Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally

[Gman]

Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally

MADISON, Wis. — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.

Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.

The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.

"We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded," Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

But the panel upheld Meza-Rodriguez's conviction, saying the federal ban on people in the country illegally possessing weapons remains valid. Wood wrote that the right to bear arms isn't unlimited and the government has a strong interest in preventing people who have already broken the law by coming to the country illegally from carrying guns.

Meza-Rodriguez's attorney, Joseph Bugni, said the decision contradicts itself. He plans to ask all nine active 7th Circuit judges to review the case together. If Meza-Rodriguez doesn't prevail at that level he'll go to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bugni said.

Judge Joel M. Flaum, a member of the panel, wrote in a concurring opinion that he doubts the Second Amendment applies to people in the country illegally. He acknowledged that the decision conflicts with other federal rulings and said the panel shouldn't have addressed the broader constitutional question since the possession ban is clearly legal.

[Irving]

As do all of the other amendments. This opens up the path to felons owning guns though, as many of us believe they should be allowed.

[Bailey Guns]

So the court said:

1) Illegal aliens have a right to keep and bear arms under the 2A.

and

2) Illegal aliens cannot exercise that right because the law prohibits it.

Makes perfect sense.

[Alpha2]

Oh, my. The courts have become very, very scary places. Now, no means yes. What could possibly go wrong?

[dirtrulz]

Will never understand how something given to citizens of a country can apply to people who are not citizens. But i guess if your argument is that guns are a god given right then citizenship doesnt matter.

[Irving]

Believing that the government hands out rights to specific people is a terrifying thought path. I encourage anyone who feels that way to seriously re-evaluate what they believe rights to be. Our country was based on the idea that people are born with certain unalienable rights, and people who are within America will not have those unalienable rights restricted by our government. I wouldn't feel too far off by stating that is pretty much the whole point of the United States of America. You'd be shocked how many people honestly believe they are not at fault for causing an auto accident because they think the other driver is here illegally.

[TFOGGER]

Wait, what? How does a noncitizen, present in this country without legal status, have any claim whatsoever to any of the rights (and the commensurate responsibilities!) of a citizen or person with legal residency status? Seriously, are the judges of the 7th Circuit that fucking stupid?

[HoneyBadger]

Wait, what? How does a noncitizen, present in this country without legal status, have any claim whatsoever to any of the rights (and the commensurate responsibilities!) of a citizen or person with legal residency status? Seriously, are the judges of the 7th Circuit that fucking stupid?

Well, ALL people have these rights, but our Constitution only establishes the government's role to protect the rights of US citizens. A right is fundamentally something universal that is not granted by a governing body.

Interesting observation: I've looked at about a dozen constitutions and the US constitution is the only one that I found that actually says what the GOVERNMENT is allowed to do. The rest all specify what the PEOPLE are allowed to do. i.e.: Our constitution recognizes that the government's role is to protect the rights of its citizens whereas other constitutions attempt to define the "rights" that the citizens will be allowed to have.

And this is why I shouldn't read threads from bottom to top:

Believing that the government hands out rights to specific people is a terrifying thought path. I encourage anyone who feels that way to seriously re-evaluate what they believe rights to be. Our country was based on the idea that people are born with certain unalienable rights, and people who are within America will not have those unalienable rights restricted by our government. I wouldn't feel too far off by stating that is pretty much the whole point of the United States of America.

Irving, you highlighted exactly the philosophical problem that our founders sought to solve. Fredrick Bastiat's The Law contains a very logical and well-reasoned approach to the origin of rights and why the government cannot effectively issue them, but how the government's primary role should be protecting the rights that all people inherently have. It's a short and fairly straightforward read, but something that should be a part of everyone's personal library.

[Irving]

Looks like we've strayed further from the path than I thought. Freedom is all encompassing by nature fellas.

[sellersm]

Yep, the government's job description is pretty short! In fact, it's so short that there should be no .gov employees and only part-time representatives...