Illegal immigrant charged with illegally possessing a gun by being an illegal takes his case to SCOT

[Aim1]

Interesting case. Some have ruled that illegal immigrants have some rights under the constitution but it is not limited.

While they are possess the right to a jury trial and self-incrimination they are not allowed to vote or possess a firearm I believe.



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/3/illegal-immigrants-test-limits-second-amendment-ca/

 

[entropy]

But is Pratheepan Gulasekarem a Professor of Law with a JD?

I agree with the 1 judge; illegal immigrants (invaders) do not enjoy the 2nd Amendment rights enumerated to the 'people'.

 

[herrwalther]

All illegal immigrants break the law to be here. There are many things they are not entitled to and should not be able to do here in my opinion. Owning firearms is on the top of that list.

 

[12Bravo20]

I have to agree also. They are already criminals for entering the country illegally. IF you want all of the rights then earn them the right way.

 

[ShootAgain]

>>But is Pratheepan Gulasekarem a Professor of Law with a JD?

Yes, Pratheepan Gulasekaram is a Professor of Law with a J.D. from Stanford University (2001). His bio and credentials are here on the Santa Clara University website.

Quoting:
"His research focuses on the constitutional rights of noncitizens and federalism concerns in immigration law. He is co-author of the leading immigration law casebook used in law schools (Immigration & Citizenship: Process and Policy (West Academic 9th Ed. 2021)). His book, The New Immigration Federalism, provides an in-depth empirical and theoretical analysis of the resurgence of state and local immigration lawmaking. He has also extensively explored the relationship between the Second Amendment and immigrants, as a way of understanding constitutional protections for noncitizens."

 

[230RN]

Are we confusing legal immigrants (green card, migrant worker, whatever) with persons breaking the law by being here?

IOW would that illegal behavior trigger the "prohibited persons" aspect of the law?

 

[redcon1]

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

...,the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[Pat Riot]

Illegally present in a country should not give one rights or benefits enjoyed by the citizens of that same country.

If I am armed and commit an illegal act doesn’t the firearm add to my punishment as a citizen?
If one is illegally in a country and is illegally possessing a firearm, as one must be a citizen to purchase firearms here, should that person be given a pass on the illegal possession of a firearm to satisfy Progressive (regressive) ideals? I don’t think so…


…therefore SCOTUS will side with the illegal because this country has lost it’s mind.

 

[danez71]

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States

I think that topic has come up before and it boiled down to that it says "of", not "in".

The "of" as opposed to "in" indicated a vested interest of citizenship or otherwise legal status.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

It does say "We the People OF the United States"...
Not the people "IN the United States"...
But I am no lawyer.

edit- Well, (and quickly) posted danz71

 

[armydog]

I'm sure it will be a 5-4 decision and Roberts will side with his other liberals. The fact that Alva was an agitator at a peaceful George Floyd protest, screaming in the faces of cops and fired shots at a police helicopter will win him favor with the anti American justices who believe all illegals have the same rights as actual Americans. Given the direction of these pro criminal and pro illegal alien liberals, it was/is inevitable that they stand up for 2A rights of illegal immigrants and convicted felons. The liberals, the masters of hypocrisy, will do this with a smile on their face as they continue to try and disarm everyone else in the US to include LE. lol

 

[rdnktrkr]

I feel "illegal aliens" have no rights that are given to "citizens" or "legal aliens". I feel if caught in possession of a firearm their sentence should be increased the same as if a citizen was in possession during a crime since it is a crime for them to be here, AND after serving the increased sentence be deported and refused re-entry.
Something else is the communities that refuse to prosecute illegal aliens should be refused federal grants and should be publicly stated so law abiding citizens can avoid them.

 

[unclenunzie]

Illegally present in a country should not give one rights or benefits enjoyed by the citizens of that same country.

If I am armed and commit an illegal act doesn’t the firearm add to my punishment as a citizen?
If one is illegally in a country and is illegally possessing a firearm, as one must be a citizen to purchase firearms here, should that person be given a pass on the illegal possession of a firearm to satisfy Progressive (regressive) ideals? I don’t think so…


…therefore SCOTUS will side with the illegal because this country has lost it’s mind.

