In The Ten Ring said:
There was a judge that ruled a couple of years ago that even "illegal aliens had the right to keep and bear arms." I can't quote what case but I recall reading it in the news. Maybe someone will chime in....
Great Caesar's Ghost!
First, don't rely on memory. Look things up.
Second, never imagine that you understand a court decision from reading about it in the news. You must read the case.
The only case of which I'm aware which comes anywhere close to fitting your description is
United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, 7th Circuit, No. 14-3271, 2015. In
Meza-Rodriguez a three judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found: (1) the protections of the Bill of Rights can extend to person in this country illegally; and (2) a foreign nation present in this country is prohibited under 18 USC 922(g)(5) from possessing a gun or ammunition; and (3) 18 USC 922(g)(5) as applied to illegal aliens is not unconstitutional, but rather is valid and enforceable; and (4) therefore Meza-Rodrieguez' indictment for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun and/or ammunition standards and his prosecution for that crime can continue.
First, there nothing really new here. There are other cases in which courts have concluded that even illegal aliens can, under some circumstances, be entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights. And there have been other court decisions which have upheld various of the factors enumerated in 18 USC 922(g) disqualifying one from possessing a gun or ammunition.
Background
As the 7th Circuit in its opinion outlined the background of the case (slip op., at 1 -- 2):
When Mariano Meza-Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested in August 2013, he was carrying a .22 caliber cartridge. But it was what he did not have— documentation showing that he is lawfully in the United States—that concerns us now. His immigration status made his possession of the cartridge a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibits foreigners who are not entitled to be in the United States (whom we will call “unauthorized aliens”) from possessing firearms. Meza-Rodriguez moved to dismiss the indictment that followed, arguing that § 922(g)(5) impermissibly infringed on his rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The district court denied his motion on the broad ground that the Second Amendment does not protect unauthorized aliens. That rationale swept too far, and we do not endorse it. The court’s judgment, however, was correct for a different reason: the Second Amendment does not preclude certain restrictions on the right to bear arms, including the one imposed by§ 922(g)(5)....
Meza-Rodriguez' appeal of the District Court's refusal to dismiss his indictment potentially raises two questions: (1) do the rights protected by the Second Amendment extend to unauthorized aliens (using the terminology of the Circuit Court); and (2) if so, is prohibiting unauthorized aliens from possessing a gun or ammunition a constitutionally impermissible regulation of the rights protected by the Second Amendment?
To respond to and rule on Meza-Rodriguez' appeal, the Circuit Court needed to address both those questions.
Do the Rights Protected by the Second Amendment Extend to Unauthorized Aliens?
The Circuit Court did not comprehensively answer that question. Rather it concluded that the rights protected by the Second Amendment extended to Meza-Rodriguez, and unauthorized aliens similarly situated. To reach that conclusion, the Circuit Court looked at other cases extending under some circumstances certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to unauthorized aliens.
As the 7th Circuit noted (
Meza-Rodriguez, slip op. at 9 -- 10, emphasis added):
...The conclusion that the term “the people” in the Second Amendment has the same meaning as it carries in other parts of the Bill of Rights is just the first step in our analysis. We still must decide what it means. The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue, albeit obliquely. In Verdugo-Urquidez, the Court determined that the Fourth Amendment did not protect a noncitizen brought involuntarily to the United States against a warrantless search of his foreign residence. See Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 274–75. In rejecting Verdugo-Urquidez’s position, the Court stated that “‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” Id. at 265. Of interest here, the Court also said that “aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.” Id. at 271. ...
And with regard to Meza-Rodriguez' ties to the United States, the 7th Circuit notes (
Meza-Rodriguez,slip op at 11):
...see first that Meza-Rodriguez was in the United States voluntarily; there is no debate on this point. He still has extensive ties with this country, having resided here from the time he arrived over 20 years ago at the age of four or five until his removal. He attended public schools in Milwaukee, developed close relationships with family members and other acquaintances, and worked (though sporadically) at various locations. This is much more than the connections our sister circuits have found to be adequate.....
Thus the rights protected by the Second Amendment extend to Meza-Rodriguez.
Is Prohibiting Unauthorized Aliens from Possessing a Gun or Ammunition a Constitutionally Impermissible Regulation of the Rights Protected by the Second Amendment?
And with regard to that question, the 7th Circuit concluded the disqualifying unauthorized aliens from possessing a gun or ammunition was a permissible regulation.
In sustaining the application of 18 USC 922(g)(5), the 7th Circuit found (slip op., at 15):
...Congress’s objective in passing § 922(g) was “to keep guns out of the hands of presumptively risky people” and to “suppress[] armed violence.” Yancey, 621 F.3d at 683–84 (citing S. REP. NO. 90-1501, at 22 (1968)); see also Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1169–70 (§ 922(g)’s purposes are to assist law enforcement in combating crime and to keep weapons away from those deemed dangerous or irresponsible). One such group includes aliens “who … [are] illegally or unlawfully in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). The government argues that the ban on the possession of firearms by this group of people is substantially related to the statute’s general objectives because such persons are able purposefully to evade detection by law enforcement. We agree with this position: unauthorized noncitizens often live “largely outside the formal system of registration, employment, and identification, [and] are harder to trace and more likely to assume a false identity.” Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1170. Persons with a strong incentive to use false identification papers will be more difficult to keep tabs on than the general population. (Section 922(g)(5)(B)’s prohibition on firearms possession by most aliens who are lawfully present but who hold only nonimmigrant visas reflects a similar concern....
Basically, the 7th Circuit could not resolve this case by refusing to extend the rights protected by the Second Amendment to unauthorized aliens. Were it to do so, it would have undercut existing and important legal principles extending certain fundamental, personal rights to persons who , "...have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country...."
However, several of the conditions listed in 18 USC 922(g) disqualifying one from possessing a gun or ammunition have been sustained at the Circuit Court level.
Note that this, like many court decisions, is not straightforward. Decisions on multiple points are necessary to reach the conclusion. The intermediate decision, that rights protected by the Bill of Rights can extend to illegal aliens, does not end the matter. In trying to understand the law (1) one must take things step-by-step; and (2) one must remember that details matter.
In The Ten Ring said:
....Many existing laws violate the Constitution,...
Only if the federal courts say so. Your opinion on the question doesn't mean anything.
