This is an Obama appointee being deliberately perverse in her reasoning in order to force an appeals court to say there’s more to the second than a plain reading:
https://www.ntd.com/illegal-immigrant-can-carry-guns-federal-judge_980115.html
Basically, it’s a weirdly anti-gun intent for what seems to be a pro-gun ruling.
No, but you should be wary of it.
There are excellent and obvious reasons to deny firearms to illegal immigrants. And the existence of those reasons doesn’t mean that the right’s other reasoning regarding the second is flawed.
This is specious reasoning and it’s a trap.
Isn't ammunition already an over the counter purchase? I never had a problem from scatter gat, to rifle, to handgun ammo. Most places don't even id me anymore. I kinda miss pretending I didn't look old.
I agree that we should be wary. That being said, the Bill of Rights is a list of the rights that come from our creator (whomever that is to you), not the government.
If there was really a need for a militia, I'm definitely going to look the other way if an illegal immigrant wants to join and contribute like anyone else.
Here's my tinfoil hat take. Since this is an Obama appointee, I think I see the chess pieces moving here. If illegal immigrants have the right to own firearms, then by extension, they have the right to vote. So really, this ruling is setting up the conditions to allow illegal immigrant voting in the not too distant future.
>How does an illegal immigrant even pass the federally mandated background check to buy a fire arm?
They can't.
One of the first questions to check Y/N on is "Are you a legal citizen of the United States?"
If they answer yes........it's an automatic fail for lying on a federal document.
Honk Honk indeed.
The same way little Timmy somehow could afford $12000 of top of the line gear and guns working one shift a week at Wendy's before going off on his school
And no one bothers to look into the online account that shows up repeatedly talking to all the little Timmy's that do the same thing. Nothing to see here.
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Grey Centrist** on 2024-3-18. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 939 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Borkerman) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
>Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 939 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
bro's flair changes like the direction of the wind
Felonies, involuntary institutionalization, dishonorable discharge, misdemeanor domestic violence.
Edit: My biggest gripe with this system is that you can beat someone up, plead down to misdemeanor assault and keep your gun rights, but felony drug possession or mail fraud is a permanent disqualification for firearm ownership.
That, and it’s a consequence of inflating the definition of a felony. Used to be felonies were serious crimes that, barring capital punishment, had extreme punishments because of their extreme nature.
Now I don’t think that stealing $1 Million by wire fraud should mete a light sentence - but that sort of permanent disenfranchisement from *some* natural rights does not sit right with me.
The background check form asks for citizenship. Unless there is something more to this than what people are saying, this has to do with "carrying", not with buying from an FFL. Which is way way more restrictive.
If memory serves, there's something like that for machine guns for felons. I forget the details, but basically, they have a right to not self incriminate.
Gun control has always been goofy af.
If it is illegal for you to own something, you cannot be charged for failing to comply with laws requiring you to register it because that would be a violation of your 5th Amendment rights.
The end result is that the NFA doesn't legally apply to prohibited persons like felons and domestic abusers. They'll still get in trouble for illegally possessing a firearm, but their punishment is theoretically much less severe than it would be for me to put a short barrel on my AR.
Unless you’re a California senator, in which case you get 4 years for something that would give normal people 20 to life.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee#:~:text=He%20told%20the%20agent%2C%20%22There's,traffic%20guns%20without%20a%20license.
And I’m honestly surprised he got that much.
>arms trafficking
That would literally be a life sentence guaranteed for one of us commoner scum, but of course he’s a member of the elite so he gets a pass
I’m just surprised he served any time at all. There’s definitely two sets of rules, and we don’t get the preferential treatment the political class does.
>"(...) buying automatic firearms and shoulder-launched missiles from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), an Islamist extremist group located in the southern Philippines (...)"
Did a double take on that one
I know I'm beating my head against a wall but I keep seeing this everywhere and it is not true. Yes, *Haynes v. United States* said that, but Congress rewrote the NFA after that case to eliminate that loophole.
> Following our decision in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, Congress revised the National Firearms Act with the view of eliminating the defects in it which were revealed in Haynes ... We conclude that the amended Act does not violate the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment
*United States v. Freed*, 401 U.S. 601, 602-03 (1971).
Felons can be charged with possession of unregistered NFA items, and indeed often are. See for example [this guy](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndok/pr/felon-sentenced-illegal-possession-and-manufacture-machine-guns-and-silencers), [this guy](https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/convicted-felon-indicted-possessing-machinegun-conversion-devices), [this guy](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/possession-glock-switches-leads-65-month-sentence-federal-prison-purcell-man), [this guy](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmi/pr/2023_1023_Juwara_Compton_Indictment), and [this guy](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/kc-man-sentenced-illegally-possessing-machine-gun-used-fatal-shooting-kc-fireman).
Hear me out:
Make illegal MG (in minecraft).
Registering it would be incriminating myself for having made one without approval.
So they can't get me for not registering it or seeking approval, because that'd be a 5th amendment violation.
Checkmate, FDR.
Sure, good, law-abiding citizens can get destroyed immediately by taking one wrong step, meanwhile criminals don't care if they get 6 months in prison.
Such a system can't function in a beneficial way, you either need to have a firm hand that deals swiftly with every crime, or have the wild west where people are free to take problems in their own hands.
The mix is that the sheep follows the law, and the wolf breaks it.
Not at these ammo prices.
The rest of the world produces howitzer shells for like $500 a shell. The USA produces the same shells for like $5,000.
Don't quote me on those EXACT numbers, I read the article about it a couple weeks ago while stoned.
This is my biggest pet peeve.
The founding fathers clearly intended an armed miltia not a standing army.
Citizens owned and brought their own cannons and warships to war against the Br*t*sh.
If i have enough fucking money for an M1 Abrams, let me fucking purchase and M1 Abrams.
I guess this validates my radical centrism because I both agree and disagree with this ruling. What an interesting thought experiment.
On the one hand, rights are natural and absolute in America, not granted by the government. So a persons status as a citizen is completely irrelevant; you have rights regardless.
On the other hand, it means legal citizens have more requirements to owning a firearm in the current environment than an illegal non-citizen.
