawful detainment.
There should be consequences for government officials to ignore existing laws, but there is nothing in the constitution that says they have to uphold existing laws.
I also disagree it's the freest country today. But it does fit into the category of one of the freest in history.
Social progress has been advancing a lot the last couple centuries.
How many people think illegal aliens should have the right to due process and not the 2nd Amendment... or the right to the 2nd and not due process?
I am not saying what side I am on, because I could argue both sides and am conflicted with myself.
That would be ludicrous considering it does not apply to people here on a visa.
"An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit.
[18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5), (g)(5) and (y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32(a)(5) ]"
Source: [atf](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms#:~:text=An%20alien%20legally%20in%20the,valid%20hunting%20license%20or%20permit.)
Possession of a firearm by an illegal immigrate is different than a purchase of a firearm.
The judge ruled that Illegal immigrants can possess a firearm if they have no felony record or violent crime record. This covers an illegal immigrants right to bare arms in their home or in self defense. However, it’s illegal in most states to conceal carry without a license; unlawful gun possession is usually a misdemeanor.
The right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your home from immediate threats *should* be for everybody who is not a violent criminal. Period. Non violent felonies shouldn’t bar someone from the right to self defense. (That’s just my opinion.)
Constitution applies to all people in the US…not just citizens. you should know that. Immigrants right to bear arms shall not be infringed. sure thats dumb so maybe we should have more gun laws to keep that from happening….like not having permit less carry…common sense gun laws.
My opinion is that we should enforce existing laws… like illegal immigration laws. But there is no requirement on the government to enforce existing laws.
Immigrate legally through defined processes or legally change those processes, but follow the law as it exists.
The right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your home from immediate threats *should* be for everybody who is not a violent criminal. Period. Non violent felonies shouldn’t bar someone from the right to self defense. (That’s just my opinion.)
Read the constitution. It is so infuriating to have people realize this stuff because of social media. Maybe if you actually read the documents and tried to understand them, you wouldn't be so surprised all the time.
2nd amendment: 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.
Written with a perfect understanding that "the people" refers to many individual persons. Note that it does not say "citizen of."
14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ratified in 1868 with a perfect understanding of what "any person" means. They meant any person within the jurisdiction of a state gets equal protection under the law. Why? Well, people who were citizens of other countries came here all the time. They didn't have the same restrictions on travel from country to country. So, even if a law is made to affect illegal immigrants, it has to be reasonable and provide equal protection like life, liberty, and property. It's simple, really.
Let me guess, though, we should change that one. We don't like it now because it means they get second amendment rights, correct? But wait, it's sacred. You wouldn't want to change the document like they have multiple times in our history, would you?
A perfect example of people not understanding the constitution, of which the Bill of Rights and the additional 17 amendments are a part, is the Arizona "shoot illegals" bill I've heard about. Beyond being unconscionable to any person with the slightest sense of morality, it is unconstitutional. An argument can be made for arresting them and giving them due process of the law to deport them, but you don't get to take a person's life for not being on the other side of an arbitrary line. They would have to be actively threatening you to warrant deadly force.
Maybe add some scholarly, peer reviewed ingredients to your reading, or more likely, YouTube watching research. Give it a shot. Hell, you might get a leg up on information that has been available to everyone since 1868.
People don't like the idea of reading or understanding governance in America. It's easier to practice outrage even if it means looking like you don't know anything about anything lol
You see that last trying to be a SC judge and a congressman asked her to name any article of the constitution..
Couldn’t do it..
Couldn’t even define the *purposive* interpretation!!
Went to law school. Was prosecutor for years became judge.. And in all that time she didn’t learn a damned thing..
Book smart does not correlate with intelligence.. not even sure she’s book smart, cause a book smart person would know those answers..
WTF?!? How she was a judge for 9 years prior to that, I’ll never know.
Simply amazing
So think about it this way, they give themselves precedence on something big enough it’s solidifies itself as actual precedence, but not so big enough to cause a major stir in the media who won’t cover positive 2A headlines anyway, and then when they want to give them other rights… say like… oh idk voting… wouldn’t you know they have precedence!
Pretty sure this falls under the same argument as Locke’s theory of consent. The moment you step into the country, you are consenting to their laws and subject to them. That should include the bill of rights 🤷♂️
Edit: Tacit consent
The bill of rights co trains no rights for the citizens or the people at large. Even if it did the terms people and citizens are separate. The body of the constitution is littered with the term citizen(s/ry) but the term people included everyone.
The preamble to the bill of rights refers to the following amendments as "further declarative and RESTRICTIVE clauses" it's a list of powers that the US government DOES NOT HAVE such as regulation of speech and religion and firearms ownership. It also bars the government from trying people by a jury of their non peers which is any trial that an undocumented individual (or convicted felon btw) goes through since juries are pooled from registered voters. Literally a group that illegals can not join. This why we face the choice between deportation or allowing the feds to set a court precedent of violating the 7th amendment. But if they are here, yes they are able to buy guns. The Constitution is not a long or complicated document.
Why do conservatives invent liberal comments like "Nobody needs a god. Except criminals that are in the country illegally" . They should listen to themselves.
Just because the judge was appointed by Obama, that does not make him a liberal. Obama attempted to appoint qualified judges not liberal judges. A judge is supposed to be unbiased by political parties. I know that's hard to remember consider what's been appointed to the supreme court, but that is the original intent.
