6 ms·

I'm not sure about the legal justification, but I don't think that is true in practice. For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpir

I'm not sure about the legal justification, but I don't think that is true in practice. For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident.

jakeogh 7y ago
Have the higher courts have addressed that? The tourist example I'm expecting they _should_ since they are not breaking any law. Hm. Page 27: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf I'm ignoring FFL's because it's not directly relevant.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  There was a recent court case about this (Rehaif v. U.S) where the Supreme Court made a decision about the law making it a felony to knowingly possess a gun in the US while here illegally. The prosecutor said "knowingly" just refers to the gun possession, but Rehaif's lawyer said it should refer to knowingly possessing the gun and knowing that you weren't in the country legally (Rehaif claimed that he hadn't read an email saying his student visa was revoked before he rented a gun at a shooting range). The Supreme Court said that "knowingly" referred to both the possession and the legality of one's presence. Presumably that means they're OK with a law that discriminates against some non-citizens on US soil. Another thing that I just learned it is actually still illegal to borrow a gun at a shooting range if you have a non-immigrant visa (unless you have a hunting license). Even if he hadn't lost his visa he'd still be breaking a different law. It's illegal for people visiting with tourist visas to go to shooting ranges, but for tourists visiting from countries that don't require visas it's OK.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Looks like it was recently (thankfully) reversed and remanded: https://ballotpedia.org/Rehaif_v._United_States https://ballotpedia.org/Rehaif_v._United_States Weird quirk with the huntling license, so that second example is a state law?
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      No, it's federal law that includes among it's explicit exemptions possession of a valid state hunting license. The law has not been much litigated, though the Ninth Circuit upheld it earlier this year in a case that was mostly a campaign finance crimes case but also involved gun possession by the foreign, non-immigrant defendant.
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    > Another thing that I just learned it is actually still illegal to borrow a gun at a shooting range if you have a non-immigrant visa (unless you have a hunting license). Huh; do you have a citation for this? I used to bring scientists from other countries to the shooting range for the cultural experience, and almost brought a pal from Europe hunting a year or two ago (on my license). Never realized I might have been putting them in legal jeopardy.
    - Rebelgecko 7y ago
      The actual law is here Title 18, Section 922, g(5)(B): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 I would guess that it's not enforced very often. If your friend was visiting from a European country that didn't require a visa to visit the US (most of them) you'd be in the clear. Some discussion for non-immigrant visas about halfway down this article: https://reason.com/2019/01/12/illegal-aliens-guns-and-strict-liability/ https://reason.com/2019/01/12/illegal-aliens-guns-and-strict...
reaperducer 7y ago
I don't think that is true in practice It is true in practice. One example: the children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to public education, even though they aren't citizens.
- elil17 7y ago
  This gets a couple things wrong: 1) People who aren’t citizens are still entitled to public education. Many green card holders go to US public schools, for instance 2) Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen regardless of their parents immigration status
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Clearly parent is not talking about children born in USA, so your second point is not relevant. Your first point is just a restatement of parent.
    - adiM 7y ago
      The grant-parent said "children of _illegal_ immigrants" and the parent is talking about "children of _Green card holders_". Green card holders are those who have immigrated legally.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        The question of the thread is to what extent non-citizens have particular rights. Parents cite two distinct yet substantially similar groups of non-citizens (one presumes that children don't have much agency with respect to the circumstances of their immigration). Both examples argue in the same direction on the question of the thread, so why does this distinction matter?
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Is the first point a constitutional issue? I don't recall the constitution guaranteeing anyone a public education.
Spooky23 7y ago
The well regulated militia is subject to regulation.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Heller vs DC: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I'd appreciate a summary of this 23 minute long audio recording ;)
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      I added the title, but I wouldnt do it justice, Scalia gives a fantastic overview of what the militia is in the first few minutes.
    - MaulingMonkey 7y ago
      It's a summary of the court's opinion and reasoning (and dissenting opinion) in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller supreme court case, as to the constitutionality of DC's handgun restrictions at the time, in light of the second amendment. Worth a listen if you've any interest in how we regulate gun ownership, IMO. If you use javascriptlets like: javascript:document.getElementsByTagName("video")[0].playbackRate=2 This actually works in chrome, to speed up the audio playback, if you're short on time.
    - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
      You can skip the recording and read the ruling itself. It is fairly short and there is nothing in it that is difficult to understand.
  - randyrand 7y ago
    When was this?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident. AFAICT, that’s the practical effect of a holding of an single intermediate appellate court this year on an issue that while important on its own was kind of a side issue in a campaign finance case, and the rationale seems a bit wobbly; and it's logic actually assumes as a starting point hat non-immigrant visa holders having the same 2A rights as everyone else. While it is for the moment binding precedent within the 9th Circuit, I wouldn't draw any broad generalizations from it, or, even, assume it will hold up on the future.
- jki275 7y ago
  I think that ruling flies in the face of the Constitution, there's no exception that I can find in "the right of the people" that says non-citizens don't qualify. There are a variety of federal laws that codify that as well, and I think they're all unconstitutional also.

jakeogh 7y ago

Have the higher courts have addressed that? The tourist example I'm expecting they _should_ since they are not breaking any law. Hm. Page 27: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf I'm ignoring FFL's because it's not directly relevant.