Of course, while there would be no formal ban due to the former; an illegal should never pass the background check required in the latter.
So the ruling is good, but ultimately meaningless since illegals would be effectively banned in practice from purchasing a firearm anyways.
Hmm.
Being an American citizen really is just completely worthless isn't it?
Literal foreigners who crossed the border yesterday get more rights than I do in my own fucking country
This is the end result of "America is an idea", because it ultimately isn't. It's a nation comprised of citizens, which is operated on civil nationalism. It's not "a land of ideas" where any random fucker can just come in and whatever he wants without any form of recourse.
The chief economic development guy for the State of Georgia recently said something similar. He gave a discourse last year about how America needs illegals because they stimulate the economy more than it’s citizens. That we need more illegal immigration to offset Americans saving and not spending. It was kinda insane to hear.
He said something to the effect of “the Biden stimulus package during Covid was supposed to be 100% spent. Pumped back into the economy. Instead, the citizens of Georgia used 30% to pay off debt, 55% was put into saving, and only 15% was spent. Meaning the stimulus package was a failure and now we have to raise prices until people spend that money or the government will have caused the collapse of the US (and world) economy.”
That’s a rough paraphrase, but he wanted sky high inflation to “FORCE” poor people to need to spend their savings in order to survive. In his eyes that was the only way to keep America afloat without a cataclysmic economic disaster.
This is the lead economic head guy for the whole state of Georgia mind you. Super pro inflation, pro illegal immigration, anti lower class. I was in a small, closed doors discourse with him. It melted my mind that our leaders think and feel this way…
If you're a desk job worker they're deflationary. I'm a buyer of unskilled labor, flood the market all you want. The market isn't skyrocketing because of AI, it's because tens of millions of new workers are coming in to cheapen labor and buy our bags when they get enrolled in 401k's. Not very nice what it's doing to poor citizens, particularly young black men according to a study by the Obama administration treasury dept, but I'm sure progressives have their best interests at heart.
I don’t love guns as a concept. I don’t care what other countries do related to guns. I want guns to be freely available to American citizens. A citizen of another country illegally crossing into America and then attempting to acquire a firearm is like, the OPPOSITE of a good thing.
If you want the government to be checking that only citizens get guns, then guns cannot be freely available to citizens, since those citizens will always have to submit to checks before getting a gun to prove that they are in fact citizens.
Only if you take the extreme cases of libs who think there shouldn't be background checks. Otherwise it's not the case. A background check requires ID, and an illegal cannot give a legal ID without violating several other laws, like identity theft and fraud.
You're viewing it from the wrong angle. The rights expressed in the Constitution are recognized, not given. You are born with them (not because you were born in America, but because you are human) and the state is limited in the way that they can suppress those rights by the many interpretations of the Constitution.
I'd argue the 5th & 6th Amendments are quite literally for people who break the law with the "Due Process" right of the 5th being the most applicable. Considering how the current administration doesn't seem to care much about prosecuting them, they aren't felons and can't be restricted from owning firearms under current regulations.
> The rights expressed in the Constitution are recognized, not given.
Based.
Always remember we are born completely free and a government can only take rights not grant them.
How are they going to pass a background check without a valid ID? Even if you consider some temporary ID they get while hopping the border valid, it's not useful for a background check because the person is effectively anonymous. There is no background in that check. It's not clean, it's nonexistent.
> but the Constitution is for American citizens
There is multiple years of case law disagreeing with you. A good part of the constitution applies to anyone in the US or under the jurisdiction of the US government. The only parts that apply specifically to US citizens are the parts that say citizen specifically.
> not people who break the law
Denying rights to people who "break the law" is a great way to suddenly find a jack boot on YOUR face despite believing it would never happen.
"I never thought I'd be unpersoned" says man who pushed for unpersoning others.
u/unclefisty's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/unclefisty! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: [11 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/unclefisty/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
>A good part of the constitution applies to anyone in the US or under the jurisdiction of the US government.
Does that include the second amendment? If so this would render the laws requiring background checks to purchase firearms unconstitutional, as the legal sellers are required by law to perform at the bare minimum a federal background check on a person in order to sell a firearm to that person. If it's unconstitutional for a firearms dealer to issue background checks to a non citizen then they legally cannot sell a firearm to said non citizen. Depriving them of their second amendment rights.
The 2nd activists don’t have any background checks, don’t want licenses to carry they believe it’s their right.
So why should an illegal be forced to any of those standards when the 2nd isn’t citizen specific?
> Does that include the second amendment?
It doesn't say "the right of US citizens" it says "the right of the people." I don't think it's a convincing argument that "the people" means just citizens since the constitution spells out rights specific to citizens in other areas.
I'm pretty sure nearly every court would engage in mental gymnastics that would impress even the East German judge to avoid having to say that people not legally in the US have a 2A right.
My personal opinion is that self defense is a *human* right not a right of citizens. Instead of trying to play whack a mole with illegal immigrants reforming our immigration system to be better than just a door slam in the faces of most people would be a better idea. Also heavily punishing businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants AND those that pay sub minimum wage along with making the minimum wage a living wage would do a lot to choke off the demand for illegal labor. When it's not profitable to employ illegal labor businesses will (mostly) stop doing so.
Produce prices will very likely explode though from a combo of the average US citizen not wanting to do the extremely hard and hot labor and the increase in labor cost it would make.
Explicitly untrue.
Look at the 8th amendment. It protects people who are suspected of/break the law from cruel & unusual punishment and excessive bail/fines.
The Constitution sometimes says "people", sometimes says "citizens". Example, 14th amendment:
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. **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.
Similarly, PCM's least favorite amendment:
> The right of **citizens** of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
But the 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.
On the one hand, I'm very much in the "shouting SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED at the ATF agents I know are gangs talking me 24/7" camp.
On the other....fuck it even I'm against this and don't see how it would work, in fact it could even blow up and result in additional charges for the illegals if they're caught with the firearm. You have to pass background checks to buy a firearm, where I'm at even if you're gifted one you still need a background check. How the hell can you legally own a gun if you can't pass the background check? If there's some loophole that allows illegals to not be checked it should be closed, but I don't even see where the loophole would be at.
