Article doesn't say if he was carrying concealed or how LE found out he was in possession of a firearm...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/illega ... Vtdw%3D%3D

Not a precedential decision yet.

The problem is they are illegal immigrants, not that they own guns. Would we also strip illegals of due process, apply cruel and unusual punishment, arbitrarily deprive them of property, etc?

Some people might want to but I think the solution is to fix immigration and deport them, not throw out the Bill of Rights.

Not to throw a wrench into your concept, but, the Bill Of Rights you referenced was written for, and applies to, Citizens of the United States..

They arrive avoiding “due process” at the border, and then you want to give them the Rights of Citizenship?

That’s even more than an open border proponent…

I watched a video on YouTube. The presenter quoted the judge as saying that (recalling from my bad memory) he wasn't committing a crime (etc) while carrying the firearm.

I read this as it could set a precedent. Someone carrying a firearm that may be "quasi" legal but get searched while not commiting a crime might actually avoid a charges/conviction because of this ruling.

The rights recognized in the Bill of Rights are natural rights; they're not reserved to only certain classes.

No one said anything about “classes”.


The Bill of Rights literally says that it explicitly guarantees certain rights and protections to US citizens by limiting the power of the federal government.

I didn’t write it, and how you “feel” doesn’t change what it actually says.

I'm going to need a citation for that.

I misspoke (bad editing)

I shouldn’t have said literally, I typed that first, but meant to say explicitly, as you see later on in the sentence.

It was a lazy way of trying to remember some of what I read awhile ago, here:


https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ ... -of-rights

You guys are confusing me.

We citizens have to jump through hoops to own guns, and we’re tracked on what we own, buy, or sell.

If we commit crimes that are felonies, we lose that right.

But, for some reason, you think it should be okay for criminals from other countries to come here and own a weapon, unchecked?


Isn’t that the problem we already have, too many criminals with guns, and too many roadblocks for good citizens to protect themselves?

That's the author's interpretation, but the plain text of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution say nothing about citizenship status. The rights belong to all people in the United States, because they are natural rights.

Going back to the original comment that started all this: the issue isn't that illegal aliens have guns, or the natural right to protect themselves the same as you and I. The issue is that our government is not upholding its duty to protect our borders and our sovereignty by maintaining the rule of law as it pertains to immigration. We should not be arguing the point of whether illegals here have guns. The point is that they shouldn't be here in the first place.

This is a straw man argument. Nobody here has said it's OK for criminals to come here illegally and continue to be criminals.

And you're missing the broader point. Instead of lending credence to the notion that the government can curtail the exercise of a person's natural right to possess weapons for self-defense - a clear violation of 2A - we should be seeing the opportunity with this ruling to roll back those infringements that we're already forced to live under.

Good, every man, woman and child should be armed. And why should i be scared of them having guns? I'm armed too.