Ammo For Sale

« « Single issue | Home | Democrats introduce a ban on “assault weapons” » »

Gun rights for illegal aliens

A sixth ruling by a circuit court says that illegal aliens have no right to possess a firearm.

8 Responses to “Gun rights for illegal aliens”

  1. pkoning Says:

    Here’s a thought. Will CA politicians approve of this ruling because they hate guns, or will they deplore it because they want illegal aliens to have all the rights of citizens?

  2. mikee Says:

    California politicians can have their cake and eat it, too. They hate guns and will approve of this ban on ownership, AND they will avoid prosecuting illegal aliens for criminal violence. Easy, peasy.

  3. Ron W Says:

    @ Mike, They hate guns–for the People, not for themselves.

    There, fixed it for you.

  4. ExpatNJ Says:

    What is an “unlawful alien”? Just someone in the USA without documentation? What about “enemy combatants” (as defined by the Patriot Act)? Could US citizens, born/raised in US, be arbitrarily-stripped of their citizenship – because of their beliefs/1A-activism/whatever and then denied their 2A Rights?

    While I do not disagree with court opinion, I would be cautious of this, and others like it; they could well be setting us all up for our own “unintended consequences”.

  5. treefroggy Says:

    What next !! They’ll be telling them that they can’t vote ?

  6. Sendarius Says:

    This seems like an appropriate place to ask:

    What restrictions (if any) exist on firearm possession by LAWFUL aliens?

    Say I visit as a tourist – I have a visa, and the US .gov knows I am in the country, and allows me to be there.

    Is it permissible for me to possess a firearm?

    I know that I can’t BUY one from an FFL – as a non-citizen, I don’t have US .gov issued ID, and I can’t pass the mandated background check.

    However, what if my hosts GIVE or LEND me a firearm, or even SELL it to me in an otherwise lawful private sale – is possession lawful?

  7. Lyle Says:

    @treefroggy; Heh!

  8. DocMerlin Says:

    That violates heller. They decided to go with substantive due process, which is for rights of persons. If they had gone with P&I it would have been rights of citizens.