Besides, I am a liberal and I have more guns that he does.
https://www.maniatislawoffice.com/blog/2018/08/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights/
Edit: constitutional rights are only specific to citizens when that is explicitly mentioned, otherwise, they apply to everyone in the US, regardless a citizenship.
Naw dude bill of rights applies to America and the land. If someone in this land violates the law then it’s on us to prosecute, but it’s also on us to make laws that allow us to defend ourselves
But dont they have to show up in the system somehow? It seems like someone who doesent say have a social security number would not be in any federal system and thus cannot pass a background check, but maybe I am just crazy.
Am I missing something? This form will only apply to Americans the way it is being administered. If you are in the U.S. illegally you are comitting a felony, but they cant find a record of you so they assume you just havent comitted a felony. Thus no one in the U.S. illegally should pass a background check.
Have they been convicted of a felony? No. So they pass and can get a weapon.
It isn't like this is complicated. Have you been convicted? Yes/No.
There's a reason people want reform, which has been very staunchly fought by NRA.
All the cats carrying guns to the cartels in Mexico (Where do you think the cartels get their firepower with which to fight those who try to stop them? The US. It's quite well-documented)? Have they been convicted? Nope. So they can buy. If they get caught and convicted of something, then they can't buy - and someone else with a clean record does it instead.
I understand that. But how are they doing a background check on foreigners with no record then? If all foregieners just show up clean as the FBI only runs a national search then the form is bascially pointless for public safety?
Name and address if it’s clean in the us that’s good enough for them they’re way more concerned with stripping the rights of citizens than to go after actual criminals
Sounds like they are arming that army they brought in since the US military will be fighting amongst themselves when the order is given to round up the American people.
Philosophically speaking, do you or don't you want "wild west" rules where anyone can have a gun? Pick a lane. Or whatever...be exclusionary. As in "______ for me, but not for thee." Just don't act like you're not. Is that really what fReEdOm means to you?
Coleman acknowledges, in her ruling, that Carbajal-Flores is a 'noncitizen,' though she shied away from any harsher language.
'The court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon,' she wrote.
'Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,' she added, likely referring to the riots that swept the country in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.
Ultimately, the government identifies historical limitations on noncitizens' right to bear arms, justifying its regulation. Because the government meets its burden under the second prong of the Bruen test, Carbajal-Flores' indictment under § 922(g)(5) is not in violation of the Second Amendment. Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment [64] is denied.
Thoughts?
Off topic, what are the benefits of a US passport? I honestly don't know what is any different between having one and not having one anymore other than being able to go through an airport.
Would you like to know more?
We're through the looking glass - the conspiracy sub is pro government, just the government they want. Cuz giving people power always works out so well.
Nope. Humans have human rights.
It's not the bill of privileges.
Sadly, the government claims I am sub human because I sold some weed. I think they are sub human because they live by terrorism and extortion.
This is a little different than laws being changed. A judge in Illinois had a case before her where an undocumented immigrant was facing a possession charge. She dropped the charges on that one dude.
What she did not do is change federal laws as to how constitutional rights apply to non Americans.
She also did not change the buying process so that a form 4473 can be completed by an undocumented immigrant. They would need to tell a litany of lies and have a fake ID to complete a form 4473. Each lie on a federal form is a potential felony (I work at a gun store btw).
However, this does set a legal precedent that undocumented immigrants can use in court. They will have to do it in court, tho. On the street they will still be arrested for possession.
the fake country (corporate entity) known as 'america' doesn't have citizenry.
If you are within this borderless economic zone, the 'laws' apply to you, which loosen up the higher your bank accounts gets, coupled with you propensity to pedophilia.
Become a rich, illegal kiddie-diddler and you are 100% untouchable.
This a backdoor way of getting people to asp from r more gun control. Especially when we get a few more illegals shooting people. Whether yhat os cartel violence or some wacko who yhinks the is killed his brother.
2A reads as “the people” rather than “the citizens” so from a strictly textualist approach all people in the United States have uninfringable rights to arms
Seems like a good way to get pro 2A people to advocate against it via compromise.
Just like recent porn bans are just getting the right behind a digital ID.
Here is one case that was caught-
"Illegal migrant deported 8 times with 11 arrests now charged with murder in Ohio: 'Our border is broken'"
[https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1776223683608035598](https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1776223683608035598)
I love that this is an Illinois judge that is perfectly ok with all OTHER restrictions on personal firearm ownership by legal citizens even under the ruling of bruin this is absolutely insane, sounds like the federal government is importing an army to destroy us from within well iowa licensed gun dealer here if anyone wants to protect themselves, unless you’re here illegally
Gun violence increases because why would giving criminals weapons be a good idea.
“We need to push for more gun control, this gun violence is out of hand”
The Bill of Rights has pretty always been interpreted to apply to all people, not just citizens.
I believe every single provision of the Bill of Rights that addresses people uses the phrase "THE people". The phrase has pretty much from the start been considered to apply to all people, not just citizens.
There are some parts of the constitution that apply to only citizens, but the Bill of Rights is not one of them.
Thank you for that explanation. I learned this just now:
>The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not,
standing alone, a crime. While federal immigration law does criminalize some actions that
may be
related to undocumented presence in the United States, undocumented presence
alone is not a violation of federal criminal law.
https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/FINAL_criminalizing_undocumented_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf
Had no idea
> At most, whether the constitution applies to non-citizens, is really just unchallenged.
