5th Circuit Rules Illegal Aliens Not Protected by 2A

[Tom Servo]

I would only have to be careful if the sole reason for the RKBA was self defense. It isn't. I would argue that it's not even PRIMARY, say nothing of solely.

Very good point. I recently had to correct someone who claimed that the sole reason for it was to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Many TFLers would be none too fond of my opinion of Incorporation either.

We were actually pretty divided over the issue during the lead-up to McDonald. Those threads were some of the liveliest and thought-provoking debates I've had in quite some time.

 

[Hugh Damright]

Many TFLers would be none too fond of my opinion of Incorporation either.

On the other hand, there is the 14th's "equal protection" clause. The legislative history seems to prove that this clause was intended to embrace gun laws. In fact, the preceding Freedmen's Bureau Bill was once amended to specifically address the RKBA, and they added it to the equal protection clause:

"full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms, are [not to be] refused or denied ... on account of race"

And the 14th's equal protection clause says that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". So, regardless of incorporation, it appears that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect the RKBA of aliens.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We have a fundamental right to self preservation. Firearms are not "fundamental". They are a modern tool constructed by man, they can not be, by definition, "fundamental".
We have a constitutional right to firearms, as established by our agreed upon principles of governance.

Nope and nope.

We do not have a constitutional right to "firearms," we have a constitutional right to "arms." However, your statement implies that our right to arms is somehow NOT a fundamental right, and that it derives from the Constitution.

In fact, the Bill of Rights does not -- and does not claim to -- grant any rights. It is a statement and a (supposed) guarantee of preexisting rights. And, in Heller and then McDonald, the Supreme Court has stated explicitly that the right to keep and bear arms IS a "fundamental" right. And, although the SCOTUS has recognized that self defense is one of the potential uses for the arms we have a "fundamental" right to keep and bear, they made clear that it is not the only use. The RKBA applies equally to the bullseye shooter and the collector of safe queens as much as to the armed citizen who goes forth always ready to defend himself with "arms."

 

[nazshooter]

MLeake, respectfully, I believe you confuse 2 separate ideas. The "God given right" is self preservation, not "firearms". God didn't invent firearms. Illegals have every right, as does every human everywhere at all times, to defend themselves against aggression.

So long as they don't use tools to do so? Try applying that logic to the 1st. Does congress have the power to limit expression to stone tablets? Can they limit you to a short list of approved religions so long as you can choose between them?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk