You just can't make this stuff up!

They have a "right" to illegally possess a gun to protect themselves from danger in the country they fled to for safety because the danger in the country they left was overwhelming. Makes sense if you don't think about it!

The right to self-defense is a universal human right regardless of an individual’s immigration status. Seems like the defendant had a history of being a responsible gun owner and productive part of society. I would call the ruling a win for personal liberty.
 
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

undocumented people are people after all.
 
I can see both sides, but how do we deal with current law denying possession?
 
This provides a lot more context on the case.


"Between 9:30 p.m. and 10:40 p.m., Defendant witnessed approximately four vehicles drive past the shop and contends that one yelled threats, another pointed guns at the watch, and two sped off from in front of the shop. At 11:06 p.m., Defendant stepped into the crosswalk. A white car drove through the intersection in which he stood, without stopping. Video surveillance footage shows the car swerve slightly to its right, which Defendant says he interpreted as an attempt to hit one of the neighborhood watch. Defendant has never contended that the car attended to hit or strike him, or that its occupants possessed guns or made verbal threats to him. Defendant pulled the firearm from his pocket and fired seven shots at the vehicle, which Defendant contends were in warning. At 11:41 p.m., Defendant again pointed the firearm at another vehicle as it drove past but did not stop or swerve. He pulled the trigger of the gun repeatedly, which did not fire. Defendant attempted to unjam the gun and shoot again but was unsuccessful. Two minutes later, officers placed Defendant under arrest."

There right here are probably my biggest problem. Pulling a gun and firing 7 "warning shots" towards a vehicle as it drove away does not constitute self defense. Then pulling the gun and attempting to fire at a different vehicle which arguably showed no signs of threat also does not constitute self defense.

On one hand, I like that the ruling kind of says, "Hey, everyone should have a right to own/use a gun for self defense unless they've given reason to believe that they shouldn't." On the other, justifying either the above actions as "self defense" risks opening a can of worms.
 
Common sense… he is here ILLEGALLY. He has no right to be here. He certainly should not be in possession of a firearm. In my, perhaps rather narrow view, he has NO rights set by the Constitution.
Someone once pointed out to me that the constitution does not give or deny rights to anyone. Citizen or not. If you read the constitution, you will see that it is not a document meant to govern the people, it is a document designed to govern the government. It says what the government can and can't do, not the people.

I think that fact has largely been lost with our modern interpretation of the constitution and of government.
 
There right here are probably my biggest problem. Pulling a gun and firing 7 "warning shots" towards a vehicle as it drove away does not constitute self defense. Then pulling the gun and attempting to fire at a different vehicle which arguably showed no signs of threat also does not constitute self defense.
If a straight white male did this he would be crucified and what a shit storm it would be. And that's my problem with this whole thing.
 
Good ruling. If one believes that the right to self-defense is a natural right, it would be hard to justify government having the authority to deprive someone of it based upon laws of man, such as immigration status.

You can want them deported and support their right to this.
 
Good ruling. If one believes that the right to self-defense is a natural right, it would be hard to justify government having the authority to deprive someone of it based upon laws of man, such as immigration status.

You can want them deported and support their right to this.
My take precisely. You can’t have it both ways. You either support the constitution as and the restraint it puts upon the government as written. Or you don’t. Lots of people scream 2A and constitution but then try to cherry pick when it should apply.
 
Funny how on certain things people are all about "states rights" and on other things "that's unconstitutional".
 
My take precisely. You can’t have it both ways. You either support the constitution as and the restraint it puts upon the government as written. Or you don’t. Lots of people scream 2A and constitution but then try to cherry pick when it should apply.
An illegal immigrants fired 7 warning shots at a car in the street like he was dirty Harry. Is that responsible gun ownership? Something should of been done. Legal or illegal. You can't just be blasting a gun at cars in the street good grief.
 
Does it matter? You do know a lot of people don't think it's okay for anyone to have a gun in the US. And that number is growing.
Well I think one is a citizen and the other is here ILLEGALLY I think it is still a felony to enter this country without going threw a port of entry. A felon in this country is not allow to own or have a gun.
 
An illegal immigrants fired 7 warning shots at a car in the street like he was dirty Harry. Is that responsible gun ownership? Something should have been done. Legal or illegal. You can't just be blasting a gun at cars in the street good grief.
I don’t disagree with that fact. I’m only commenting to the constitutionality of the situation.
 
Well I think one is a citizen and the other is here ILLEGALLY I think it is still a felony to enter this country without going threw a port of entry. A felon in this country is not allow to own or have a gun.
I never looked too deep, but did it state that he didn’t enter this country through a port of entry? Lots of quote “Illegals” have entered thru the POE. Maybe just overstaying and haven’t got all paperwork in order yet. Lots of scenarios.

Disclaimer, I still believe in deportation or repercussions for being undocumented. Haha
 
No illegal entry into the US is a misdemeanor not a felony. Even if it was, you have to be convicted before you are denied possessing a firearm.

I've always wondered how a felon can be denied a constitutional right such as the second amendment but not other constitutional rights such as the fifth amendment. Has anyone challenged that in court?
 
Back
Top