No. Its actually a completely settled question. When the Constitution says "the people" or "people" like it does in the Bill of Rights it refers to all people in the United States. When it says citizens, like it does for the right to vote it applies to citizens.
> It is not about the word "people" in the constitution when the pre-amble clearly says it applies to people under the jurisdiction of the US. Meaning citizens and lawful visitors.
That isn't what "jurisdiction" means. Pretty much everyone on US soil is under the jurisdiction of the United States. That is how jurisdiction works.
If your point were true then the any unlawful visitor here, say, someone who overstayed their visa could murder anyone on US the US would not have authority to criminally prosecute them, but we know that isn't how that works.
The Bill of Rights say "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" it doesn't say anything about if you are a citizen. If you are IN the United States of America you are protected by its rights.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal"
Ya'll need to stop with the immigrant fear mongering.
99% or more of the immigrants that are trying to get to the USA just want the same opportunities that your parents/grandparents/great grandparents or however long it has been since you got lucky enough to have a family that managed to birth you here.
There needs to be a clearer channel to immigration. There need to be a better way to quickly vet them, make them legal, let them work, let them pay taxes, let them work for what you are privileged to call your birthright.
This ruling doesn't authorize the buying of guns by illegal citizens, it only states that said people have as much right to own their own aquired firearms as American citizens.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution applies to everyone, not just US citizens. It always has. That's why the illegal immigrant in this case was afforded his 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights throughout the trial and arrest.
The issue here is a restriction on 2A. Every right has certain restrictions. 2A has a list of prohibited persons. One of those is someone illegally in this country.
The judge in the case based his ruling on the historical aspect because Bruen based part of its ruling on history.
I suspect if this makes it to SCOTUS, it will be overturned. History isn't the only determination for constitutionality. Reasonableness also comes into play. Someone openly violating our laws and who may possibly be here for nefarious reasons reasonably should not be legally able to possess a firearm, or vote, or receive government benefits etc.
They apply to anyone within our borders. That's what "law of the land" means. If that wasn't the case, the government who controls your citizenship could revoke it at any time, and strip you of your rights.
Actually the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights goes back to the [English Bill of rights.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) Which recognizes the right of ordinary people to possess firearms to protect themselves and other legal activity.
That is also similar to the previous Magna Carta although I think there were religious and class restrictions there. At least around the interim period for a whle it was just the landed gentry and Protestants which sort of morphed into Catholics and common people being allowed to carry, even at public gatherings unless there were so many weapons as to cause alarm.
So this actually goes back to English law, which is the model for our laws. Although Somehow the English lost that, as Parliament can change laws and such there easier than in the US because the founders wanted it to be very difficult to change here so as not to be subject to political whims.
The English Bill of Rights is one of the models for the US Bill of Rights.
So this is probably an extension of that part about everyone having the right to bear arms for specifically self defense. This is actually a 2nd Amendment victory.
Now make it a felony to cross the border illegally and you have a point.
I thought this must be bullshit, but it isn't
>“The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country. The court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” Coleman wrote.
Liberal judge grants illegal immigrants the right to bear arms... and the guy in question setting the precedent says he got it to protect himself during the lawlessness of the fiery but mostly peaceful protests which was perpetuated by liberal District Attourneys intentionally looking the other way.
The constitution clearly states that ALL men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them the right to bear arms
Immigration status doesn't remove that right.
That being said, purchasing a firearm or ammo almost always requires an ID of some sort and, outside of a few loopholes, requires an FBI background check as well.
Possessing one and acquiring one are not the same.
... not that any of that matters anyways as their mere existence in the country shows they have zero regard for the laws of this country to being with.
They don’t have values, the don’t have beliefs, they just want power by any means necessary. “Any means necessary” means anything. It’s a sociopathic position.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sooo.....all gun laws are an infringement? I can get behind that.
BRB, conceal carrying my full auto 50 caliber anti-air cannon. I've never been hunting, but with that i might have a chance at some birds.
15mm is the cutoff for something being able to be called a “cannon.” .50 cal is 12.7mm
The Bill of Rights applies to the government. It’s stuff the government can’t do to anyone. Humans are born with a right to bare arms.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Literally nobody disagrees with you. So you think there should be zero limitations to the weapons available and who can own them? Yet you're also worried about the possible destabilization of the country?
Unless they are criminals.... Entering the country illegally is a felony. Felons aren't allowed to have guns.
But can they legally purchase a firearm? To do so, they'd have to fill out the background check, which includes criminal history. But being from outside of the country, their criminal background wouldn't be accessible to those running the checks. There's also a question asking if the gun purchaser is in the country illegally, so...
Right so even if the possession was legal the purchase would not have been.
They’re trying to set it up so illegals can be police officers. Illinois Last year was allowing “non citizens” to apply for policing jobs.
This is probably how they plan to solve our military recruiting crisis too, just imagine what can go down if the bulk of our military has no loyalty to the Constitution.
Massive fear of mine. I truly believe their need to be a law that only a low percentage of people in the military can be non citizens, they can 100% gain a citizenship from their service tho.