Rebelgecko 7y ago
There was a recent court case about this (Rehaif v. U.S) where the Supreme Court made a decision about the law making it a felony to knowingly possess a gun in the US while here illegally. The prosecutor said "knowingly" just refers to the gun possession, but Rehaif's lawyer said it should refer to knowingly possessing the gun and knowing that you weren't in the country legally (Rehaif claimed that he hadn't read an email saying his student visa was revoked before he rented a gun at a shooting range). The Supreme Court said that "knowingly" referred to both the possession and the legality of one's presence. Presumably that means they're OK with a law that discriminates against some non-citizens on US soil. Another thing that I just learned it is actually still illegal to borrow a gun at a shooting range if you have a non-immigrant visa (unless you have a hunting license). Even if he hadn't lost his visa he'd still be breaking a different law. It's illegal for people visiting with tourist visas to go to shooting ranges, but for tourists visiting from countries that don't require visas it's OK.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Looks like it was recently (thankfully) reversed and remanded: https://ballotpedia.org/Rehaif_v._United_States https://ballotpedia.org/Rehaif_v._United_States Weird quirk with the huntling license, so that second example is a state law?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    No, it's federal law that includes among it's explicit exemptions possession of a valid state hunting license. The law has not been much litigated, though the Ninth Circuit upheld it earlier this year in a case that was mostly a campaign finance crimes case but also involved gun possession by the foreign, non-immigrant defendant.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  > Another thing that I just learned it is actually still illegal to borrow a gun at a shooting range if you have a non-immigrant visa (unless you have a hunting license). Huh; do you have a citation for this? I used to bring scientists from other countries to the shooting range for the cultural experience, and almost brought a pal from Europe hunting a year or two ago (on my license). Never realized I might have been putting them in legal jeopardy.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    The actual law is here Title 18, Section 922, g(5)(B): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 I would guess that it's not enforced very often. If your friend was visiting from a European country that didn't require a visa to visit the US (most of them) you'd be in the clear. Some discussion for non-immigrant visas about halfway down this article: https://reason.com/2019/01/12/illegal-aliens-guns-and-strict-liability/ https://reason.com/2019/01/12/illegal-aliens-guns-and-strict...

reaperducer 7y ago

I don't think that is true in practice It is true in practice. One example: the children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to public education, even though they aren't citizens.

elil17 7y ago
This gets a couple things wrong: 1) People who aren’t citizens are still entitled to public education. Many green card holders go to US public schools, for instance 2) Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen regardless of their parents immigration status
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Clearly parent is not talking about children born in USA, so your second point is not relevant. Your first point is just a restatement of parent.
  - adiM 7y ago
    The grant-parent said "children of _illegal_ immigrants" and the parent is talking about "children of _Green card holders_". Green card holders are those who have immigrated legally.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      The question of the thread is to what extent non-citizens have particular rights. Parents cite two distinct yet substantially similar groups of non-citizens (one presumes that children don't have much agency with respect to the circumstances of their immigration). Both examples argue in the same direction on the question of the thread, so why does this distinction matter?
- leereeves 7y ago
  Is the first point a constitutional issue? I don't recall the constitution guaranteeing anyone a public education.

Spooky23 7y ago

The well regulated militia is subject to regulation.

jakeogh 7y ago
Heller vs DC: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I'd appreciate a summary of this 23 minute long audio recording ;)
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    I added the title, but I wouldnt do it justice, Scalia gives a fantastic overview of what the militia is in the first few minutes.
  - MaulingMonkey 7y ago
    It's a summary of the court's opinion and reasoning (and dissenting opinion) in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller supreme court case, as to the constitutionality of DC's handgun restrictions at the time, in light of the second amendment. Worth a listen if you've any interest in how we regulate gun ownership, IMO. If you use javascriptlets like: javascript:document.getElementsByTagName("video")[0].playbackRate=2 This actually works in chrome, to speed up the audio playback, if you're short on time.
  - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    You can skip the recording and read the ruling itself. It is fairly short and there is nothing in it that is difficult to understand.
- randyrand 7y ago
  When was this?

dragonwriter 7y ago

> For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident. AFAICT, that’s the practical effect of a holding of an single intermediate appellate court this year on an issue that while important on its own was kind of a side issue in a campaign finance case, and the rationale seems a bit wobbly; and it's logic actually assumes as a starting point hat non-immigrant visa holders having the same 2A rights as everyone else. While it is for the moment binding precedent within the 9th Circuit, I wouldn't draw any broad generalizations from it, or, even, assume it will hold up on the future.

jki275 7y ago
I think that ruling flies in the face of the Constitution, there's no exception that I can find in "the right of the people" that says non-citizens don't qualify. There are a variety of federal laws that codify that as well, and I think they're all unconstitutional also.