Americans are being warned that the danger from the porous United States borders has increased because of a federal appeals court’s determination that illegal aliens have a right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
“Just think: Illegal aliens who are about to be deported have standing to sue for gun rights, but the sheriff of the fourth largest county located near the border, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, has no standing to sue Obama for violating the law and flooding his jurisdiction with illegal immigrants,” wrote Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review.
The outrage came on the heels of a ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said people “living in the United States illegally” share in the Second Amendment right.
In the ruling, which conflicts with the decisions of several other appeals courts, the Chicago-based court ruled one particular illegal alien was barred from possessing weapons because of a federal statute.
But the three-judge panel said Mariano Meza-Rodriguez is among “the people” cited in the Constitution and thus would be granted the right “to keep and bear arms” if not for the federal law.
He was found to have a bullet in his pocket when he was apprehended, but he argued that the charges that ensued should be dismissed because he possesses Second Amendment rights.
The author of the opinion, Judge Diane Wood, wrote, “We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded.”
So is a flood of armed illegal aliens looming?
WND columnist Jeff Knox explained recently that the driver’s licenses progressive groups are demanding be issued to illegal aliens are the most common form of identification used to purchase firearms legally.
“A dozen states currently offer licenses regardless of immigration status, and of course the proponents of this idea object to any suggestion that these driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants include any indication that the holder is not a fully vested citizen with all the rights and privileges of citizenship. They say that providing a license that is any different than a normal driver’s license would be an invasion of the person’s privacy and an invitation for discrimination,” he wrote.
“Considering that the driver’s license is the predominant form of ID used for most purposes, including voting and in firearm purchases, and is usually the only form of ID used, this means that, not only is this practice potentially enabling voter fraud, but it also invites people who are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms an easy means of buying them through legal channels,” he wrote.
He said the 7th Circuit decision raises all sorts of questions on others issues, “such as the right to vote.”
“No matter how the court ruling turns out, the issue remains that it is illegal for persons in the country illegally to be in possession of firearms or ammunition, but the mechanism that is supposed to prevent them from purchasing guns is easily bypassed with the driver’s licenses ‘progressives’ want them to have,” he wrote.
Horowitz pulled no punches in his commentary.
“How much longer are we going to sit idly by and allow the courts to violate our sovereignty and Republican form of government, flip the Constitution on its head, and confer rights and privileges on those in the country in contravention to the laws duly passed by the people’s representatives?”
He continued: “Forget about birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, the leftwing activists disguised as judges on the federal bench have suddenly discovered a newfound alacrity for the Second Amendment. … The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals conferred Second Amendment rights … on illegal aliens!
“It’s not enough that we allow criminal aliens to stay here illegally, let’s give them guns too.”
The decision conflicts with rulings from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said in 2011, “Illegal aliens are not ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ or ‘members of the political community,’ and aliens who enter or remain in this country illegally and without authorization are not Americans as that word is commonly understood.”
A year later, the 4th Circuit agreed, ruling the “Second Amendment does not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens are not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance.”
The ruling may eventually find its way up to the Supreme Court, which would present the Obama administration, which has been ardently anti-gun and pro-illegal alien, with what undoubtedly would be an uncomfortable choice.
Horowitz noted the irony “at a time when the political class is trying to infringe upon the gun rights of U.S. citizens.”
The court precedent had been, Horowitz explained, “phrases like ‘we the people’ and ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ cannot apply to those who forcibly infiltrate the people – defined as a sovereign citizens (or immigrants legally and consensually admitted) of a society.”
Horowitz noted that dating back to the 1880s, “the courts have ruled that those here without lawful consent don’t even have procedural due process rights to prove their eligibility to enter or remain in the country.”
But the 7th Circuit, he said, “has now ratcheted up the insanity of conferring rights on illegals to a new level.”
At Guns.com, Jared Morgan reasoned that if the Second Amendment applies to illegal aliens, it follows that other rights would also apply.
“The court rejected the DOJ’s argument that the noncitizen cannot be part of the ‘the people’ because of the lack of commitment to basic obligation to U.S. society, according to analysis from Josh Blackman, an associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law. The court rejected that notion, Blackman wrote, saying the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.”
The progressive website Think Progress suggested the ruling could have “profound ripple effects.”
“The Fourth Amendment also refers to a right belonging to ‘the people,’ so if that term does not include undocumented immigrants, their rights to be free from abusive police tactics could be severely curtailed. Similarly, the First Amendment refers to ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’ Those rights could also potentially be stripped from undocumented immigrants if the Justice Department’s arguments prevail.”
Bob Owens at Bearing Arms said, “I don’t think for a second that the Founding Fathers would support the concept of granting criminal invaders the same legal status as legal immigrants, legal resident aliens, and citizens.”