Do Illegal Aliens Have 2nd Amendment Rights? | Feb 8, 2017

Illegal Aliens Have Second Amendment Rights, Says 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

– Reason

“As America is riled over the rights of illegal aliens to bear native children in these United States, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ups the ante of alien fear: the law should not be able to bar them from owning or bearing weapons just because they are not citizens.

The decision comes in the case of U.S. v. Meza-Rodriguez. Excerpts with commentary from a decision from Judge Diane Wood:

responded to a report that an armed man was at a local bar. The officers obtained a surveillance video showing a man pointing an object that resembled a firearm. Witnesses later identified that man as Meza-Rodriguez. A few hours later, the same officers responded to a different report of a fight at a neighboring bar. The officers broke up the fight and recognized MezaRodriguez as the man from the surveillance video. After a foot chase, they apprehended him and patted him down. This brief search turned up a .22 caliber cartridge in his shorts pocket.

That man was Mariano Meza-Rodriguez, brought to the U.S. when he was a child by his parents but never a legitimate citizen here.

He was charged with violating federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which makes it illegal for an alien to “possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.”

Meza-Rodriguez claims the prosecution violated his Second Amendment rights. Two lower courts denied that illegal aliens had any Second Amendment rights.

What does the 7th Circuit think? (Meza-Rodriguez was booted from the country, and that conviction would bar him from return.) Who are the “people” the Second Amendment protects, and does it include non-citizen aliens here in the States?

The Court notes what some other courts have thought about that question:

[N]either Heller nor any other Supreme Court decision has addressed the issue whether unauthorized noncitizens (or noncitizens at all) are among “the people” on whom the Amendment bestows this individual right. A few other courts of appeals have reached this issue, however, and have concluded, based on language in Heller, that the Amendment does not protect the unauthorized. See United States v. Carpio-Leon, 701 F.3d 974, 979 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Flores, 663 F.3d 1022, 1023 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); United States v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437, 442 (5th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d 1164, 1169–70 (10th Cir. 2012) (declining to reach the issue because § 922(g)(5) passes intermediate scrutiny in any case). 8 No. 14-3271

The Court decides the “people” in the Second Amendment are the same “people” as in other amendments, like the Fourth. Thus, they look at what the Supreme Court has said about the Fourth Amendment and “people” in the Verdugo-Urquidez case.

That case roughly concluded that only aliens with “substantial ties” in the U.S. could expect those constitutional protections. The Court thinks that Meza-Rodriguez qualifies. He was here voluntarily and has:

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

Having a criminal record, which Meza-Rodriguez did, is not enough to bar him from having this substantial connection with the U.S. under Verdugo-Urquidez. Plyer v. Doe (1982) (a case about school funding for non citizens) is another Supreme Court case the 7th Circuit relies on to conclude that an alien can be a person with constitutional rights in the U.S.”

….Continue reading more @


Federal Appelate Court: Illegal Aliens Don’t Have 2nd Amendment Rights

– Judicial Watch

Judges across the country have ruled over the years that illegal immigrants have certain constitutional rights in the U.S., but a federal appellate court has drawn the line with the Second Amendment, which interestingly is the topic of heated discussions lately.

The case involves a Mexican national, Nicolas Carpio-Leon, arrested and charged for entering the country illegally, using a fake Social Security to obtain a driver’s license and owning two guns. Carpio-Leon has lived in Orangeburg South Carolina for more than a decade and has three American-born children (anchor babies).

It was a slam-dunk case for the feds when they indicted him last year; an illegal immigrant using a fake identity in possession of a .22 caliber Marlin rifle, a 9 millimeter Hi-Point pistol and ammunition. Hiding behind the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Carpio-Leon claims he’s entitled to keep the firearms to protect his kids and home.

In a court motion, he argues that the constitution also applies to illegal immigrants, that they too have the right to keep guns in their homes for their families’ protection. The Second Amendment could not possibly have excluded illegal immigrants, Carpio-Leon asserts in his motion, because when it was enacted “attitudes toward immigration were the reverse of today’s attitudes.”

This laughable argument was slammed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which notes the constitutional right to bear arms has always been reserved for law-abiding, responsible citizens. This would automatically exclude those who violate U.S. immigration laws. Therefore illegal immigrants are not covered by the Second Amendment since they are not law-abiding citizens, the court says.

In fact, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the Virginia-based appellate court put illegal aliens in the same category as felons convicted of violent crimes. “Thus, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess for every purpose, to possess every type of weapon, to possess at every place, or to possess by every person,” according to the decision which has been posted by an online publication that covers legal matters.

It’s not uncommon to see illegal immigrants suing over the violation of their constitutional rights in U.S. courts, especially the Fourth Amendment because it involves racial profiling and illegal searches by police. Another popular one is the First Amendment, which has been repeatedly used by open-borders activist to fight laws prohibiting day laborers from congregating in public places.”

…..Continue reading @ Judicial Watch

Clearly we have with this issue is what is known with the Federal Circuit Courts as a ‘circuit split’ that is two or more Federal Circuits that disagree on the same issue. Similar to what we now have with President Trump’s Travel Ban. /CJ


House Panel: ‘Insider Threat’ of Jihadi Employees on the Rise at U.S. Airports

– Breitbart

“Airports and passenger planes across the United States face evolving “insider threats” from aviation industry employees who have joined terrorist groups and are seeking to carry out “lone wolf” attacks, the House Homeland Security Committee warns in a recent investigation.

“America’s airports and aircraft remain vulnerable to attack and exploitation by nefarious individuals,” the investigation report reads, adding that the “troubling reality” is that “current security standards would likely fail to prevent a determined adversary with insider access from causing harm to an airport or aircraft.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Leave a Reply