Federal Appeals Court Rules Illegal Immigrants Have No Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms

[livingston]

Federal Appeals Court Rules Illegal Immigrants Have No Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms​

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that illegal immigrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

After pleading guilty to the charges of illegal possession of a firearm and unlawful re-entry, Medina-Cantu shamelessly attempted to challenge the legality of his conviction, arguing that the ban on his firearm possession violated his Second Amendment rights, Fox News reported.


However, the three-judge panel delivered a decisive response, affirming that the Second Amendment’s protections do not extend to individuals who are in the country illegally.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Illegal Immigrants Have No Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court's recent ruling clarifies that illegal immigrants lack Second Amendment rights, reinforcing the principle that constitutional protections are reserved for U.S. citizens. Read on for an in-depth analysis.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[livingston]

From the comments section posted above
20 minutes ago

When people illegally enter your country, & then are armed, That is also known as An INVADING ARMY.

 

[spat]

The RKBA is a fundamental human right, like the right to free speech. You don't lose that crossing a border, legally or otherwise.

However, you *do* lose those (and other) rights as part of your sentence for committing a crime.

 

[Brawny71]

Illegals never had the right. LEGAL do. Another reason to reenforce the entry at port of entry. It also allows work papers, licenses and other things. But it would also vet and verify.

 

[FP1201]

On it's face that looks great but picking and choosing Rights is a slippery slope:
Here's the thing: Coming here, being here, and quite possibly violating other Laws of this Country is a crime and we don't allow Criminals to be armed when in custody, many States will seize Arms pre-conviction for certain crimes, even the 4473 asks IF you are under indictment or convicted of certain disqualifying crimes (oh right, I forgot; criminals don't but their Guns from those evil Gun Shops with all the surveillance) but I digress.
All here are entitled to the Protections of our Civil Rights, you can expect to still have the Right, but not the freedom to exercise it...suspension of Constitutional Rights isn't a good thing, but neither is an armed Prisoner...Tangentially: pulling kids away from ostensible Parents Guardians while being processed for Crime(s) and verifying they're not Human Traffickers is the proper thing to do as well...problem is anything the Government has its hands in eventually and oft quickly fucked up.

 

[Zerex]

The war will be long and hard.

 

[SomeSoldier]

The RKBA is a fundamental human right, like the right to free speech. You don't lose that crossing a border, legally or otherwise.

However, you *do* lose those (and other) rights as part of your sentence for committing a crime.

So much this.

 

[Saltwater60]

Don’t forget we had the federal appeals judge that Obama appointed out of Chicago that said they did so now we have a split decision. Ought to be interesting to see what happens here. I have mixed feelings on this on what is happening here and abroad with the illegals arming themselves and attacking citizens of those countries. Germany is deporting a lot of middle easterners

 

[spat]

Don’t forget we had the federal appeals judge that Obama appointed out of Chicago that said they did so now we have a split decision. Ought to be interesting to see what happens here. I have mixed feelings on this on what is happening here and abroad with the illegals arming themselves and attacking citizens of those countries. Germany is deporting a lot of middle easterners

The solution is to lock them up for the actual crime they committed (illegally crossing the border), not for the activity they did which should be legal for everyone (possessing a weapon).

 

[Zerex]

The RTKBA is a uniquely American right........................the Magna Carta only allowed Noblemen to own swords.......

The human right to self defense is no longer guaranteed worldwide, even in NYS.
The bundle of basic human rights, listed by Libertarians ...............is just fluff in the wind.

There is no such righ to KBA's t in any other country that I am aware of...............Canada, Cuba, N Korea, China, Mexico just to name a few.

Illegals have no rights, except to invade your homes, free money credit cards, welfare, free medical care, amnesty, murder, drug sales, right to an atty, right to drivers licenses and to vote....................see?

It is an unnecessary legal situation as they are already armed, like WWII partisans,

 

[Mr. terzmo]

I’ll send a “no shit Sherlock” to the Court and petitioner

 

[Jcp123]

That’s an interesting one.

I’ll have to check back, but I recall that “basic” illegal immigration is handled as a civil rather than criminal matter, so legally even if we assumed that an illegal were granted all the BOR protections, getting busted for immigration status would not automatically mean they no longer are granted 2A rights. This case will hinge a lot less on that specific right than the question of whether illegal immigrants are eligible for constitutional rights as a whole. I believe the vast majority of common law will back up illegals having constitutional rights.

And before you start banging keyboards and whatnot:

1. No, I don’t have a database for case law. I could damn sure be wrong
2. That’s a cold, sober reading of case law as I do understand it with no particular desire to endorse any stance on this matter one way or the other.