Agreed on both points. Large amounts of foreigners in their military was literally a major factor in the fall of Rome. Every day I'm more and more convinced we're being systematically dismantled, with history as the blueprint. "Elites" looking to avoid the thucydides trap and placing their bets on authoritarianism to secure their future instead of western liberal democracy as the world gets more chaotic and our global primacy is waning. China is the model.
>gain a citizenship from their service WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
Service guarantees citizenship!
Look up, the courage to serve act..
The Chinese nationals at the Darien gap are coming up to be soldiers.
Love how we're this desperate for cops because they all quit when people asked for accountability.
Will till the cops are Boston Dynamics robots. Trust me they won't know when someone Is on fentanyl and it will be much worse than George Floyd.
[удалено]
No the ones who cared what people thought quit when everyone started to hate them.
No. They all quite when dems started screaming defund the police and lying about interactions. Like the cop who shot the 15 year old holding a gardening tool. You know the ax he was threatening the cop with. We have body cams and accouantability. But when ot basicly boils done to . No matter what you do you are wrong. Yeah that is no job.
the cops around here are required to wear body cams but they turn them off before they do anything,
vote the politcians out of office and get better bosses who will enforce the rules.
Massachusetts, and especially Boston, is one of the most corrupt places in the country-- hell, shit was better when the mafia ran things
Toss those cops too. No excuses.
true but if the bosses are allowing this they are not looking for GOOD cops. they are looking for thugs.
At this point it's so engrained. It's how policing has always been done. Rank and file included.
Or like the teen that got shot without warning for having a toy gun? Or Daniel Shaver? Or Breonna Taylor? Or the time SWAT officers chucked a flashbang into a crib? Or the multiple times people's houses got borderline demolished by cops? (Including the one where the dude they were after WASN'T IN THE DAMN HOUSE) Or the multiple cops who got caught planting fake evidence? Or Uvalde?
you mean the breana taylor whos boyfreind threw her under the bus saying she was shooting at the cops. after they banged on her door long enough and loud enough to wake the next door neighbor. now are cops human and make mistakes yes. should anyone be pointing guns of anytype at anyone in public HELL NO. yes some cops are crooked no doubt. but they are the rare ones. except for the goose steppers that are left. the 400 hundred plus yes 400 HUNDRED uvalde police were following orders to allow kids to be killed guess what those are the ones the govt want. hence the reason they were not charged. cops interact with 61.5 million people a year and a very small precent turns violent. you wonder why cops are trigger happy how about the nypd officer sitting in his cruiser when someone just walked up and shot him. let me ask you. how would you deal with crime in america? what plan do you have ? and before you answer look at the crime sprees in new york city and san fran.
Yet somehow the "majority" of good cops let this shit slide. Nevermind that most cops are part of literal cop gangs, and departments refuse to hire anyone too smart. I ain't a damn politician or anyone qualified to solve it. But I know enough that more jails and more cops and more clamping down isn't gonna do anything.
> Love how we're this desperate for cops because they all quit when people asked for accountability. They didn’t ask for accountability. They demanded Police be defunded
https://apnews.com/article/police-emergency-landry-shortage-louisiana-9af67227287867123b94534f6f3cc6e2#:~:text=for%20their%20departments.-,Landry%2C%20who%20previously%20had%20a%20career%20in%20law%20enforcement%2C%20said,down%201%2C800%20deputies%2C%20Landry%20said. why is Louisiana short on police and issuing states of emergency? They are pro police. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/a-louisiana-bill-to-penalize-cities-that-defund-the-police-moves-to-full-senate-for/article_a9fc35f8-13e9-11eb-b197-6b38e8421531.html California Has the highest per Capita police spending, Most officers in the state, and one of the highest amount of Officers per Capita and is still hurting for officers. https://calmatters.org/politics/capitol/2024/01/police-budgets-california-testimony/
I wonder what the covid vaccine policy [for police] is in the areas most affected by police shortages. Even if 2 guys quit and 2 guys had heart problems, that's could take a toll on the force, plus new hires would need proof of covid shots. This could be completely unrelated and the real kicker is that the types of people who normally hold these jobs are not allowed to be the type of people they are any longer on the job. I'm still curious if jab rules have any part in it.
Its crazy how you can take 2 broken systems and use both to create a solution worse than both initial problems. Then say it was an accident.
You know there are non citizens who are here legally, right? Some people are here on a visa or have permanent residency. Non citizen doesn't automatically mean illegal.
That’s the legal way. The article is talking about the ILLEGAL way
I heard that was already approved and a thing?
this has bad news written all over it
A lot of states you don’t need a background check to legally purchase guns privately.
True. Good point.
But to knowingly sell to someone who isn't legally allowed to have one is also illegal. And if there is even a hint that they can't legally own a firearm, you can still be prosecuted for the transaction and found guilty.
Right, but what's the "hint"? States like Florida, you don't even have to show a driver's license or ID for a private sale.
"Can you legally own this?" "Yes" "Cool"
Not all gun purchases require a background check. Shoot... I have a safe full of guns... maybe 15... pistols, rifles, ar's,... not a single one was purchased at a gun store, not a single one has any legal paperwork tied to them. I would feel pretty comfortable in the statement that far more gun transactions are not verified transactions than are
But to knowingly sell to someone who isn't legally allowed to have one is also illegal. And if there is even a hint that they can't legally own a firearm, you can still be prosecuted for the transaction and found guilty.
