Posted on 12/19/2011 1:37:20 PM PST by neverdem
Bravo Flores has an inalienable right from God to self-defense (keep and bear arms). But governments are constituted for guaranteeing natural rights. He is a Mexican, and his government does not protect that right, because it is corrupt. But since he is not a citizen of the US, our constitution does not guarantee him that right, either.
Borders do matter. His government is responsible for him, not ours.
I'll bet the U.N. would disagree with that. We in the U.S. are fortunate to have a Constitution and Bill of Rights to raise it above mere privilege. People who are not U.S. citizens must turn to the laws of their home country for guidance in this matter. If they like our laws better, there is a legal immigration procedure available to them.
Our beliefs are not global, they stop at the border.
In my opinion, he has the right to keep and bear arms, but not during the commission of a crime. By trespassing in our country, his illegal actions creates an active breach of law that allows the righful authorities to suspend his rights as long as he is in that breach of law.
“...The Supreme Court has previously ruled that undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights...
...in criminal cases,
...including a Sixth Amendment right to trial,
...and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 8th Circuit declined to extend the right to bear arms to illegal immigrants...”
-
This case will end up going to the Supreme Court.
“All men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights.”
The problem seems to be when the courts trip all over themselves trying to deal with people who have broken the law by being here.
Instead of trying to parse out what “rights” to guarantee to a person who is here illegally,
why don’t the courts and judges just deport them and be done with it?
Wouldn’t that better fit the model of judicial restraint?
It is beyond me to try to explain...
The Constitution applies to US citizens.
Well - this ruling could go two ways...
One, it will get overturned, basically giving all illegals all the same constitutional rights as citizens.
OR
This opens the door to the constitutional reality (though ignored by many) that those here illegally do NOT have Constitutional rights.
But, considering the state of courts today...
How so? I am both pro-RKBA and anti-"illegals". This court's decision causes no conflict in me.
Not so sure I agree with that; because Felons lose the priviledge to own weapons, while they maintain the right of speech, press and others.
Nope.
A non-citizen legal resident still has a right to keep and bear arms.
Hopefully this is precursor to admitting that illegals are not “subject to jurisdiction thereof” in the in the 14th Amendment, which will strip their children of their stolen citizenship.
That is a very good question, and one that I believe the Framers would answer by re-stating Jefferson's immortal words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It pains me to come to the defense of an illegal immigrant this way, but I feel that I must side with the Framers, if I'm to be consistent in my beliefs. Damn...
The "We" in that sentence... to whom does it refer?
'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community... (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words 'person' and 'accused' used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases." (U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 [1990])
In that case, a Mexican drug dealer busted in Mexico by cooperating Mexican law enforcement and FBI was arguing that he had a Fourth Amendment right enforceable against the FBI. They slapped him down, as you can see. They are likely to uphold this decision as well.
sorry to pop your bubble, but that just isn't true. They by definition are criminals, and they have the rights that anyone else has in the judicial system. You may WISH that they have no rights, but reality is not on your side. For example suppose that one of them gets caught commiting a crime. He can't bu sumarily executed, but will go through the trial process like anyone else.
It would be interesting if a court declared that any illegal alien bearing arms was to be treated as an armed invader, subject to being killed by anyone having the opportunity to do so.
Now comes before the court:
Joaquin Bravo Flores, an illegal alien, charged with possession a firearm...
-
Judge: Is your name Joaquin Bravo Flores?
Joaqin: Si.
Judge: Are you an illegal alien?
Joaquin: Si.
Judge: I order you to be deported. Next case.
Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive, liberals. When one applies ALL the fundamental CN rights to illegals, the argument becomes absurd and dangerous, doesn’t it? Not that consistency means anything to liberals.
An illegal immigrant is a criminal and a fugitive from justice, by definition.
The dissenting judge needs his head examined ..we need a country full of illegal Chinese or Muslims with the right to have weapons..
Wow!
Random acts of judicial sanity are popping up all over!
Of course, there's always the liberal activist piece of dog feces in the crowd:
One judge dissented, finding that the 5th Circuit decision in that case meant that "millions of similarly situated residents of the United States are non-persons who have no rights to be free from unjustified searches of their homes and bodies and other abuses, nor to peaceably assemble or petition the government."
That's right, "judge", illegal aliens have no Constitutional right to petition somebody else's government. The US Constitutional protects the rights of US citizens only, you sick scumbag.
This is exactly the kind of judge who needs to be dragged bfore a House committee and grilled.
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.