3 ms·

It wasn't an "illegal firearm", it was illegal for him to possess any firearm because of his immigration status. There's a huge difference there. Edit: Reading

It wasn't an "illegal firearm", it was illegal for him to possess any firearm because of his immigration status. There's a huge difference there. Edit: Reading your comment again, I think what you wrote can be taken either way (he was illegally possessing firearms, or he was possessing illegal firearms). So we may be in complete agreement here.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Could you explain the difference here? If he is undocumented and cannot legally purchase a firearm would it not satisfy both phrasings or does the latter (illegal firearm) refer to weapons banned from anyone possessing under law? Edit: Thanks for the clarification below.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  The first time I read rayiner's post, I took him to mean a firearm that is illegal for anyone to purchase or own, i.e. an "illegal firearm". Reading it again, I realized his phrasing was ambiguous and he could have meant "illegal possession of a legal firearm due to immigration status", hence my edit. So basically, it could be a legal firearm possessed illegally, or a banned firearm, based on his wording.
- talmand 12y ago
  Typically saying "illegal firearm" means it is illegal for anyone to own the firearm in question regardless of the person's status or how they got it. If a person is barred by law from possessing a firearm then it is possible for them to have a "legal firearm" in their possession; for example, if someone not barred by law owned the exact same firearm then there would be no issue. But I read the post in the manner that I'm guessing was intended, so I personally don't see it as a big deal.
logfromblammo 12y ago
Any law making it illegal for him to possess firearms is likely unconstitutional. The only places where citizenship is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution is in regard to eligibility for federal offices and jurisdiction of the federal courts. To a non-lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk. The feds and the states are simply not allowed to make laws restricting ownership or possession of firearms. And yet such laws get passed and enforced anyway. His defense would have to explicitly bring that up, and I doubt there are many attorneys that want to go there if they could possibly avoid it. That same argument has already been rejected at the appellate level by the 4th circuit, so it would likely have to go all the way to the SCotUS to stick, and unlikely they would decide to hear it. In any case, even if he ate babies in his spare time, I emphatically reject the idea that plinking cans is sufficient to generate sufficient suspicion for a search, as it is not a crime in itself when nothing else is known about the person doing it. It is, on its face, an innocent activity. If we want this country to not be a police state, we have to accept that fighting crime will have a minimum level of difficulty. The Blackstone Ratio suggests that this guy might have to go free in order to protect innocent people from bogus police tactics in the future.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > Any law making it illegal for him to possess firearms is likely unconstitutional. The only places where citizenship is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution is in regard to eligibility for federal offices and jurisdiction of the federal courts. To a non-lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk. It's not a slam dunk. The second amendment reads: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Who are "the people?" In the Preamble to the Constitution, the phrase "the people" clearly refers to the political community creating the new government, which arguably excludes illegal aliens. The Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia construed "the people" in a way that is consistent with that use, and which lower courts have taken to mean that illegal aliens don't have second amendment rights. However, the bill of rights uses "the people" to refer to the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, and the fourth amendment right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure. If "the people" is interpreted consistently for all the amendments, that implies that illegal aliens don't have several rights under the bill of rights, which is problematic. See: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7452&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent....
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    I interpret the fact that "people" and "citizen" are used in different places for different purposes to mean that the choice of wording does have significance. In any case, the Constitution is a limiting document. It restricts what the government is allowed to do. In the context of the 2nd amendment, it is not allowed to create arms control laws. It does anyway. Differences in the de facto exercise of rights between citizens and non-citizens are likely due to different levels of access to the court system and in relative political clout, rather than some underlying intent that is not obvious in the document itself. By plain reading of the law, "the people" means the people. It includes any humans acting in their own capacity, as themselves, rather than as the agents or representatives of another legally distinct entity. Begging the pardon of the state, and its judges, but the people do not find it convenient for the state to redefine what personhood means, especially when done in a way that skirts the limits set forth by the people for the government. You have to be a lawyer to think that "the people" does not include any person. A non-lawyer can apply the common meaning of the word and use it without stopping to argue over whether it means what it means. I don't give a fig whether it is about Mexicans or Tenctonese. If they are people at all, they are people who have the right to keep and bear arms. Besides that, if "the people" were so defined as to include only those people who created the government, I, as someone born more than 200 years later, would certainly not qualify. If you exclude illegal aliens on that basis, you exclude everyone who did not explicitly ratify the original document, which is to say almost everyone alive today, excluding only those who have sworn an oath of office. If I am not thus protected by the law, I am not obligated to follow it. Do we really want to open up that can of worms? Lysander Spooner's "No Treason" essays may elucidate further, but I think perhaps it would be a greater boon to civil order if we agree that "the people" are not necessarily a specific subset of people.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