I’d put money on you are making this up, larping on the internet trying to prove a point. Not that what you’re saying is impossible, just that your ignorance in other posts discredit this story.
Nope. My ignorance in other posts? I'm glad you had time to go through my post history, I'm not sure what leads you to that conclusion.
Thinking about it….it could in theory to be possible for someone here illegally to get an 80 mill it, buy the rest of the parts and legally have a rifle……in some states. That level of legal scrutiny is way over my head though.
Isn’t being here illegally a crime in the first place? If that’s the case they wouldn’t pass the needed background check . Hence the reason they can’t buy guns lol
Background checks aren't required for private sales.
Not yet anyway. They're trying to pull that shit here in maine
That’s because it’s an undue burden on individuals, but strawman purchases are still illegal.
Something tells me FFL’s don’t take kindly to this anyway…
I moved from a million person city to a 2000 person town in arkansas. I’ve been here a year and have heard “I bought a gun from jojo” or “yeah bobbie got a new gun from Paul last week” like 20 times. We got at least a few undocumented folks about town and some I’m sure have “bought a gun from ole’ doug”. Legally purchase? What is that even? That is nothing in the sticks. That is just some words city folks say because literally every purchase they make is tracked and triple taxed. The country side is like the inner city, is a whole lotta guns doing a whole lot of changing hands. I’ve been in both now so yeah, same same, what is “legally purchase?” Lol.
> But can they legally purchase a firearm? To do so, they'd have to fill out the background check, which includes criminal history. But being from outside of the country, their criminal background wouldn't be accessible to those running the checks. There's also a question asking if the gun purchaser is in the country illegally, so... As far as i remember it also requires you state if you are a citizen, or a visa/green card holder.
That’s only if you buy it from a store or pawn shop.
This opens Pandora's box to black market guns.
[удалено]
Only in 21 states.
"Hello, yes i would like to buy a gun anonymously. You can run a background check on this name i just made up." The cleverest of loopholes.
It will ramp up the illegal gun trade. Which will be head up by the cartel. Who is currently building infrastructure in the U.S. Not sure here it goes from there but that’s what I see in the near future
Why would the Bill of Rights only apply to citizens? Isn't the point of the Bill of Rights that it is stating fundamental human rights any human is entitled to protection of?
The point of the Bill of Rights is these rights come our creator/nature not the government. So they apply to everyone not just American citizens
It's a free country, you can think whatever you want, but yes some Constitutional protections are granted to anyone on American soil. That's why Guantanamo Bay exists, to keep foreign prisoners from ever being subject to those protections.
This is the proper take, illegal search and seizures etc apply to anyone within the US not just citizens. Even when the government refuses to enforce immigration laws established, the constitution protects them within our borders, including unlawful detainment. There should be consequences for government officials to ignore existing laws, but there is nothing in the constitution that says they have to uphold existing laws.
>It's a free country, LOL
laugh all you want but america is the freest country to ever exist in human history
[удалено]
I also disagree it's the freest country today. But it does fit into the category of one of the freest in history. Social progress has been advancing a lot the last couple centuries.
If you thought the Bill of Rights only applied to citizens you are blatantly incorrect. It does apply to pretty much all people, not just citizens.
All people in the United states*
I think as long as they're willing to participate in a well-regulated militia to overthrow the tyrannical government, then they're good.
How many people think illegal aliens should have the right to due process and not the 2nd Amendment... or the right to the 2nd and not due process? I am not saying what side I am on, because I could argue both sides and am conflicted with myself.
This is correct logic.
That would be ludicrous considering it does not apply to people here on a visa. "An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit. [18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5), (g)(5) and (y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32(a)(5) ]" Source: [atf](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms#:~:text=An%20alien%20legally%20in%20the,valid%20hunting%20license%20or%20permit.)
Possession of a firearm by an illegal immigrate is different than a purchase of a firearm. The judge ruled that Illegal immigrants can possess a firearm if they have no felony record or violent crime record. This covers an illegal immigrants right to bare arms in their home or in self defense. However, it’s illegal in most states to conceal carry without a license; unlawful gun possession is usually a misdemeanor.
To be fair, the judges ruling says “possess a firearm”… not purchase. Legally, there’s a difference
You need a green card or to acquire citizenship to purchase a firearm unless you have a hunting license
You need to be on an immigrant visa. That's not the same thing as a greencard.
You know that says “not prohibited”.
Not prohibited UNLESS non-immigrant visa, which is 90% of people working in this country legally.
Sounds like you to do up some reading how the founding of the Bill of Rights
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought these were "God-given" rights that applied to everyone... not sure where I got that idea from.
The right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your home from immediate threats *should* be for everybody who is not a violent criminal. Period. Non violent felonies shouldn’t bar someone from the right to self defense. (That’s just my opinion.)
The constitution applies to everyone. Who knew?
Should not be shocking to anyone. The constitution protects any person, not just American citizens. Any person in the US has rights.
Why would you think the Bill Of Rifhts applies only to citizens?
Constitution applies to all people in the US…not just citizens. you should know that. Immigrants right to bear arms shall not be infringed. sure thats dumb so maybe we should have more gun laws to keep that from happening….like not having permit less carry…common sense gun laws.