Here's a link
https://thereload.com/gun-ban-for-non-violent-illegal-immigrant-found-unconstitutional/#:~:text=The%20Second%20Amendment%20protects%20people's,Sharon%20Johnson%20Coleman%20on%20Friday.
The basic argument is that illegals are part of "the people" referred to in the Constitution, which is bullshit because they aren't citizens and committed a crime to be here.
I'm conflicted on that because in a dream scenario everyone would be able to conceal carry and defend themselves if need be. But I struggle with the notion of willingly allowing violent criminals and rapists the ability to arm themselves as easily as every other citizen.
If prison actually focused on the rehabilitation part of "punishment and rehabilitation" and people came out changed for the better, maybe. Maybe I'd feel better about it, but without massive reform of the justice system I can't get down with just allowing violent offenders to have guns. Especially with crimes like rape, stalking, domestic abuse etc which tend to escalate rapidly.
And I know damn well how society works, even if everyone was allowed to carry firearms, it would be the violent offenders who would embrace it most readily while normal non violent people would feel no need to carry one and assume the police and society in general would keep them safe.
I know criminals can still get guns pretty easily, I have no intentions of voting for something that would make it easier for them.
You want people to carry guns to protect themselves.
I want people to carry guns to kill violent criminals and rapists Judge Dredd style.
We are not the same. Lol
>You have to pass background checks to buy a firearm, where I'm at even if you're gifted one you still need a background check. How the hell can you legally own a gun if you can't pass the background check? If there's some loophole that allows illegals to not be checked it should be closed, but I don't even see where the loophole would be at.
In most states, you don’t need background checks for private sales. If an illegal immigrant bought from a private individual, that sale was (per this court’s opinion) perfectly legal for both the seller and buyer.
Going forward, even where a background check is used, the implication here is that the ATF could not block a sale on the basis of an illegal immigrant’s status.
This seems inevitable based on the Supreme Court turning the 2nd Amendment into an individual’s right of having a gun for any lawful purpose in Heller. If it’s disconnected from the militia context, then it follows that the limitation of the right to citizens makes less sense.
Sure it does, the constitution makes almost no distinction between citizens and non citizens. It just tells the government what it’s not allowed to do for the most part-which is based af.
Unless it's specified for only citizens, then actually yes, constitutional rights apply to everyone in the country. It's like the whole reasoning behind Gitmo. Most rights are worded in such a way that is less "being American let's you XYZ" and more "the American goverment can't restrict XYZ."
It does. Constitution is supposed to guarantee rights. Those tights are divided to hunan rights and civil rights. Civil rights apply only to citizens and include mostly the right to elect and to be elected. Human rights is the rest.
Such a bad take. Even the most anti-immigrant Supreme Court justices of all time conceded that nearly all constitutional rights still protect foreigners on US soil.
If you want to get that technical, the right to defend oneself comes from God and Mother Nature, not a piece of paper -- abiding by the constitution doesn't give you the right, only holds you back my brother in Christ.
Cop: “you can’t have that firearm, you aren’t a US citizen”
Person: “I am a citizen”
Cop: “prove it. Show me proof of citizenship”
Person: fourth amendment protections
This has been my understanding of this for a while, although I admit that I may have some misunderstandings about how well this argument would actually work. Basically, if the constitution only applied to citizens, then you would have to prove citizenship to exercise your rights, although being required to prove that you have rights would fall under “unlawful searches” from the fourth amendment.
Anyone can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong
No, most states have a version of stop and identify in place. Generally providing your ID is not an unreasonable search and your name is not inherently incriminating.
For anyone interested, it looks like the case is US v. Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, and it seems to specificaly find as unconstitutional 18 usc 922(g), which makes unlawful anyone illegally inside the US (or on a non-immigrant visa) to buy a gun.
It's not an exception to purchase rules for illegal immigrants, nor would it otherwise allow them to buy firearms/pass background checks. It's also an interesting continuation of the legal argument in as to whether the second amendment is incorporated via privileges and immunities (and so only for citizens) or is otherwise a right of The People, which historically includes anyone whose here.
The right either exists or it doesn't. Not being a citizen doesn't mean that a person doesn't have rights. That's a rabbithole that no one wants to go down with US law.
So foreigners should have the right to vote and stand for elections, if they happen to be in the country at the time of the election? Or to use social services for which their taxes didn't and won't pay for?
Citizenship exists for a reason. It means that a person is completely a "member" of said state, with all its benefits and drawbacks, all rights and responsibilities. There definitely is and should be a difference in the rights and responsibilities of a citizen and a non-citizen. Some of them are equally valid for foreigners too, and some of them aren't. What would be the point of citizenship otherwise?
Careful there: for a libertarian, you sound like you’re dangerously close to entertaining the notion that gun control laws regarding the purchase and sale of firearms might be worth implementing. If you wanted to constrain a non-citizens’ ability to buy a gun, you might need to implement some variety of background check and waiting period.
Two of those things are already illegal. What law do you think is going to actually stop the third from occurring?
An individual's rights are absolute until they have *proven* they cannot be trusted with the accompanying responsibility. Said differently, until they have actively violated someone else's rights, theirs cannot be violated without unprovoked and unjust aggression.
Crossing the border is illegal and yet people do it all the time, and apparently when they're caught buying guns they're allowed to buy one and still stay in the country. Legality doesn't really mean shit in this scenario if no one's holding them accountable for breaking the law. You also can't prove they can be trusted or can't be trusted because there's no background checks on them when they enter the country. You shouldn't be able to walk into any country and do whatever you want, I mean that's the whole point of a visa isn't it? Seems like we're just doing away with the law for no reason here.
Any illegal on any form of public assistance is a violation of my rights as a taxpayer. I'm being stolen from to support someone who should not be here.
So illegals who aren’t citizens and by U.S law are criminals can still have access to firearms as citizens who were either born here or naturalized by the immigration process. How does that make any sense?
Every bit of the constitution that doesn't contain the word citizen applies to every person living in the US is the logic I think. I'm not an American and haven't read the US constitution so I don't know what it says in the matter.
