https://libertyunyielding.com/2022/...o-have-guns-federal-appeals-court-rules/

A federal appeals court has upheld a federal law banning illegal aliens from possessing guns, ruling that the Second Amendment does not give illegal aliens the right to keep and bear arms. Yesterday, the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 3-to-0 ruling to that effect in U.S. v. Jimenez-Shilon. The decision discussed the history and historical context of the Second Amendment, and concluded,

[Under eighteenth-century law,] aliens could not surreptitiously enter a foreign nation in violation of the immigration prerogatives of the sovereign and expect to receive all the rights and protections of the citizenry. Nor can they do so today.

Biden and his administration need to hang for importing millions of them. We are loosing our culture and it is because of politicians from both parties ignoring our constitution and our religion.

America's Founders were interested in protecting the Rights of Americans. They were not at all concerned about everyone else.

The Founders had a solution tucked away. It used flint. -Hint-

Agreed Digital

Yep. And Lead. 👍🏻

Yep. Most of them need to Swing.

Yes... but flint requires resolve...

And resolve is in damn short supply across this nation.

8531 by .com/photos/61286670@N08/]Sharps Man, on [bleep]

Very interesting and dated May 24, 2022 which is today. Several times I have posed this question: Does the Bill of Rights in the constitution apply to only citizens, to those in the country legally or to anyone present in the country? This ruling would indicate the Bill of Rights apply only to citizens and those in the country legally. If one right applies to those in the country legally, don't all the rights apply equally? Free speech, right to a jury trial, secure in your home, etc. What is your opinion and what is the potential affect of this ruling? What am I missing here?

Little victories give me hope…

I can see our Supreme Court coming up with justification that the illegals have MORE rights to firearms than U.S. citizens do.

It would appear as if they’re immune from the law. 😉

Yeah, it makes you wonder why “due process” applies to someone here illegaly. That’s the whole reason (supposedly) why so many illegals get to stay, awaiting their “due process” (court hearing).

Much like a member of your family or someone INVITED (legal immigrant), is treated differently than someone who INVADES (breaks in). Why should someone here ILLEGALLY get the benefits of citizens/legals??

You mean the same one that’s about to overrule Roe?

Was the shooter an illegal alien?

I cannot find that being reported anywhere.

Born in North Dakota.

No, but a CA Hunter Education card and Hunting License does.... and it also apparently "proves" residency.... just need a Matricula Consular ID from Mexico and you're good to go...

You can carry a gun in your new country of residence and you get the "resident" rates for tags and licenses.

You sir are right and it’s been going on for a long time. Just think of the phrase of a death by a thousand cuts.

I hope the loser is stupid enough to appeal it to the Supreme Court while Thomas is still there and we have the super majority.... Roberts doesn't swing as big of a stick as he used to after Barrett gave us 5 votes WITHOUT him. I am impatiently waiting for the opinion on the NYSRPA v. Bruen which we should see in the next few weeks..... hoping Roberts in neutered and Thomas writes the majority opinion. 🤞🏻

Nor does the Second Amendment give US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It merely acknowledges that this right belongs to every human being, and prohibits it's infringement.

That said, illegal aliens are criminals, and have a right to be captured and returned to wherever they came from, post haste. They may then exercise their right to keep and bear arms in their own country.

illegal aliens should only have the rights to be arrested and deported.

Hawkeye, The law may say what you say but , the truth is Illegal's have more rights than you do,
Rio7

For sure !!

Incorrect. Rights are an objective matter, not subject to law. Liberty is subject to law, however, so governments can be oppressive, i.e., restrict the exercise of rights, but that doesn't alter the rights in any way.

Ideologically you might be correct but we are seeing our "rights" taken away and infringed everyday by government and the constitution rendered irrelevant. We have a two tiered legal system that does or does not prosecute depending on which side you are on. Rio7 is absolutely correct.

Rights are what they are. Governments don't create, alter, or remove them. Governments that interfere with their exercise are the issue. To the extent that governments do so, they are functioning tyrannically.

Virtually all of the 'infringements" on the second amendment have been enacted by unelected bureaucrats or by executive order- - - -not by a vote of the people. Disarming the general population to protect the elite has always been the primary goal of tyrannical governments, dating back to long before America came into being.

God forbid our rights be contingent upon a vote by the people.

The Founders were correct in to whom they afforded voting rights.

Your point is well taken and you are correct as far as you go. I guess the question is how do we stop government from functioning tyrannically and violating our rights? Can we?

The Founders had a theory on that, and put it into writing. They called it the US Constitution.

Doesn't seem to be working very well right now!

BINGO

I'm not sure the U.S. Constitution ,Has anything to do with Government restraint, our rights any more? Rio7

So much for rights being inalienable and granted by God or nature.

Nope.

Illegals don't have the right to vote, but they do. Same principal

Voting is often mischaracterized as a right. It's actually a franchise. That franchise has expanded from what it was originally, but it's still a franchise, not a right (in the sense the Founders meant), and it certainly doesn't extend to non-citizens.

Despite precedent, "born on American soil", DOES NOT an American citizen make!

"Anchor baby" is a fallacy.

Trump was working on killing "citizenship vacations". Pregnant women from foreign countries come to America to "vacation", during which they give birth. Their child would then have "dual citizenship". Their native country and the country they were "born" in.

martinstrummer,


Being a Citizen of the U.S.A. does not mean as much as it once did. Rio7

Sounds to me like we are all pretty much on the same page regarding rights, privileges and franchises. I have shaken Rio7's hand and look forward to the opportunity to do so again. It would be my honor to shake hands with the rest of youall!