The part in bold isn't accurate. There is no citizenship requirement to purchase or own firearms legally in the USA, or at least in the parts I am familiar with.

Apart from that, there are nuances to the law which I am not qualified to give opinion on. Once, at a trial of an acknowledged drug dealer it was explained that his use of a firearm for self defense was not necessarily illegal. Even if he could be charged and prosecuted for possession, the use in self defense seemed to be a right. At least this is what I remember from long ago in NJ.

My personal opinion is if you have done nothing more illegal than to simply be in the country without papers, and you are here working and paying taxes, you have the basic rights necessary to live. But you don't get to vote or serve on a jury.

 

[jmorris]

This is why I do not like selective enforcement of laws. People get to pick and choose what ones they enforce. People get confused.

The part in bold isn't accurate. There is no citizenship requirement to purchase or own firearms legally in the USA, or at least in the parts I am familiar with.

But you can’t be here illegally and do so, you answer “no” to questions they would have to answer “yes” to or that would be another crime they committed on US soil.

Specifically 21. k.

(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts


Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to theUnited States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

 

[redcon1]

I think that topic has come up before and it boiled down to that it says "of", not "in".

The "of" as opposed to "in" indicated a vested interest of citizenship or otherwise legal status.

I don't see how allowing illegal aliens who have no lawful attachment to the nation to exercise unfettered second amendment rights contributes to establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense or promotion of the general Welfare. that is just my personal opinion. A quick review of this Harvard law review suggests that at a minimum, there must be an attachment and at the maximum, there must be political attachment to the nation i.e. the franchise. The SCOTUS appears to be at odds with itself on this subject. I don't presently have time to read all 22 pages of this text but I will later. I do note that 2A rights are not extended to felons, children the mentally incompetent and none of these people enjoy the franchise which suggests that this particular right is traditionally understood to extend only to citizens and may be different than other rights that are extended to "the people" such as the right to be free of illegal searches and seizures. Page 16 of this text outlines and supports this idea. Worth mentioning that British loyalists were stripped of their firearms as per the article.
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

 

[Archie]

Odd. Under U. S. federal law (nationality and immigration laws) Title 8, one is a citizen of the United States by birth in the U. S. (with limitations on foreign controlled properties) or apply for and be granted lawful permission to be in the United States.
This has been the procedure for literally as long as there have been nations. The nation gets to decide who belongs and who doesn't.
The group of people known as Jews, even prior to the time they had a recognized homeland were essentially a 'nation'. (Not like a territory with specific borders, but one of 'belonging to a group', like the Apache nation.) Anyone could come live with the Jewish community, but to be accepted into the community, one had to follow Jewish tradition including recognition of God and holy days (holidays). One had to be subject to the laws of the nation.
The same is true of every nation. Not as formal at times, but to live in a 'nation' or country, one had to have at least the presumed consent of the King (or ruling group).

In the U. S., a person not born here must apply for citizenship, be officially recognized as such, and is then granted permission to live here. A 'green card' is issued to those who are granted permission to live here (with the idea of becoming a citizen at some point) and 'naturalized' (aliens who become U.S) citizens are given documentation to show citizenship.

All that aside. Under the current U. S. law (Title 8 USC) only citizens are eligible to buy firearms (legally). Green card (temporary residents) are not allowed to purchase firearms legally., Visitors - tourists, businessmen, foreign news reporters, transit visitors and such - are not legally allowed to purchase arms. Firearms cannot be exported (including taken 'home' to the old country) without a specific license.

That is the back ground. Some of those laws may or may not - depending on administration - be seriously enforced. Or enforced at all. One notes the current administration is rather loose about the entry of aliens without formal permission.

With my background in the matter, non-citizens have not been able to legally purchase arms under the understanding they are not part of 'the people' in the meaning of the U. S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. For the same reason, they cannot vote. At the moment.

The Circuit Courts and Supreme Court is responsible for determining if a law is 'Constitutional' or not. I guess we'll see.