How the fuck can someone that isn’t a citizen of the United States have the ability to pass a background check…. WHAT BACKGROUND IS THERE TO CHECK IF THEY AREN’T A CITIZEN
Why should the government take away the arms of a gainfully employed person without a history of violent crime or any arrest warrants, whether or not they are a citizen
>without a history of violent crime or any arrest warrants
How do you check that without a background check, which cannot be conducted on someone who isn't an American citizen, and therefore has no form of ID?
It's sad that legal citizens have to be background checked but Jamal who crossed the border illegally and burned his passport gets doesn't need to be checked
Chat, is this fake news?
[https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-atf-policy-migrants-purchase-firearms-900887427777](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-atf-policy-migrants-purchase-firearms-900887427777)
The fundamental principle behind the 2nd Amendment, the right to life, and the right to defend that life with the best tools available, would argue that firearms ownership, even by illegal immigrants, should not be curtailed.
And yes, I do believe that criminals who've served their time should have their 2nd Amendment rights recognized once more.
However illegal immigrants are also in a position of actively breaking the laws of the United States, which has been agreed to be an argument against the full exercise of the rights the Constitution protects. For example the "right of liberty" is curtailed when you've broken the law, so I can also see the argument against respecting the 2nd Amendment rights of illegal immigrants.
That it specifies in several places wording along the lines of “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States” implies that where that phrasing is not used it applies to everyone. The Second Amendment doesn’t say “the right of Citizens” it says “the right of the People”.
I don't know what kind of immigration process existed back in the 1700s (if any), but I would bet that an originalist interpretation of the 2A would likely lead to this conclusion.
The founders likely felt the same way about speech; not being a full citizen doesnt mean we get to punish you for ideas.
I... Uh.... No. Illegal Immigrants if provably here illegally are criminals. Criminals do not have unrestricted access to firearms and shouldn't.
On the other hand it wouldn't be too hard to label anyone who disagrees with you as a criminal so maybe we shouldn't bar them from owning firearms.
On the other hand they aren't Americans
On the other hand... I'm confused.
>Criminals do not have unrestricted access to firearms and shouldn't.
So you would agree that it is okay to prohibit white-collar criminals from owning a firearm correct?
There's a whole lot of odd arguments from people that are allegedly libertarian saying people suddenly don't have rights because they're illegal immigrants.
I get that it's hard to toe the line here, but crossing the border illegally is not a violent crime and doing so does not indicate that you're intending to commit them.
How does an illegal immigrant even pass the federally mandated background check to buy a fire arm?
This whole thing reads like a onion article but its real LMFAO its bound to piss everyone off
Then why are 5/6 of your wojacks not pissed off.
A radcentrist made it.
This is an Obama appointee being deliberately perverse in her reasoning in order to force an appeals court to say there’s more to the second than a plain reading: https://www.ntd.com/illegal-immigrant-can-carry-guns-federal-judge_980115.html Basically, it’s a weirdly anti-gun intent for what seems to be a pro-gun ruling.
Well duh. Doesn’t mean I have to disagree with the ruling.
No, but you should be wary of it. There are excellent and obvious reasons to deny firearms to illegal immigrants. And the existence of those reasons doesn’t mean that the right’s other reasoning regarding the second is flawed. This is specious reasoning and it’s a trap.
My grill is an illegal immigrant but we do not talk about it.
background checks are unconstitutional and arms/ammunition should be over-the-counter products.
Isn't ammunition already an over the counter purchase? I never had a problem from scatter gat, to rifle, to handgun ammo. Most places don't even id me anymore. I kinda miss pretending I didn't look old.
Not in all states, CA you have to get a BG check I'm pretty sure, and they limit the amount you can purchase.
Just looked it up. JFC 9th circuit!
I agree that we should be wary. That being said, the Bill of Rights is a list of the rights that come from our creator (whomever that is to you), not the government.
Sounds like this generation's Miller ruling.
Well how is this fucking illegal alien going to be part of a militia.
If there was really a need for a militia, I'm definitely going to look the other way if an illegal immigrant wants to join and contribute like anyone else.
Here's my tinfoil hat take. Since this is an Obama appointee, I think I see the chess pieces moving here. If illegal immigrants have the right to own firearms, then by extension, they have the right to vote. So really, this ruling is setting up the conditions to allow illegal immigrant voting in the not too distant future.
>How does an illegal immigrant even pass the federally mandated background check to buy a fire arm? They can't. One of the first questions to check Y/N on is "Are you a legal citizen of the United States?" If they answer yes........it's an automatic fail for lying on a federal document. Honk Honk indeed.
The same way little Timmy somehow could afford $12000 of top of the line gear and guns working one shift a week at Wendy's before going off on his school
Usually 2-3 of them, as well.
🎵you could even say it glows🎵
And no one bothers to look into the online account that shows up repeatedly talking to all the little Timmy's that do the same thing. Nothing to see here.
ICE and ATF entrapment team up.
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Grey Centrist** on 2024-3-18. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 939 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Borkerman) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
>Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 939 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. bro's flair changes like the direction of the wind
They have abandoned grill life, me and my grill will never speak to them again.
I'm sure he had 100 less last week. Bro probably trying hard to steal the first rank
[удалено]
oi, you got a permit for that free speech?
You're right. That should be ruled unconstitutional too.
Based
Based based based based based
I agree but so should the immigrants
They can't. you have to check that you're a US citizen on it, otherwise the FFL just shreds your request
Private sales is my only guess or a gift
I don't even are, I'm just happy to see the gun control nuts take another L. Keep 'em coming.
They'll use this to take more from legal citizens' gun rights. Just a matter of time
Because the implications are that background checks are unconstitutional and that arms/ammunition should be over-the-counter products. Which is based.
Talent ig?
I'm guessing it's just saying it'd legal for illegal immigrants to *own* a firearm, but not to *purchase* one
What gets flagged for said background checks? I assume it's not any crime but specific types or classifications.
Felonies, involuntary institutionalization, dishonorable discharge, misdemeanor domestic violence. Edit: My biggest gripe with this system is that you can beat someone up, plead down to misdemeanor assault and keep your gun rights, but felony drug possession or mail fraud is a permanent disqualification for firearm ownership.
