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.
Okay, think of this: During the post revolutionary American era there were people of many nationalities on American soil, like the French. Did the right to vote in AMERICAN elections extend to them? I think not. The same can be said for illegal aliens in both voting and guns.
Illegal aliens have the right to get out of our country and return home, never to annoy us again.
Period.
Did the phrase "right to vote" even exist in the English lexicon? The notion of universal suffrage is comparatively recent, and I don't think the Founding Fathers would have particularly approved of it.
"The People" are "We the People of the United States ..."
Illegal aliens are NOT part of "We the People of the United States ...". They are "people of some other country" who have illegally invaded our country. Illegal is criminal.
Illegal aliens by definition have no right to be in the USA, period.
Illegal aliens have the right to humane treatment while in custody (as any other criminal would have), and until they are deported. Criminals have no right to possess firearms during the commission of their crimes. They do have the right to surrender and be returned to their own country.
Once in their own country, they are welcome to enjoy whatever God-given rights their own government wishes to allow them.
Wrong. Criminal invaders have not "subjected themselves to the jurisdiction thereof" by following our legal procedures to enter the United States legally.
They are subject to capture and deportation, and punishment for any additional crimes they have committed prior to their capture.
Actually, it may have, as IIRC it was rather unusual when Thomas Paine, a British born man, was denied the right to vote due to a political disagreement with the local poll workers following his publishing of The Age of Reason.
I would imagine that at that time, if one had proved to be a productive member of society, and otherwise met the requirements, franchise was extended to them.
Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution. The Constitution protects the right, it doesn't create it.
But for better or worse, the Supreme Court ruled in Verdugo-Urquidez that the Fourth Amendment doesn't encompass a Mexican citizen living in Mexico, so we'll see how they decide about a Mexican citizen living in the US.
And you would be wrong.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1). The offense is a felony. The law provides the following:
It shall be unlawful for any person-
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
***
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
See 18 USC 922(g).
So, anyone who crosses our country illegally is afforded the same rights as US Citizens?
So, if a boat of armed invaders/terrorists come ashore, and we confront them prior to an attack, they are afforded every right and consideration due a US citizen?
Notice, this same ‘right’ exists practially no where else in the world. Get caught illegally in Mexico, sporting a semi-automatic pistol and let me know how it works out of you. Seems ridiculous to me, to allow illegal aliens the same rights and priviledges afforded US citizens, while exempting them from every duty demanded of a US citizen.
Really, if a band of armed invaders show up and we confront them prior to an attack we are going to tell them to put down their weapons and surrender.
If they don't we will kill them. If you attempt to interfere under those circumstances we will kill you as well.
People who come into our country illegally or otherwise are afforded certain rights ~ but not the full rights citizens have.
We also have agreed to treaties regarding holding trials, etc. We should, of course, repudiate them and go door to door in the Los Angeles Barrio dragging them out and executing them.
Right? /s
“Do illegal aliens have a right to freedon of speech? What about assembly? It should be the same way with firearms! Guns are a HUMAN right, not a political privledge.”
Nope. They have aright to be deported. Their rights exist within their ountry. We reserve the right to deny them any and all actions within this country. They are invaders and should be treated as such.
No, I am not wrong. I said that I believe Felons regain the right to own and carry guns, NOT that the “law” says they do. I also believe that a concealed carry permit is NOT required to carry a gun, open or concealed...regardless of what the “law” says.
You are stating YOUR beliefs. But the Courts HAVE ruled that illegals DO have the right to assemble, and freedom of speech, the press, habeas, corpus, etc. So, they must ALSO have the right to own and carry guns, to be consistant. We need a Constitutional Amendment to put illegals back to where many of us would like them to be.
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.