 

[12Bravo20]

Here are some links on the subject. The FBI link contradicts the current ATF information.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nics/federal-fi...or-non-u.s.-citizens-purchasing-a-firearm.pdf


https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms

And a different link from the ATF.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may...dmitted-united-states-under-nonimmigrant-visa

From what I read (not a lawyer here) that one cannot purchase/possess firearms as a non immigrant alien under normal circumstances, Yes there are exceptions to this.

 

[Pat Riot]

The part in bold isn't accurate. There is no citizenship requirement to purchase or own firearms legally in the USA, or at least in the parts I am familiar with.

I disagree….And @jmorris summed it up nicely.

 

[unclenunzie]

This is why I do not like selective enforcement of laws. People get to pick and choose what ones they enforce. People get confused.



But you can’t be here illegally and do so, you answer “no” to questions they would have to answer “yes” to or that would be another crime they committed on US soil.

Right and true but not relevant for non-citizens lawfully in the country, which non-citizens can be, aka green card holders. This is not a minor distinction.

 

[jmorris]

Right and true but not relevant for non-citizens lawfully in the country,

Right and true but I believe the first two words in the title are “illegal immigrant” so “lawfully” is not relevant to this discussion.

It’s not uncommon at all for people to possess firearms in Countries they are not citizens, like hunter’s abroad but these people did not gain entry illegally.

 

[unclenunzie]

I disagree….And @jmorris summed it up nicely.

No. There is no citizenship requirement, just a legally present requirement, and as I said, as I understand it in the places I am familiar with. If you want to state firmly that it's illegal for lawful non-citizens to purchase or own firearms - show evidence of this.

 

[unclenunzie]

Right and true but I believe the first two words in the title are “illegal immigrant” so “lawfully” is not relevant to this discussion.

True of the title - but I responded to Pat's assertion, which is not accurate as stated.

 

[12Bravo20]

Absolutely correct that one does NOT have to be a US citizen. But they still must be an immigrant alien to legally possess firearms. Again a NON immigrant alien cannot possess firearms except for certain/limited situations, a hunting trip being one example.


And all of that is irrelevant to this particular situation and court case since the person is here illegally. He has broken the law by just being here and also broke the law by being in possession of a firearm.

 

[entropy]

Yes, Pratheepan Gulasekaram is a Professor of Law with a J.D. from Stanford University (2001). His bio and credentials are here on the Santa Clara University website.

Quoting:
"His research focuses on the constitutional rights of noncitizens and federalism concerns in immigration law. He is co-author of the leading immigration law casebook used in law schools (Immigration & Citizenship: Process and Policy (West Academic 9th Ed. 2021)). His book, The New Immigration Federalism, provides an in-depth empirical and theoretical analysis of the resurgence of state and local immigration lawmaking. He has also extensively explored the relationship between the Second Amendment and immigrants, as a way of understanding constitutional protections for noncitizens."

In plain English, he is on the frontier of having the Second (as well as all the others) Amendment redefined to include illegal immigrants. A legal activist, out to rewrite the Constitution. From the 3rd on, most of them focus on legal process. The first two, however, define the nation. Eliminate the 1st, it will create dictatorship, whether theocracy or anti-theocracy. (communism) Eliminate the 2nd, it will create dictatorship, in the manner of it's own choosing, because there will be no possible way to stop it.

 

[DoubleMag]

Are we confusing legal immigrants (green card, migrant worker, whatever) with persons breaking the law by being here?

Well, I AIN'T ! And neither is.... seque into...

and do so, you answer “no” to questions they would have to answer “yes” to or that would be another crime they...

Yes! SIMPLE, easy to understand. But...

Here are some links on the subject. The FBI link contradicts the current ATF information.

MAYBE PERHAPS...we needs us a NEW wing of gov't to link & interpret these different branches, bureaucracies. Maybe like....HomeLand Sec oh that's right it was already created by POTUS GB THNX GEORGE!

Remember, RULE#1 of GOV'T is...Increase and maintain the size/largess of gov't.

Final summation IMHO...

In plain English, he is on the frontier of having the Second (as well as all the others) Amendment redefined to include illegal immigrants. A legal activist, out to rewrite the Constitution. From...

Another activist, spinning/rewriting/arranging the chess pieces, to gain something that's simply...not there. WHUDDAthunkIT ! !