Posted on 12/19/2012 12:53:21 PM PST by moonshinner_09
CN) - The Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to people who are in the United States illegally, the 4th Circuit ruled. While searching Orangeburg, S.C., home of Mexican national Nicolas Carpio-Leon, immigration agents found a .22 caliber Marlin rifle, a 9 mm Hi-Point pistol and ammunition. Carpio-Leon, who had lived in Orangeburg for 13 years and had three American-born children, claimed that he kept the firearms for the protection of his home and his children. He admitted he was in the United States illegally, and had used a false Social Security number to get a driver's license.
(Excerpt) Read more at courthousenews.com ...
Gee, I wonder what would happen to an illegal alien holding forbidden firearms who had committed identity theft in his native country?
Even though I hate illegal immigration, and favor the strictest enforcement of our immigration laws possibly, I don’t like this decision. If the Declaration of Independence is right, and our rights come from our Creator, then why would our right to self-defense be contingent on whether we happen to be a citizen of the United States or not? The government could not execute a non-citizen without due process of law, could they? What’s the difference?
I’d like to know where he gets all this money for lawyers to fight this case,he should be allowed to have a gun. This is what about $ 150.00-$250.00 an hour lawyer ?
I reluctantly agree with you. The right to bear arms is a human right irrespective of where one lives or ones country of origin. Charge him with being here illegally; he has a right to be armed.
When I read the US Constitution, it makes it fairly clear when it is refering to ‘people’ or ‘persons’ and when to ‘citizens’ (which apply to voting rights, e.g. with respect to the 15th Amendment). The Second Amendment makes no explicit reference to ‘citizens’ being the only ones entitled to bear arms, so I think you are probably right...
What's this nation (of lawyers in black robes) coming to when they will recognize every other "right" as belonging to illegal aliens: right to health care, right on an education, right to affordable housing, right to a job and welfare benefits, right to a car, right to a driver's license, right to a college education, right to vote in many areas.
Now the government decide he does NOT have the right to a legal gun and permit????
Shame on us (/sarcasm)
On the other hand, if an illegal doesn’t have this enumerated right, it seems he also doesn’t have any other enumerated right. Furthermore, if he doesn’t have those, he doesn’t have any derivatives. Maybe he doesn’t even have a right to my tax dollars.
If we take seriously the notion of God-given rights, nobody has any “right” to your tax dollars. Putting aside “earned” entitlements such as SS and Medicare, it’s not possible to have a “right” to a public benefit, when there may or may not be public funds sufficient to pay for it in any given year.
I agree. I was making the point, too obliquely, that the court has just slipped the thin edge of a wedge between illegals and the benefits they are currently receiving. The right to self defense is a corollary to the right to life. If the court doesn't think illegals are entitled to that I don't see how they can be entitled to anything.
In truth, I don’t think that there are actually a whole lot of benefits that illegal aliens are entitled to under federal court decisions. I know that they don’t qualify for most benefits; even legal immigrants don’t qualify for a lot of benefits, and nobody has argued that they have a “right” to them.
I think that public education and emergency health care might be the exceptions. I’m not sure the logic that courts used to find “rights” to those benefits.
Of course, just because they aren’t “entitled” to benefits doesn’t mean that they don’t still get them, either because states and cities just vote to give them, or because they fraudulently present themselves as legal residents/citizens, or because their immediate family members (i.e. children) do qualify as citizens.
WOW! One court actually got it right!!!!!
” “On Carpio-Leon’s Second Amendment challenge, we conclude that the scope of the Second Amendment does not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens are not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance,” Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote for the panel Friday.”
Pay attention to the one phrase above...
“....the scope of the Second Amendment does not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens are not law-abiding members”
“What’s the difference?”
From the opinion:
“The Second Amendment has limits and excludes various categories, including felons convicted of violent crimes and illegal aliens, the opinion states.
“Thus, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess for every purpose, to possess every type of weapon, to possess at every place, or to possess by every person,” Niemeyer wrote.”
Gets my vote! Good call AuntB.
OMG---I cannot believe a US judge actually wrote that.
===================================================================
AND GET THIS----the illegal said he used a false Social Security number to get a driver's license.
Hah---only one SS no? Betcha this guy's got multiple identities......all riding the US gravy train.....all voting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.