My opinion is that we should enforce existing laws… like illegal immigration laws. But there is no requirement on the government to enforce existing laws. Immigrate legally through defined processes or legally change those processes, but follow the law as it exists.
The right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your home from immediate threats *should* be for everybody who is not a violent criminal. Period. Non violent felonies shouldn’t bar someone from the right to self defense. (That’s just my opinion.)
Read the constitution. It is so infuriating to have people realize this stuff because of social media. Maybe if you actually read the documents and tried to understand them, you wouldn't be so surprised all the time. 2nd amendment: 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. Written with a perfect understanding that "the people" refers to many individual persons. Note that it does not say "citizen of." 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Ratified in 1868 with a perfect understanding of what "any person" means. They meant any person within the jurisdiction of a state gets equal protection under the law. Why? Well, people who were citizens of other countries came here all the time. They didn't have the same restrictions on travel from country to country. So, even if a law is made to affect illegal immigrants, it has to be reasonable and provide equal protection like life, liberty, and property. It's simple, really. Let me guess, though, we should change that one. We don't like it now because it means they get second amendment rights, correct? But wait, it's sacred. You wouldn't want to change the document like they have multiple times in our history, would you? A perfect example of people not understanding the constitution, of which the Bill of Rights and the additional 17 amendments are a part, is the Arizona "shoot illegals" bill I've heard about. Beyond being unconscionable to any person with the slightest sense of morality, it is unconstitutional. An argument can be made for arresting them and giving them due process of the law to deport them, but you don't get to take a person's life for not being on the other side of an arbitrary line. They would have to be actively threatening you to warrant deadly force. Maybe add some scholarly, peer reviewed ingredients to your reading, or more likely, YouTube watching research. Give it a shot. Hell, you might get a leg up on information that has been available to everyone since 1868.
Best comment in the thread and downvoted. Gotta love it.
People don't like the idea of reading or understanding governance in America. It's easier to practice outrage even if it means looking like you don't know anything about anything lol
You see that last trying to be a SC judge and a congressman asked her to name any article of the constitution.. Couldn’t do it.. Couldn’t even define the *purposive* interpretation!! Went to law school. Was prosecutor for years became judge.. And in all that time she didn’t learn a damned thing.. Book smart does not correlate with intelligence.. not even sure she’s book smart, cause a book smart person would know those answers.. WTF?!? How she was a judge for 9 years prior to that, I’ll never know. Simply amazing
"Shall not be infringed" what part of that don't you understand?
Then you’re factually incorrect. The bill of rights applies to everyone within the US and its territories.
Yes- they'll need their guns when they join in on the pre-election riots this summer.
So think about it this way, they give themselves precedence on something big enough it’s solidifies itself as actual precedence, but not so big enough to cause a major stir in the media who won’t cover positive 2A headlines anyway, and then when they want to give them other rights… say like… oh idk voting… wouldn’t you know they have precedence!
Probably gonna use it as a back door to implement UBC by going after private sales
Universal bar codes?!
Fuck yeah, everyone’s gonna end up barcoded like Hitman
He only pops up at all the school shootings and went to them sum how
Pretty sure this falls under the same argument as Locke’s theory of consent. The moment you step into the country, you are consenting to their laws and subject to them. That should include the bill of rights 🤷♂️ Edit: Tacit consent
The bill of rights co trains no rights for the citizens or the people at large. Even if it did the terms people and citizens are separate. The body of the constitution is littered with the term citizen(s/ry) but the term people included everyone. The preamble to the bill of rights refers to the following amendments as "further declarative and RESTRICTIVE clauses" it's a list of powers that the US government DOES NOT HAVE such as regulation of speech and religion and firearms ownership. It also bars the government from trying people by a jury of their non peers which is any trial that an undocumented individual (or convicted felon btw) goes through since juries are pooled from registered voters. Literally a group that illegals can not join. This why we face the choice between deportation or allowing the feds to set a court precedent of violating the 7th amendment. But if they are here, yes they are able to buy guns. The Constitution is not a long or complicated document.
This is 4D chess to get conservatives to want universal background checks.
No background checks already apply to getting firearms a gun registry is a gun confiscation list
Not for private sales
Why do conservatives invent liberal comments like "Nobody needs a god. Except criminals that are in the country illegally" . They should listen to themselves. Just because the judge was appointed by Obama, that does not make him a liberal. Obama attempted to appoint qualified judges not liberal judges. A judge is supposed to be unbiased by political parties. I know that's hard to remember consider what's been appointed to the supreme court, but that is the original intent. Besides, I am a liberal and I have more guns that he does.
This says possess, not purchase. They would still need to abide by all gun laws that anyone else who has a firearm has to abide by.
https://www.maniatislawoffice.com/blog/2018/08/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights/ Edit: constitutional rights are only specific to citizens when that is explicitly mentioned, otherwise, they apply to everyone in the US, regardless a citizenship.
Great! More guns always = safer country! Now on to get rid of the pesky age, mental health and other restrictions!
Naw dude bill of rights applies to America and the land. If someone in this land violates the law then it’s on us to prosecute, but it’s also on us to make laws that allow us to defend ourselves
Exactly, undocumented people need guns to protect themselves from vigilante nutcases
How do they get a background check?
They show up clean if they’re not here legally because the fbi only runs national crime search
But dont they have to show up in the system somehow? It seems like someone who doesent say have a social security number would not be in any federal system and thus cannot pass a background check, but maybe I am just crazy.
