Do illegal immigrants have a right to bear arms?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I was going through the new naturalization test - and question 51 was interesting.

What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?

▪ freedom of expression

▪ freedom of speech

▪ freedom of assembly

▪ freedom to petition the government

▪ freedom of worship

▪ the right to bear arms

Seeing how illegal immigrants live in the US (albeit illegally), do they have a right to bear arms as well?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

San Francisco thinks so.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

San Francisco thinks so.

The USCIS (part of the DHS) seems to think so too

[MrsCat 6]

Great question - my gut says yes. However according to that other thread, that is a bad sign. Let me do some research in my NRA magazines.

[mRx 16]

They should be allowed to carry only illegal weapons. Like fully automatic machine guns, explosive arrows, and nuclear weapons.

Illegal arms for illegal immigrants. It makes sense...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, here's a judge who disagrees with USCIS!

The Government argues in opposition that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, does not apply to illegal aliens like Defendant.

...

The text of the Amendment provides that the right extends to "the people" whose right shall not be infringed. Heller’s definition of "the people" is central to the outcome of this question ... Heller recognized that the individual right secured by the Second Amendment was a pre-existing right under common law. It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed."

...

That common law right was held only by citizens and those who swore allegiance to the Government; it did not include everyone present on American soil. At the time of the Founding, not all persons were entitled to the protection of the common law right and some individuals were excluded “because of perceived unfitness, untrustworthiness or alienage" ... The Founders would have equally understood that persons present in the country illegally or without permanency could, consistent with the well-established limitations on the common law right, be barred from possessing arms.

http://volokh.com/files/boffilrivera.pdf

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Well, here's a judge who disagrees with USCIS!

The Government argues in opposition that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, does not apply to illegal aliens like Defendant.

...

The text of the Amendment provides that the right extends to "the people" whose right shall not be infringed. Heller’s definition of "the people" is central to the outcome of this question ... Heller recognized that the individual right secured by the Second Amendment was a pre-existing right under common law. It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed."

...

That common law right was held only by citizens and those who swore allegiance to the Government; it did not include everyone present on American soil. At the time of the Founding, not all persons were entitled to the protection of the common law right and some individuals were excluded “because of perceived unfitness, untrustworthiness or alienage" ... The Founders would have equally understood that persons present in the country illegally or without permanency could, consistent with the well-established limitations on the common law right, be barred from possessing arms.

http://volokh.com/files/boffilrivera.pdf

good luck applying for a cch if you're illegal.

[IAMX 3,055]

They sure do! Everyone should have a gun.

[natty bumppo 297]

San Francisco thinks so.

The USCIS (part of the DHS) seems to think so too

really?

link please ... your link to question 51 asks for what applies ... obviously some options do not.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

San Francisco thinks so.

The USCIS (part of the DHS) seems to think so too

really?

link please ... your link to question 51 asks for what applies ... obviously some options do not.

No, that list is a list of all acceptable answers. The link is in the first post.

[natty bumppo 297]

San Francisco thinks so.

The USCIS (part of the DHS) seems to think so too

really?

link please ... your link to question 51 asks for what applies ... obviously some options do not.

No, that list is a list of all acceptable answers. The link is in the first post.

guess they better try to legally purchase a firearm too ...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

San Francisco thinks so.

The USCIS (part of the DHS) seems to think so too

really?

link please ... your link to question 51 asks for what applies ... obviously some options do not.

No, that list is a list of all acceptable answers. The link is in the first post.

guess they better try to legally purchase a firearm too ...

Yup, the legal restrictions on purchase is why this confused me. If the USCIS document is correct, all forms of control on purchase should be unconstitutional, and yet they're not.

[natty bumppo 297]

San Francisco thinks so.

The USCIS (part of the DHS) seems to think so too

really?

link please ... your link to question 51 asks for what applies ... obviously some options do not.

No, that list is a list of all acceptable answers. The link is in the first post.

guess they better try to legally purchase a firearm too ...

Yup, the legal restrictions on purchase is why this confused me. If the USCIS document is correct, all forms of control on purchase should be unconstitutional, and yet they're not.

a quick research on the illegal RKBA got me lots of bs and illegal alien lawyers. did find a few items for due process, 14th, etc ... found a reference that RKBA was not valid, yet the item did not have supporting docs. Also found another right ... the right to remain silent ...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The right to STFU is a great right!

[Niels Bohr 72]

The bill of rights are the precedence to law.

There is also a difference between rights and privileges. A right is not a privilege.