Could you explain the difference here? If he is undocumented and cannot legally purchase a firearm would it not satisfy both phrasings or does the latter (illegal firearm) refer to weapons banned from anyone possessing under law? Edit: Thanks for the clarification below.

morganvachon 12y ago
The first time I read rayiner's post, I took him to mean a firearm that is illegal for anyone to purchase or own, i.e. an "illegal firearm". Reading it again, I realized his phrasing was ambiguous and he could have meant "illegal possession of a legal firearm due to immigration status", hence my edit. So basically, it could be a legal firearm possessed illegally, or a banned firearm, based on his wording.
talmand 12y ago
Typically saying "illegal firearm" means it is illegal for anyone to own the firearm in question regardless of the person's status or how they got it. If a person is barred by law from possessing a firearm then it is possible for them to have a "legal firearm" in their possession; for example, if someone not barred by law owned the exact same firearm then there would be no issue. But I read the post in the manner that I'm guessing was intended, so I personally don't see it as a big deal.

logfromblammo 12y ago

Any law making it illegal for him to possess firearms is likely unconstitutional. The only places where citizenship is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution is in regard to eligibility for federal offices and jurisdiction of the federal courts. To a non-lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk. The feds and the states are simply not allowed to make laws restricting ownership or possession of firearms. And yet such laws get passed and enforced anyway. His defense would have to explicitly bring that up, and I doubt there are many attorneys that want to go there if they could possibly avoid it. That same argument has already been rejected at the appellate level by the 4th circuit, so it would likely have to go all the way to the SCotUS to stick, and unlikely they would decide to hear it. In any case, even if he ate babies in his spare time, I emphatically reject the idea that plinking cans is sufficient to generate sufficient suspicion for a search, as it is not a crime in itself when nothing else is known about the person doing it. It is, on its face, an innocent activity. If we want this country to not be a police state, we have to accept that fighting crime will have a minimum level of difficulty. The Blackstone Ratio suggests that this guy might have to go free in order to protect innocent people from bogus police tactics in the future.

rayiner 12y ago
> Any law making it illegal for him to possess firearms is likely unconstitutional. The only places where citizenship is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution is in regard to eligibility for federal offices and jurisdiction of the federal courts. To a non-lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk. It's not a slam dunk. The second amendment reads: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Who are "the people?" In the Preamble to the Constitution, the phrase "the people" clearly refers to the political community creating the new government, which arguably excludes illegal aliens. The Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia construed "the people" in a way that is consistent with that use, and which lower courts have taken to mean that illegal aliens don't have second amendment rights. However, the bill of rights uses "the people" to refer to the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, and the fourth amendment right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure. If "the people" is interpreted consistently for all the amendments, that implies that illegal aliens don't have several rights under the bill of rights, which is problematic. See: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7452&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent....
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  I interpret the fact that "people" and "citizen" are used in different places for different purposes to mean that the choice of wording does have significance. In any case, the Constitution is a limiting document. It restricts what the government is allowed to do. In the context of the 2nd amendment, it is not allowed to create arms control laws. It does anyway. Differences in the de facto exercise of rights between citizens and non-citizens are likely due to different levels of access to the court system and in relative political clout, rather than some underlying intent that is not obvious in the document itself. By plain reading of the law, "the people" means the people. It includes any humans acting in their own capacity, as themselves, rather than as the agents or representatives of another legally distinct entity. Begging the pardon of the state, and its judges, but the people do not find it convenient for the state to redefine what personhood means, especially when done in a way that skirts the limits set forth by the people for the government. You have to be a lawyer to think that "the people" does not include any person. A non-lawyer can apply the common meaning of the word and use it without stopping to argue over whether it means what it means. I don't give a fig whether it is about Mexicans or Tenctonese. If they are people at all, they are people who have the right to keep and bear arms. Besides that, if "the people" were so defined as to include only those people who created the government, I, as someone born more than 200 years later, would certainly not qualify. If you exclude illegal aliens on that basis, you exclude everyone who did not explicitly ratify the original document, which is to say almost everyone alive today, excluding only those who have sworn an oath of office. If I am not thus protected by the law, I am not obligated to follow it. Do we really want to open up that can of worms? Lysander Spooner's "No Treason" essays may elucidate further, but I think perhaps it would be a greater boon to civil order if we agree that "the people" are not necessarily a specific subset of people.