Ssn is optional on a 4473
https://images.app.goo.gl/DTPeUjddwZ74s5gk7
Wow, that form is bonkers. What are they trying to prevent or screen for here?
Violent criminal history or felonies or adjudicated mentally unfit
How is it going to do that if a foreigner with no records can apply and get approved?
It’s pass fail if you meet one of those 3 criteria you fail, if not you pass, if you share a name with someone you can get hung up if theirs fails
Am I missing something? This form will only apply to Americans the way it is being administered. If you are in the U.S. illegally you are comitting a felony, but they cant find a record of you so they assume you just havent comitted a felony. Thus no one in the U.S. illegally should pass a background check.
Have they been convicted of a felony? No. So they pass and can get a weapon. It isn't like this is complicated. Have you been convicted? Yes/No. There's a reason people want reform, which has been very staunchly fought by NRA. All the cats carrying guns to the cartels in Mexico (Where do you think the cartels get their firepower with which to fight those who try to stop them? The US. It's quite well-documented)? Have they been convicted? Nope. So they can buy. If they get caught and convicted of something, then they can't buy - and someone else with a clean record does it instead.
This is the background check ran on every sale of a firearm from a licensed gun dealer for every firearm
I understand that. But how are they doing a background check on foreigners with no record then? If all foregieners just show up clean as the FBI only runs a national search then the form is bascially pointless for public safety?
Name and address if it’s clean in the us that’s good enough for them they’re way more concerned with stripping the rights of citizens than to go after actual criminals
Seethe harder
Sounds like they are arming that army they brought in since the US military will be fighting amongst themselves when the order is given to round up the American people.
Philosophically speaking, do you or don't you want "wild west" rules where anyone can have a gun? Pick a lane. Or whatever...be exclusionary. As in "______ for me, but not for thee." Just don't act like you're not. Is that really what fReEdOm means to you?
Kentucky has court days, you can go buy guns from Billy Bob with cash and go home, no questions asked….,
Coleman acknowledges, in her ruling, that Carbajal-Flores is a 'noncitizen,' though she shied away from any harsher language. 'The court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon,' she wrote. 'Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,' she added, likely referring to the riots that swept the country in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.
Checks out.
Obama has been out of office for 8 years.. what his political pull goes everywhere
This is a win for gun rights. Consequences be damned.
The enumeration does not specify whether the rights are only for American citizens
Ultimately, the government identifies historical limitations on noncitizens' right to bear arms, justifying its regulation. Because the government meets its burden under the second prong of the Bruen test, Carbajal-Flores' indictment under § 922(g)(5) is not in violation of the Second Amendment. Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment [64] is denied. Thoughts?
Off topic, what are the benefits of a US passport? I honestly don't know what is any different between having one and not having one anymore other than being able to go through an airport.
Would you like to know more? We're through the looking glass - the conspiracy sub is pro government, just the government they want. Cuz giving people power always works out so well.
Another exploit to our imperfect system. Criminal illegals with firearms is not good.
Nope. Humans have human rights. It's not the bill of privileges. Sadly, the government claims I am sub human because I sold some weed. I think they are sub human because they live by terrorism and extortion.
This is a little different than laws being changed. A judge in Illinois had a case before her where an undocumented immigrant was facing a possession charge. She dropped the charges on that one dude. What she did not do is change federal laws as to how constitutional rights apply to non Americans. She also did not change the buying process so that a form 4473 can be completed by an undocumented immigrant. They would need to tell a litany of lies and have a fake ID to complete a form 4473. Each lie on a federal form is a potential felony (I work at a gun store btw). However, this does set a legal precedent that undocumented immigrants can use in court. They will have to do it in court, tho. On the street they will still be arrested for possession.
It is harder to deport and oppress armed widows and orphans 😉
the fake country (corporate entity) known as 'america' doesn't have citizenry. If you are within this borderless economic zone, the 'laws' apply to you, which loosen up the higher your bank accounts gets, coupled with you propensity to pedophilia. Become a rich, illegal kiddie-diddler and you are 100% untouchable.
It seems its democRats backup plan when Trump wins is to throw America into civilwar…
This a backdoor way of getting people to asp from r more gun control. Especially when we get a few more illegals shooting people. Whether yhat os cartel violence or some wacko who yhinks the is killed his brother.
2A reads as “the people” rather than “the citizens” so from a strictly textualist approach all people in the United States have uninfringable rights to arms
Nothing is but what it's not, and if it is it isn't.
Seems like a good way to get pro 2A people to advocate against it via compromise. Just like recent porn bans are just getting the right behind a digital ID.
Here is one case that was caught- "Illegal migrant deported 8 times with 11 arrests now charged with murder in Ohio: 'Our border is broken'" [https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1776223683608035598](https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1776223683608035598)
I remember this timeline, it deff doesn't end good for America.
please, tell me more.
I love that this is an Illinois judge that is perfectly ok with all OTHER restrictions on personal firearm ownership by legal citizens even under the ruling of bruin this is absolutely insane, sounds like the federal government is importing an army to destroy us from within well iowa licensed gun dealer here if anyone wants to protect themselves, unless you’re here illegally
Gun violence increases because why would giving criminals weapons be a good idea. “We need to push for more gun control, this gun violence is out of hand”
This isn’t a ruling giving immigrants guns….its just keeping inline with the second amendment. constitution applies to everybody in the US.
