2A applies to illegal aliens?

[defaultdotxbe]

Why wow? You say Lorcins, et al. should be banned because they are unsafe. Improperly maintained firearm are also unsafe, so why should they not be banned as well?

 

Let me guess, its because that law would effect you personally, as opposed to the Saturday night special laws just being someone else's problem

[GM1(SW)]

That law has zero effect on me but you seem to think that just because the business is gone that the weapons have magically disappeared... I'm just saying that the weapons are still out there. Nothing else and then you kinda get a bit crazy.. I am leaving this conversation alone good night.

[defaultdotxbe]

Why wow? You say Lorcins, et al. should be banned because they are unsafe. Improperly maintained firearm are also unsafe, so why should they not be banned as well?

 

Let me guess, its because that law would effect you personally, as opposed to the Saturday night special laws just being someone else's problem

Those are your words you are putting in my mouth. I never said the products would "magically disappear" although if they are catastrophically failing at a high rate then they will disappear eventually since no one is making any new ones.

 

My point is why is it the responsibility of the nanny state to ban one unsafe product (e.g. Lorcins) but not their responsibility to ban another, equally unsafe product (e.g. poorly maintained or damaged firearms)

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[2A4Cook]

Why wow? You say Lorcins, et al. should be banned because they are unsafe. Improperly maintained firearm are also unsafe, so why should they not be banned as well?

 

Let me guess, its because that law would effect you personally, as opposed to the Saturday night special laws just being someone else's problem

I actually have one of the pieces of trash, in .25. It is inoperable because as I stripped it in order to clean it, all of the plastic innards began tumbling out. You want it?

[Jwg43]

I have to say I'm really surprised at some of the reasoning being put forth here. If you believe the right to bear arms is a constitutional right on a par with other constitutional rights, then that right applies to everyone present in this country, just as the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments likewise apply. I don't believe anyone is saying that illegal immigrants don't have the right to free speech, a right against unreasonable searches or the right to remain silent based upon their immigration status. You can't hold that the right "shall not be infringed" on one hand and then, on the other, seek to infringe on that right for a group of persons you may not like. Such reasoning weakens constitutional rights for all of us, as it opens the door to qualification of a constitutional right based upon certain requirements. It's not a long step from that to, say, a may issue concealed carry scheme or a New York style firearms permit where you need to justify your qualifications to exercise that constitutional right. If we are not willing to stand up for the constitutional rights of those we may not like or agree with, those rights eventually get taken away from all of us, bit by bit.

[stm]

I have to say I'm really surprised at some of the reasoning being put forth here. If you believe the right to bear arms is a constitutional right on a par with other constitutional rights, then that right applies to everyone present in this country, just as the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments likewise apply. I don't believe anyone is saying that illegal immigrants don't have the right to free speech, a right against unreasonable searches or the right to remain silent based upon their immigration status. You can't hold that the right "shall not be infringed" on one hand and then, on the other, seek to infringe on that right for a group of persons you may not like. Such reasoning weakens constitutional rights for all of us, as it opens the door to qualification of a constitutional right based upon certain requirements. It's not a long step from that to, say, a may issue concealed carry scheme or a New York style firearms permit where you need to justify your qualifications to exercise that constitutional right. If we are not willing to stand up for the constitutional rights of those we may not like or agree with, those rights eventually get taken away from all of us, bit by bit.

+1

 

[chislinger]

Well said Jwg43!

[Uncle Harley]

Theright to bear arms does not come from the government. It is a natural right.

 

correct, but it is guaranteed by our constitution. Which to my knowledge before this case only applies to people here legally. He absolutely has the right to bear arms....just not here.

[2A4Cook]

We had a bunch of armed foreign nationals here in the 1770's-80's. They were called "Hessians," IIRC ...

[2A4Cook]

I have to say I'm really surprised at some of the reasoning being put forth here. If you believe the right to bear arms is a constitutional right on a par with other constitutional rights, then that right applies to everyone present in this country, just as the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments likewise apply. I don't believe anyone is saying that illegal immigrants don't have the right to free speech, a right against unreasonable searches or the right to remain silent based upon their immigration status. You can't hold that the right "shall not be infringed" on one hand and then, on the other, seek to infringe on that right for a group of persons you may not like. Such reasoning weakens constitutional rights for all of us, as it opens the door to qualification of a constitutional right based upon certain requirements. It's not a long step from that to, say, a may issue concealed carry scheme or a New York style firearms permit where you need to justify your qualifications to exercise that constitutional right. If we are not willing to stand up for the constitutional rights of those we may not like or agree with, those rights eventually get taken away from all of us, bit by bit.

That same type of reasoning is why they have ALWAYS been de facto amnestied: they are given the right to due process before being deported. How in the heck are you going to hold tens of millions of deportation hearings??? It is not hypocritical or inconsistent to deny the constitutional rights of American citizens to those who have crossed our border illegally, or illegally overstayed their visas. They are criminals. American citizens can't own firearms if they are convicted of a felony ...

[defaultdotxbe]

So what about the legal residents and even citizens who will inevitably get deported because they were denied due process that would have proven their legal status?

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[2A4Cook]

So what about the legal residents and even citizens who will inevitably get deported because they were denied due process that would have proven their legal status?

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

You're really reaching there, Stretch ...

[defaultdotxbe]

How so? If illegal aliens can do not have a right to due process then by what process do you determine who does have a right to due process?

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[2A4Cook]

How so? If illegal aliens can do not have a right to due process then by what process do you determine who does have a right to due process?

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Seriously, I'm not even giving this a 15 second reply ... talk about a red herring when you don't have a real argument.

[defaultdotxbe]

By its very nature a right to due process has to apply to everyone, or it will apply effectively to no one. I'd explain why, but I doubt there is any point. People seem to either understand that concept or simply refuse to understand it.

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[chislinger]

We had a bunch of armed foreign nationals here in the 1770's-80's. They were called "Hessians," IIRC ...

Also French.

[lockman]

How in the heck are you going to hold tens of millions of deportation hearings???

 

One at a time.

 

I have to say I'm really surprised at some of the reasoning being put forth here. If you believe the right to bear arms is a constitutional right on a par with other constitutional rights, then that right applies to everyone present in this country, just as the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments likewise apply. I don't believe anyone is saying that illegal immigrants don't have the right to free speech, a right against unreasonable searches or the right to remain silent based upon their immigration status. You can't hold that the right "shall not be infringed" on one hand and then, on the other, seek to infringe on that right for a group of persons you may not like. Such reasoning weakens constitutional rights for all of us, as it opens the door to qualification of a constitutional right based upon certain requirements. It's not a long step from that to, say, a may issue concealed carry scheme or a New York style firearms permit where you need to justify your qualifications to exercise that constitutional right. If we are not willing to stand up for the constitutional rights of those we may not like or agree with, those rights eventually get taken away from all of us, bit by bit.

 

 

These are Natural (Fundamental) rights. Of course we recognize their right to bear arms as people, but we also declare them prohibited persons due to the disregard for our sovereignty by illegally entering the country.

[Glock23]

How about the question on the 4473 about being in the country illegally. Would that constitute a violation of the 5th amendment? Sent from my SM-G920P using TapatalkIt is a violation of the fifth amendment since it needs to be answered to purchase a firearm and answering yes would prohibit the sale. Based on the ruling an FFL may have to be allowed to sell to an illegal alien.

The 5th amendment applies to custodial interrogation, and only after it is invoked (not automatic).

 

I really don't think it would apply to a check box on a form, particularly since the FFL has no legal authority over you, and you are not in his custody.