Posted on 12/19/2011 1:37:20 PM PST by neverdem
Illegal immigrants do not have a right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, based in Missouri, rejected an appeal brought by Joaquin Bravo Flores, who was charged with possessing a firearm. Agreeing with the 5th Circuit, the court concluded that the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to undocumented immigrants.
Executing a search warrant in 2010, police uncovered a semi-automatic handgun in Bravo Flores' Minneapolis apartment. A grand jury indicted him for being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. He was sentenced to three years in prison.
Bravo Flores tried to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the criminal law barring illegal immigrants from possessing guns is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 recognized an individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment. Bravo Flores argued that the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" also applied to him and other illegal immigrants.
His lawyer argued in a court filing that Bravo Flores is a member of "the people," having come to the country as a teenager and now living with his American citizen partner and their two citizen children.
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. The appeals court has previously upheld other criminal laws that prohibit convicted felons and narcotics addicts from possessing firearms.
Federal defender Andrea George, who represents Bravo Flores, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The U.S. Attorney was not immediately available for comment.
In June, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge brought by a Mexican citizen arrested in Texas for carrying a firearm, which he said he used to kill coyotes. The appeals court quoted language from the Supreme Court's 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, finding that the phrase "the people" referred to "law-abiding citizens" and "members of the political community."
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."
The 8th Circuit case is U.S. v. Joaquin Bravo Flores, No. 11-1550.
For the government: Michael Dees, formerly with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
For Bravo Flores: Andrea George of the Federal Public Defender's Office.
Interesting verdict. US Constitution does not apply to illegals while simultaneously the left claims citizen rights for foreigners, in particular terrorists.
>Yes! I have long contended that the US Constitution offers no protections or rights to anyone other than US citizens.
>
>Glad to see it explicitly called out in court precedent - now let’s go after the voter ID opponents, since most if not all of their objections actually fit non-citizens rather than citizens.
I agree with you in-principal. However, I am loathe to grant this a “good decision” stamp for the simple reason that there is only a little step from here to just “citizens” and from there there it would be relatively easy for the government to add to it’s list of “how to lose your citizenship” items which people do on a daily basis. (Summed-up: I do not trust my government as far as I can throw it.)
Little Ray is correct in post 29. They are not subject to the jurisdiction and thus are not entitled to the full protections enjoyed by bona fide citizens.
Resident Aliens are entitled to the full protection of the constitution, that we should deny to those whose first act upon entering this country is to break the law.
Once they enter the country illegally they are essentially on their own, and in my opinion not entitled to any protections under the constitution. It was postulated by Lib Lurker that they could be executed with out trial or gang raped...this is simply a straw man argument as they will be adjudicated at their deportation hearing for violating immigration law and will also be adjudicated for other crimes at that time, and rape is already against the law.
In general, non-immigrant aliens are forbidden to possess any firearms or ammunition. Illegal Aliens cannot purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.
See Title 18, USC Chapter 44, Section 922, part (y)(2).
I am a Citizen of The State of New Mexico.
But where does 14th amd replace rights with privileges?
A sudden breakout of common sense in the courts.
I would like to see this judge's opinion giving his legal justifications before saying whether the decision sounds right or wrong. I agree with you that everyone's basic human rights are to be protected under our Constitution.
Well if the Constitution doesn’t allow illegals to own guns then the rest of the Constitution does not pertain to them either!
Nope not to them!
Because it is another limit on RKBA, I would assumed most RKBA folk would not like it.
So there's no reason for the government to "equip them with weapons" (the meaning of that militia clause's "regulate" expression) so there's no rational for them arming themselves either.
BTW, I'm still waiting on Obama to give me my M-60 with about 10 pallets of ammo ~ those suckers cook it off like nobody's business!
So, as illegal as any alien is you can't just kill him, or steal his stuff, or trick him out of his posessions, and so on.
That's as far as the courts seem to want to go in this business of granting rights to illegal aliens.
It's up to the government to protect you from these guys ~ unless they break in your house and you have to defend yourself. That's different. But, in general, you cannot simply hunt them down and kill them, or even beat them up.
They also have a right of self-defense ~ just not with a gun.
Granted the term "keep and bear arms" in Old Norman French means self-defense, but it also meant you had a right to serve in a nobleman's army, or the king's army, and carry a blade.
Those with a right to "service" (that is "bear arms") also had an OBLIGATION ~ they'd have to pledge fealty to someone, or a king, and then when the tocsin was sounded and the enemy approached, they could be called out to defend themselves, their families, their stuff, and their liege lord AND the king and church!
In modern society we usually don't regulate personal possession of knives. Americans have all sorts of knives in their homes that would send them to prison for life in China (which has been regulating knife possession for thousands of years).
We also recognize that those who bring a knife to a gun fight are probably at a serious disadvantage ~ hence, we've elevated our understanding of "arms" from knives and clubs to FIREARMS.
Simultaneously we continue to support the idea of self-defense for anyone, even illegals and other visitors. Just the term "arms" has had its meaning adjusted. Plus, we don't ordinarily draft illegals into our military although we do draft legal immigrants.
Good question ~ I’m sure they’ve got a couple of judges in Chicago who would do that.
Obviously they continue to be within the jurisdiction of their homelands UNTIL they get legal permission to be here. Without that legal permission, they are somebody else's problem.
The government of Mexico claims the illegals here are UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION and retain a number of rights that derive from treaties Mexico has signed with, e.g. the United Nations.
Happens every day, just not the government doing it. 1900 unclaimed bodies were buried in a mass grave last week in LA, CA.
Nope, still not seeing how this amounts to any sort of legal limitation on the RKBA for any American.
Now, as to whether other countries should change their laws to be more like ours - that's a topic for another day.
I submit that in the eyes of the Founding Fathers the words citizen and people are one in the same. It was never intended to be all encompassing. Did the original include specifically women? They couldn't vote. Could they arm themselves absent a male in the household? Not sure if there are any specific writings on this but the intent in another direction is plainly clear: It did not apply to slaves. Even after the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments passed to: #1 Ban slavery, #2 Make former slaves citizens and #3 Give the new citizens the right to vote -- even after all that, the right to vote still did not extend to blacks in individual states until incorporation in the 1960's. All that did was to extend certain Amendments in the BOR (Bill Of Rights) down to the local levels and STILL it didn't include the 2nd Amendment! That had to wait until 2010 with Heller and the Chicago case! I think the Founders meant for Amendments 4,5,6 & 8 all to apply to everybody as a way to keep the gov't in check when criminal rules are being applied but that #'s 1,2,3,7,9 & 10 (obviously on the last) do not attach to non-citizens.
I would posit that the "clean hands" doctrine would imply that illegal aliens have to either acknowledge the jurisdiction of the U.S. (and leave), or else not claim any benefits, rights, or privileges that would arise from such jurisdiction.
I would submit that "the people" refers to "all free persons". Not all persons are free.
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.