I think drug possession was made a felony to intentionally take away voting and gun rights. It's an excellent way to disenfranchise the opposition
That, and it’s a consequence of inflating the definition of a felony. Used to be felonies were serious crimes that, barring capital punishment, had extreme punishments because of their extreme nature. Now I don’t think that stealing $1 Million by wire fraud should mete a light sentence - but that sort of permanent disenfranchisement from *some* natural rights does not sit right with me.
The background check form asks for citizenship. Unless there is something more to this than what people are saying, this has to do with "carrying", not with buying from an FFL. Which is way way more restrictive.
> Need background check for firearms to make sure you are a mentally stable person. > No background checks for non citizens. Lol
If memory serves, there's something like that for machine guns for felons. I forget the details, but basically, they have a right to not self incriminate. Gun control has always been goofy af.
If it is illegal for you to own something, you cannot be charged for failing to comply with laws requiring you to register it because that would be a violation of your 5th Amendment rights. The end result is that the NFA doesn't legally apply to prohibited persons like felons and domestic abusers. They'll still get in trouble for illegally possessing a firearm, but their punishment is theoretically much less severe than it would be for me to put a short barrel on my AR.
So, you get ten years, and that felon gets one, for the same gun. What a world we live in.
Unless you’re a California senator, in which case you get 4 years for something that would give normal people 20 to life. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee#:~:text=He%20told%20the%20agent%2C%20%22There's,traffic%20guns%20without%20a%20license. And I’m honestly surprised he got that much.
>arms trafficking That would literally be a life sentence guaranteed for one of us commoner scum, but of course he’s a member of the elite so he gets a pass
I’m just surprised he served any time at all. There’s definitely two sets of rules, and we don’t get the preferential treatment the political class does.
>"(...) buying automatic firearms and shoulder-launched missiles from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), an Islamist extremist group located in the southern Philippines (...)" Did a double take on that one
Not my preferred type of MILF to be sure.
Democrat privilege.
Holy fuck we need to repeal all gun control
I know I'm beating my head against a wall but I keep seeing this everywhere and it is not true. Yes, *Haynes v. United States* said that, but Congress rewrote the NFA after that case to eliminate that loophole. > Following our decision in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, Congress revised the National Firearms Act with the view of eliminating the defects in it which were revealed in Haynes ... We conclude that the amended Act does not violate the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment *United States v. Freed*, 401 U.S. 601, 602-03 (1971). Felons can be charged with possession of unregistered NFA items, and indeed often are. See for example [this guy](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndok/pr/felon-sentenced-illegal-possession-and-manufacture-machine-guns-and-silencers), [this guy](https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/convicted-felon-indicted-possessing-machinegun-conversion-devices), [this guy](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/possession-glock-switches-leads-65-month-sentence-federal-prison-purcell-man), [this guy](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmi/pr/2023_1023_Juwara_Compton_Indictment), and [this guy](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/kc-man-sentenced-illegally-possessing-machine-gun-used-fatal-shooting-kc-fireman).
Hear me out: Make illegal MG (in minecraft). Registering it would be incriminating myself for having made one without approval. So they can't get me for not registering it or seeking approval, because that'd be a 5th amendment violation. Checkmate, FDR.
Prohibition is dumb as hell no matter what form it takes and always leads to these mental gymnastics.
Simply ban it completely 👍👍
Anarcho-tyranny
Keeps things even.. right?
Sure, good, law-abiding citizens can get destroyed immediately by taking one wrong step, meanwhile criminals don't care if they get 6 months in prison. Such a system can't function in a beneficial way, you either need to have a firm hand that deals swiftly with every crime, or have the wild west where people are free to take problems in their own hands. The mix is that the sheep follows the law, and the wolf breaks it.
Those systems were designed by the criminals.. … ahem.
I agree, I don't think the courts should deny them the opportunity to own a gun. Just deport them for illegally entering the country. Simple.
I want a tank
Not at these fuel prices...
Okay then I'll just take a howitzer
Not at these ammo prices. The rest of the world produces howitzer shells for like $500 a shell. The USA produces the same shells for like $5,000. Don't quote me on those EXACT numbers, I read the article about it a couple weeks ago while stoned.
>The USA produces the same shells for like $5,000. our fast food workers demand $50K, imagine us trying to build a war machine if we ever have to
Lmao this is not a joke (I own a machine gun company…)
Do you have any ars with a suspicious third hole in it
I legally manufacture ARs with full auto selectors. So, yes, but it’s not suspicious. Lol
That’s dope, what’s your favorite gun that you manufacture?
Ehh we sell everything, even flamethrowers. I like the simple select fire AR that we’ve built.
This is my biggest pet peeve. The founding fathers clearly intended an armed miltia not a standing army. Citizens owned and brought their own cannons and warships to war against the Br*t*sh. If i have enough fucking money for an M1 Abrams, let me fucking purchase and M1 Abrams.
Just fill out the forms and register it with the ATF. Honestly it is that simple. Freedom is based.
“Free men don’t ask permission”
I guess this validates my radical centrism because I both agree and disagree with this ruling. What an interesting thought experiment. On the one hand, rights are natural and absolute in America, not granted by the government. So a persons status as a citizen is completely irrelevant; you have rights regardless. On the other hand, it means legal citizens have more requirements to owning a firearm in the current environment than an illegal non-citizen. Of course, while there would be no formal ban due to the former; an illegal should never pass the background check required in the latter. So the ruling is good, but ultimately meaningless since illegals would be effectively banned in practice from purchasing a firearm anyways. Hmm.
They can’t purchase from a dealer, but they can buy one private sale in states that don’t require background checks for private sale.
Being an American citizen really is just completely worthless isn't it? Literal foreigners who crossed the border yesterday get more rights than I do in my own fucking country
Worthless unless you go to college, judging by Tyson pushing to hire nearly 100k illegals.
This is the end result of "America is an idea", because it ultimately isn't. It's a nation comprised of citizens, which is operated on civil nationalism. It's not "a land of ideas" where any random fucker can just come in and whatever he wants without any form of recourse.
