Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules

Our government is failing in its Chief duty and has been for quite some time. Recently we had a president who was improving that situation.

 

You wouldn’t be able to if you were here.

 

No, you would not be able to.

 

Interesting. I am honestly surprised.

 

It is your point. I heard no mention of the judge's point. Still corrupt. It doesn't matter what "people" means in the constitution. There is a law on the books saying an illegal can't possess a gun. It isn't the job of a judge to try to manipulate the supreme court. It is his job to enforce the law.

 

More surprising to you may be the fact that there are thousands of laws that regulate the right to own and bear arms. They don't really work since the people who misuse guns are criminals and ignore the laws. But a dealer won't sell you a gun because, if he is caught doing so, he will lose his license at a minimum and face judicial consequences as well. Sorry, you will have to lobby the Australian parliament. If you are successful then leave your gun at home when you visit. It would be illegal for you to bring it with you.

 

I think the better question is why are you promoting the ruling? Is this actually you clapping that illegal aliens get to have guns to threaten citizens with? Looks like it.

 

You could likely go to a range and rent one to shoot

 

Thanks. I'm not exactly heartbroken but I simply thought it would be a straightforward process.

 

If this case had included any other class of people other than illegals, you would never have posted it, so this is all about your illegal advocacy.

 

No, you have to be a legal resident.

 

Just go to a lefty stronghold and hang out downtown find some gangs and they'll hook you up and the lefty DA's don't care so you'll be good. If you try to legally buy one, you will be turned away.

 

Ignoring for a moment that the 14th is unconstitutional on its face...

Did you actually read the 14th?

"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."

Illegals are not within the jurisdiction of any state. Thats why illegals are tried in a federal court.

 

That judge can't rule a law as unconstitutional. Only the scotus can.

 

Of course they are within US jurisdiction. You think they are immune from prosecution? Everyone on US territory is within US jurisdiction

 

The courts will probably agree with you. Nevertheless, criminals with guns are not the problem.
The real problem is all of the disarmed targets of their crimes.

 

Maybe you should read that and it's amendments, as it's already there.

 

A person in another country is subject to that countries laws, but you are not under the jurisdiction of that country as a person.

The country that has jurisdiction is the country that issues your passport.

 

Incorrect. The country who issues their passport has jurisdiction. Furthermore the 14th gives context of who a "person" is in regards to the 14th. When the 14th refers to person it's referring to a citizen who was born here or naturalized here.

And for the record the author of the 14th declared that those who are not here legally won't be protected.

 

Per US Law, only if you enter USA illegally, But,. the judge just ruled that you can.

 

You have a point, and one wonders why the illegal allow the case in the first place, because it exposes him.

 

Meh, he knows he's not getting deported.

 

Do you drive a car.

 

Uh, no. The suggestion that a person is only subject to the laws of the country that issued their passport, is not accurate regarding physical presence within another country's borders. When a person is in the United States, regardless of their citizenship or the country that issued their passport, they are subject to U.S. laws. International law and bilateral agreements can influence certain aspects (like diplomatic immunity), but the general principle is that the laws of the host country prevail for most individuals and situations.

This isn't quite right.

Regarding your claim about the 14th Amendment and the Definition of "Person": your claim misinterprets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The relevant section states: "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." 'Subject to the jurisdiction thereof' kicks in when a child is born of the parents of diplomats, (is that what you meant?).


Furthermore, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The use of "person" in the amendment is intentionally broad and has been interpreted by the courts to apply to everyone within the U.S., not just citizens. This includes non-citizens, regardless of their immigration status, who are afforded certain constitutional protections

This isn't accurate.

The primary author of the Equal Protection Clause, Senator Jacob M. Howard, indeed discussed jurisdiction and citizenship, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to provide protections to all people, including non-citizens, within the United States. Key cases, such as Plyler v. Doe (1982), have affirmed that even undocumented immigrants fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws and are entitled to certain constitutional protections.

The notion that non-citizens, especially those without legal status, are outside the protection of the U.S. legal system is a misinterpretation of both the intent and the application of the Constitution. While it's true that non-citizens do not enjoy all the rights of citizens (such as voting in federal elections), they are still protected by many constitutional provisions, including those concerning due process and equal protection under the law.

 

Anyone on US territory is on US jurisdiction, - will answer for their crimes as per US laws, and also protected by US Constitution. They are "within the legal scope of the government's powers in the United States of America"

The judge didn't say anything about buying, only keeping and bearing, and its not "only illegals", but anyone who is considered "people".