Some people are missing the point. He is an alien that has broken the law and defied the Constitution to invade our border illegally. He has no rights as an American Citizen.
The point is - if the 2A covers him - how can it NOT cover you? That's the unintended consequence of this.
I like and agree with your theoretical point. But I think there is ample evidence every day in the headlines, that there is a double standard of justice in this country now. Clearly the current laws are enforced differently for white people and people of color. That is reality.
I wish I was wrong,
I wish arbitrary ATF rules were invalidated by this case, but I'd bet heavily this won't pass muster in the first round of appeals.
They may just be one day, until perhaps Congress can write a Constitutional law (might be hard to do now), that only allows citizens protection of their God given rights.
Bruen is screwing up, in a mostly good way, a lot of heretofore settled law.
This came from a case the judge in the OP used to get to her conclusion (my bold)
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/04/221010P.pdfIn Bruen, the Court held that New York’s proper-cause requirement for
carrying a firearm outside one’s home violated the Second Amendment right to keep
and bear arms, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. 142 S. Ct. at 2156.
Bruen does not address the meaning of “the people,” much less the constitutionality
of criminal firearm statutes like § 922(g)(5)(A). Bruen does, however, clarify how
a court must assess a Second Amendment challenge in general:
[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s
conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To
justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the
regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation
is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude
that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s
unqualified command.
If there were no historical regulations regarding the keeping and bearing of arms by aliens, legal or otherwise, at the time of the acceptance of the Bill of Rights, then I can't see how "18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), " can stand as Constitutional.
Matters not if I like it or not, as Teal points out. Under Bruen, it would seem to be the case at the moment.
The good part...................perhaps a whole bunch of the presently enforced regulations will be tossed too. Can we please get unlicensed, tax free suppressors and other goodies in this Country again.
And among other things, get rid of the damn Roster and weapons/mag bans in this State.