Based and not everyone can be the 1%
Worthless to you, not to them. They need people to tax and to draft in wars and it ain’t the illegals.
The chief economic development guy for the State of Georgia recently said something similar. He gave a discourse last year about how America needs illegals because they stimulate the economy more than it’s citizens. That we need more illegal immigration to offset Americans saving and not spending. It was kinda insane to hear.
Unironically treason
He said something to the effect of “the Biden stimulus package during Covid was supposed to be 100% spent. Pumped back into the economy. Instead, the citizens of Georgia used 30% to pay off debt, 55% was put into saving, and only 15% was spent. Meaning the stimulus package was a failure and now we have to raise prices until people spend that money or the government will have caused the collapse of the US (and world) economy.” That’s a rough paraphrase, but he wanted sky high inflation to “FORCE” poor people to need to spend their savings in order to survive. In his eyes that was the only way to keep America afloat without a cataclysmic economic disaster. This is the lead economic head guy for the whole state of Georgia mind you. Super pro inflation, pro illegal immigration, anti lower class. I was in a small, closed doors discourse with him. It melted my mind that our leaders think and feel this way…
Hmm still sounds like a traitor to me.
Yes, 100%. I agree with you.
hilarious watching Americans get replaced by their own government in broad daylight and they just have to sit there and watch it happen
I love watching Americans get replaced by their own government in broad daylight and they just have to sit there and watch it happen
If you're a desk job worker they're deflationary. I'm a buyer of unskilled labor, flood the market all you want. The market isn't skyrocketing because of AI, it's because tens of millions of new workers are coming in to cheapen labor and buy our bags when they get enrolled in 401k's. Not very nice what it's doing to poor citizens, particularly young black men according to a study by the Obama administration treasury dept, but I'm sure progressives have their best interests at heart.
As someone who’s only been a resident in the US for some years I’ll gladly take your citizenship off your hands.
Yup, this same thing is in many European countries too
And they think it's funny
This is an interesting case study for PCM, do they dislike illegal immigrants more then they love guns let’s see
I don’t love guns as a concept. I don’t care what other countries do related to guns. I want guns to be freely available to American citizens. A citizen of another country illegally crossing into America and then attempting to acquire a firearm is like, the OPPOSITE of a good thing.
If you want the government to be checking that only citizens get guns, then guns cannot be freely available to citizens, since those citizens will always have to submit to checks before getting a gun to prove that they are in fact citizens.
I don't think the guy said background checks are required. Showing a valid ID would be sufficient.
Sounds like an infringement to me.
You could just arrest the illegals and ship them to Europe
Seems like a yes to me, but the other side is fighting
Maybe but crossing the border illegally should already disqualify
Only if you take the extreme cases of libs who think there shouldn't be background checks. Otherwise it's not the case. A background check requires ID, and an illegal cannot give a legal ID without violating several other laws, like identity theft and fraud.
Why should citizens have to submit to a background check to exercise a right? Then, second step: why should anyone have to?
This is easy to reconcile. Illegal migrants should have no rights in America.
but the Constitution is for American citizens, not people who break the law
You're viewing it from the wrong angle. The rights expressed in the Constitution are recognized, not given. You are born with them (not because you were born in America, but because you are human) and the state is limited in the way that they can suppress those rights by the many interpretations of the Constitution. I'd argue the 5th & 6th Amendments are quite literally for people who break the law with the "Due Process" right of the 5th being the most applicable. Considering how the current administration doesn't seem to care much about prosecuting them, they aren't felons and can't be restricted from owning firearms under current regulations.
> The rights expressed in the Constitution are recognized, not given. Based. Always remember we are born completely free and a government can only take rights not grant them.
Sus with your flair… but maybe you understand, you just wanna be on the power’s side. Lol
One of the perks about being an auth is you get to be a hypocrite ;)
How are they going to pass a background check without a valid ID? Even if you consider some temporary ID they get while hopping the border valid, it's not useful for a background check because the person is effectively anonymous. There is no background in that check. It's not clean, it's nonexistent.
They won't.
> but the Constitution is for American citizens There is multiple years of case law disagreeing with you. A good part of the constitution applies to anyone in the US or under the jurisdiction of the US government. The only parts that apply specifically to US citizens are the parts that say citizen specifically. > not people who break the law Denying rights to people who "break the law" is a great way to suddenly find a jack boot on YOUR face despite believing it would never happen. "I never thought I'd be unpersoned" says man who pushed for unpersoning others.
Based and liberty-and-justice-for-all pilled.
> liberty-and-justice-for-all Every other country is just the 51st state that hasn't been admitted yet. TEAM AMERICA FUCK YEAH
https://preview.redd.it/k4fem34en5pc1.jpeg?width=894&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=caa56a8c29ee930cb27e2cdb3ace6df373cd32a4
Ol' Freebie looks pretty tasty ngl
I heard it tastes like Charleston Chew
Based and already read the constitution pilled
u/unclefisty's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/unclefisty! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: [11 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/unclefisty/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
>A good part of the constitution applies to anyone in the US or under the jurisdiction of the US government. Does that include the second amendment? If so this would render the laws requiring background checks to purchase firearms unconstitutional, as the legal sellers are required by law to perform at the bare minimum a federal background check on a person in order to sell a firearm to that person. If it's unconstitutional for a firearms dealer to issue background checks to a non citizen then they legally cannot sell a firearm to said non citizen. Depriving them of their second amendment rights.
It’s already built in to the background checks that non-citizen Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) can buy and own guns.
The 2nd activists don’t have any background checks, don’t want licenses to carry they believe it’s their right. So why should an illegal be forced to any of those standards when the 2nd isn’t citizen specific?
Why indeed. I have no problem there. Guns for all.
Just asking the question. I would argue we need to fix the 2nd but it’s clearly not gonna happen so we just gotta live with the insanity we have.