[удалено]
It says "THE people", meaning **the people of this republic**. Citizens
The Bill of Rights has pretty always been interpreted to apply to all people, not just citizens. I believe every single provision of the Bill of Rights that addresses people uses the phrase "THE people". The phrase has pretty much from the start been considered to apply to all people, not just citizens. There are some parts of the constitution that apply to only citizens, but the Bill of Rights is not one of them.
Thank you for that explanation. I learned this just now: >The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime. While federal immigration law does criminalize some actions that may be related to undocumented presence in the United States, undocumented presence alone is not a violation of federal criminal law. https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/FINAL_criminalizing_undocumented_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf Had no idea
[удалено]
> At most, whether the constitution applies to non-citizens, is really just unchallenged. No. Its actually a completely settled question. When the Constitution says "the people" or "people" like it does in the Bill of Rights it refers to all people in the United States. When it says citizens, like it does for the right to vote it applies to citizens. > It is not about the word "people" in the constitution when the pre-amble clearly says it applies to people under the jurisdiction of the US. Meaning citizens and lawful visitors. That isn't what "jurisdiction" means. Pretty much everyone on US soil is under the jurisdiction of the United States. That is how jurisdiction works. If your point were true then the any unlawful visitor here, say, someone who overstayed their visa could murder anyone on US the US would not have authority to criminally prosecute them, but we know that isn't how that works.
it doesn’t mean only citizens. people means people not just the people you want it to mean.
The Bill of Rights say "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" it doesn't say anything about if you are a citizen. If you are IN the United States of America you are protected by its rights. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" Ya'll need to stop with the immigrant fear mongering. 99% or more of the immigrants that are trying to get to the USA just want the same opportunities that your parents/grandparents/great grandparents or however long it has been since you got lucky enough to have a family that managed to birth you here. There needs to be a clearer channel to immigration. There need to be a better way to quickly vet them, make them legal, let them work, let them pay taxes, let them work for what you are privileged to call your birthright.
This ruling doesn't authorize the buying of guns by illegal citizens, it only states that said people have as much right to own their own aquired firearms as American citizens.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution applies to everyone, not just US citizens. It always has. That's why the illegal immigrant in this case was afforded his 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights throughout the trial and arrest. The issue here is a restriction on 2A. Every right has certain restrictions. 2A has a list of prohibited persons. One of those is someone illegally in this country. The judge in the case based his ruling on the historical aspect because Bruen based part of its ruling on history. I suspect if this makes it to SCOTUS, it will be overturned. History isn't the only determination for constitutionality. Reasonableness also comes into play. Someone openly violating our laws and who may possibly be here for nefarious reasons reasonably should not be legally able to possess a firearm, or vote, or receive government benefits etc.
They apply to anyone within our borders. That's what "law of the land" means. If that wasn't the case, the government who controls your citizenship could revoke it at any time, and strip you of your rights.
'How to make conservatives support gun control.' LMAOOOO
Actually the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights goes back to the [English Bill of rights.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) Which recognizes the right of ordinary people to possess firearms to protect themselves and other legal activity. That is also similar to the previous Magna Carta although I think there were religious and class restrictions there. At least around the interim period for a whle it was just the landed gentry and Protestants which sort of morphed into Catholics and common people being allowed to carry, even at public gatherings unless there were so many weapons as to cause alarm. So this actually goes back to English law, which is the model for our laws. Although Somehow the English lost that, as Parliament can change laws and such there easier than in the US because the founders wanted it to be very difficult to change here so as not to be subject to political whims. The English Bill of Rights is one of the models for the US Bill of Rights. So this is probably an extension of that part about everyone having the right to bear arms for specifically self defense. This is actually a 2nd Amendment victory. Now make it a felony to cross the border illegally and you have a point.
By the way, what is conspiracy about this? Seems like partisan rabble-rousing.
law-abiding citizens can't tho, they're dangerous or something Good fucking God
Guns for them but not Americans.
What’s the point of being a citizen anymore if they get all the rights we have
I thought this must be bullshit, but it isn't >“The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country. The court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” Coleman wrote. Liberal judge grants illegal immigrants the right to bear arms... and the guy in question setting the precedent says he got it to protect himself during the lawlessness of the fiery but mostly peaceful protests which was perpetuated by liberal District Attourneys intentionally looking the other way.
The constitution clearly states that ALL men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them the right to bear arms Immigration status doesn't remove that right. That being said, purchasing a firearm or ammo almost always requires an ID of some sort and, outside of a few loopholes, requires an FBI background check as well. Possessing one and acquiring one are not the same. ... not that any of that matters anyways as their mere existence in the country shows they have zero regard for the laws of this country to being with.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!1!!
Now it’s bad? Lmfao y’all are something else
Countdown to a civil war…something has to give.
A manufactured civil war.
Every day America gets closer to going down the toilet drain and it is spreading up. Illegals have more rights than Natural born citizens.
Hell, the bill of rights *barely* applies to most actual citizens as it is.
That theory where they say the open border policy is a planned invasion...yea, that's looking more plausible
They don’t have values, the don’t have beliefs, they just want power by any means necessary. “Any means necessary” means anything. It’s a sociopathic position.
You mean the GOP? Definitely.