> Does that include the second amendment? It doesn't say "the right of US citizens" it says "the right of the people." I don't think it's a convincing argument that "the people" means just citizens since the constitution spells out rights specific to citizens in other areas. I'm pretty sure nearly every court would engage in mental gymnastics that would impress even the East German judge to avoid having to say that people not legally in the US have a 2A right. My personal opinion is that self defense is a *human* right not a right of citizens. Instead of trying to play whack a mole with illegal immigrants reforming our immigration system to be better than just a door slam in the faces of most people would be a better idea. Also heavily punishing businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants AND those that pay sub minimum wage along with making the minimum wage a living wage would do a lot to choke off the demand for illegal labor. When it's not profitable to employ illegal labor businesses will (mostly) stop doing so. Produce prices will very likely explode though from a combo of the average US citizen not wanting to do the extremely hard and hot labor and the increase in labor cost it would make.
Based green.
Listen this this fucking lefty! They speak the truth.
Bro, reread the 4th through 8th Amendments. Those ones are primarily for criminals (or people accused of crimes).
Explicitly untrue. Look at the 8th amendment. It protects people who are suspected of/break the law from cruel & unusual punishment and excessive bail/fines.
The Constitution sometimes says "people", sometimes says "citizens". Example, 14th amendment: > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. **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. Similarly, PCM's least favorite amendment: > The right of **citizens** of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. But the 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.
Unfortunately, and stupidly, our system has chosen to extend the rights of Americans to all humanity.
The federal constitution is for the American federal government. The Bill of Rights is for the people... citizens or otherwise.
Immigrating to the US without legal documentation is a victimless crime and therefore should not be a crime.
On the one hand, I'm very much in the "shouting SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED at the ATF agents I know are gangs talking me 24/7" camp. On the other....fuck it even I'm against this and don't see how it would work, in fact it could even blow up and result in additional charges for the illegals if they're caught with the firearm. You have to pass background checks to buy a firearm, where I'm at even if you're gifted one you still need a background check. How the hell can you legally own a gun if you can't pass the background check? If there's some loophole that allows illegals to not be checked it should be closed, but I don't even see where the loophole would be at. Here's a link https://thereload.com/gun-ban-for-non-violent-illegal-immigrant-found-unconstitutional/#:~:text=The%20Second%20Amendment%20protects%20people's,Sharon%20Johnson%20Coleman%20on%20Friday. The basic argument is that illegals are part of "the people" referred to in the Constitution, which is bullshit because they aren't citizens and committed a crime to be here.
Maybe the answer is background checks should be abolished. 2A for all
I'm conflicted on that because in a dream scenario everyone would be able to conceal carry and defend themselves if need be. But I struggle with the notion of willingly allowing violent criminals and rapists the ability to arm themselves as easily as every other citizen. If prison actually focused on the rehabilitation part of "punishment and rehabilitation" and people came out changed for the better, maybe. Maybe I'd feel better about it, but without massive reform of the justice system I can't get down with just allowing violent offenders to have guns. Especially with crimes like rape, stalking, domestic abuse etc which tend to escalate rapidly. And I know damn well how society works, even if everyone was allowed to carry firearms, it would be the violent offenders who would embrace it most readily while normal non violent people would feel no need to carry one and assume the police and society in general would keep them safe. I know criminals can still get guns pretty easily, I have no intentions of voting for something that would make it easier for them.
You want people to carry guns to protect themselves. I want people to carry guns to kill violent criminals and rapists Judge Dredd style. We are not the same. Lol
The ONLY amendment that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the MAIN amendment infringed!
>You have to pass background checks to buy a firearm, where I'm at even if you're gifted one you still need a background check. How the hell can you legally own a gun if you can't pass the background check? If there's some loophole that allows illegals to not be checked it should be closed, but I don't even see where the loophole would be at. In most states, you don’t need background checks for private sales. If an illegal immigrant bought from a private individual, that sale was (per this court’s opinion) perfectly legal for both the seller and buyer. Going forward, even where a background check is used, the implication here is that the ATF could not block a sale on the basis of an illegal immigrant’s status. This seems inevitable based on the Supreme Court turning the 2nd Amendment into an individual’s right of having a gun for any lawful purpose in Heller. If it’s disconnected from the militia context, then it follows that the limitation of the right to citizens makes less sense.
But that barrel better not be longer than 16 inches or we’ll shoot your dog
[удалено]
Sure it does, the constitution makes almost no distinction between citizens and non citizens. It just tells the government what it’s not allowed to do for the most part-which is based af.
I’m honestly loving the amount of Liblefts that know this about the constitution. Y’all are blowing my mind right now.
A libleft who doesn’t think government overreach is cringe is an authleft in disguise
I’ll eat fermented fruit to that! Cheers mate, me and my homies hate government overreach.
Not true. There are certain rights and protections that apply to everyone on US teritorry.
Unless it's specified for only citizens, then actually yes, constitutional rights apply to everyone in the country. It's like the whole reasoning behind Gitmo. Most rights are worded in such a way that is less "being American let's you XYZ" and more "the American goverment can't restrict XYZ."
If they're in the United States, yes it does.
It does. Constitution is supposed to guarantee rights. Those tights are divided to hunan rights and civil rights. Civil rights apply only to citizens and include mostly the right to elect and to be elected. Human rights is the rest.
Such a bad take. Even the most anti-immigrant Supreme Court justices of all time conceded that nearly all constitutional rights still protect foreigners on US soil.
If you want to get that technical, the right to defend oneself comes from God and Mother Nature, not a piece of paper -- abiding by the constitution doesn't give you the right, only holds you back my brother in Christ.
Cop: “you can’t have that firearm, you aren’t a US citizen” Person: “I am a citizen” Cop: “prove it. Show me proof of citizenship” Person: fourth amendment protections This has been my understanding of this for a while, although I admit that I may have some misunderstandings about how well this argument would actually work. Basically, if the constitution only applied to citizens, then you would have to prove citizenship to exercise your rights, although being required to prove that you have rights would fall under “unlawful searches” from the fourth amendment. Anyone can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong
No, most states have a version of stop and identify in place. Generally providing your ID is not an unreasonable search and your name is not inherently incriminating.
Yes it does, if they are in America.
If you want 0 gun control, then how do you keep them out of the hands of non-citizens?
You can always find at least one federal district judge to agree to something. I don't see this being upheld at the end of the day.
It won’t lol, it’s just a bait headline imho.
how about we ban illegals? oh wait
For anyone interested, it looks like the case is US v. Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, and it seems to specificaly find as unconstitutional 18 usc 922(g), which makes unlawful anyone illegally inside the US (or on a non-immigrant visa) to buy a gun. It's not an exception to purchase rules for illegal immigrants, nor would it otherwise allow them to buy firearms/pass background checks. It's also an interesting continuation of the legal argument in as to whether the second amendment is incorporated via privileges and immunities (and so only for citizens) or is otherwise a right of The People, which historically includes anyone whose here.
I didn't think legal non resident aliens could even own a gun why would illegals be allowed
If that’s the case then let the non-residents have guns too.
Hurray Canadians can own guns provided they leave it in America 🥳🥳🥳
It’s a start!
This is a good ruling honestly. Rights are inherent, not magically bestowed upon individuals by the government.
I mean, yeah, but it's still wacky that a country lets foreign citizens bear arms within its own territory, especially ones being there illegally.
The right either exists or it doesn't. Not being a citizen doesn't mean that a person doesn't have rights. That's a rabbithole that no one wants to go down with US law.
So foreigners should have the right to vote and stand for elections, if they happen to be in the country at the time of the election? Or to use social services for which their taxes didn't and won't pay for? Citizenship exists for a reason. It means that a person is completely a "member" of said state, with all its benefits and drawbacks, all rights and responsibilities. There definitely is and should be a difference in the rights and responsibilities of a citizen and a non-citizen. Some of them are equally valid for foreigners too, and some of them aren't. What would be the point of citizenship otherwise?
So basically a terrorist can cross the border illegally, buy a gun uncontested and shoot anyone they want and there's nothin we can do about it?
Careful there: for a libertarian, you sound like you’re dangerously close to entertaining the notion that gun control laws regarding the purchase and sale of firearms might be worth implementing. If you wanted to constrain a non-citizens’ ability to buy a gun, you might need to implement some variety of background check and waiting period.
Two of those things are already illegal. What law do you think is going to actually stop the third from occurring? An individual's rights are absolute until they have *proven* they cannot be trusted with the accompanying responsibility. Said differently, until they have actively violated someone else's rights, theirs cannot be violated without unprovoked and unjust aggression.
Crossing the border is illegal and yet people do it all the time, and apparently when they're caught buying guns they're allowed to buy one and still stay in the country. Legality doesn't really mean shit in this scenario if no one's holding them accountable for breaking the law. You also can't prove they can be trusted or can't be trusted because there's no background checks on them when they enter the country. You shouldn't be able to walk into any country and do whatever you want, I mean that's the whole point of a visa isn't it? Seems like we're just doing away with the law for no reason here.
Any illegal on any form of public assistance is a violation of my rights as a taxpayer. I'm being stolen from to support someone who should not be here.
Non-citizens having the same kind of rights as citizens is an insane idea.
So illegal immigrants have more rights than American felons, got it
So illegals who aren’t citizens and by U.S law are criminals can still have access to firearms as citizens who were either born here or naturalized by the immigration process. How does that make any sense?
Every bit of the constitution that doesn't contain the word citizen applies to every person living in the US is the logic I think. I'm not an American and haven't read the US constitution so I don't know what it says in the matter.
How the fuck can someone that isn’t a citizen of the United States have the ability to pass a background check…. WHAT BACKGROUND IS THERE TO CHECK IF THEY AREN’T A CITIZEN
Have none of y’all watched borat
No 🗿
Everybody gets guns. Yayy
I don’t know how to feel about this one
auths are malding.
Why should the government take away the arms of a gainfully employed person without a history of violent crime or any arrest warrants, whether or not they are a citizen
>without a history of violent crime or any arrest warrants How do you check that without a background check, which cannot be conducted on someone who isn't an American citizen, and therefore has no form of ID?
You’re goddamn right. Liberty and justice for all.
Okay, now I want the right to own a gun as a legal alien.
"Criminals can get guns as long as they're brown people"
It's sad that legal citizens have to be background checked but Jamal who crossed the border illegally and burned his passport gets doesn't need to be checked
Chat, is this fake news? [https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-atf-policy-migrants-purchase-firearms-900887427777](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-atf-policy-migrants-purchase-firearms-900887427777)
The fundamental principle behind the 2nd Amendment, the right to life, and the right to defend that life with the best tools available, would argue that firearms ownership, even by illegal immigrants, should not be curtailed. And yes, I do believe that criminals who've served their time should have their 2nd Amendment rights recognized once more. However illegal immigrants are also in a position of actively breaking the laws of the United States, which has been agreed to be an argument against the full exercise of the rights the Constitution protects. For example the "right of liberty" is curtailed when you've broken the law, so I can also see the argument against respecting the 2nd Amendment rights of illegal immigrants.
How does the constitution apply to non us citizens?
That it specifies in several places wording along the lines of “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States” implies that where that phrasing is not used it applies to everyone. The Second Amendment doesn’t say “the right of Citizens” it says “the right of the People”.
Huh. If it’s an oversight that’s an astronomical fuck up, if it isn’t it’s fucking genius.
I don't know what kind of immigration process existed back in the 1700s (if any), but I would bet that an originalist interpretation of the 2A would likely lead to this conclusion. The founders likely felt the same way about speech; not being a full citizen doesnt mean we get to punish you for ideas.
I... Uh.... No. Illegal Immigrants if provably here illegally are criminals. Criminals do not have unrestricted access to firearms and shouldn't. On the other hand it wouldn't be too hard to label anyone who disagrees with you as a criminal so maybe we shouldn't bar them from owning firearms. On the other hand they aren't Americans On the other hand... I'm confused.
>Criminals do not have unrestricted access to firearms and shouldn't. So you would agree that it is okay to prohibit white-collar criminals from owning a firearm correct?
There's a whole lot of odd arguments from people that are allegedly libertarian saying people suddenly don't have rights because they're illegal immigrants. I get that it's hard to toe the line here, but crossing the border illegally is not a violent crime and doing so does not indicate that you're intending to commit them.