Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally

[IronFist]

Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
What? I have never heard about it. Are they serious? Why is the second amendment so vague? "We the people" definitely means the people of the United States. Mexican people living in America illegally are obviously not "American people". Mexicans should not be allowed to bear any guns. To say the truth I want guns to be banned everywhere in the US as we have too many gun-related crimes.

 

[JGalt]

Actually, illegals can't purchase a firearm legally in the US. The ATF Form 4473 asks whether the purchaser is a legal citizen, and provides a felony conviction for those who lie. They might be able to purchase a firearm without going through channels, but they'd still be committing a crime.

 

[emilynghiem]

Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
What? I have never heard about it. Are they serious? Why is the second amendment so vague? "We the people" is definitely means the people of the United States. Mexican people living in America illegally are obviously not "American people". Mexicans should not be allowed to bear any guns. To say the truth I want guns to be banned everywhere in the US as we have too many gun-related crimes.

Dear IronFist
I recommend we have a bipartisan agreement that "right of the people to bear arms" means "right of law-abiding citizens"
We can argue locally and politically over how to define what defines "law abiding" but at least we can agree on the CONCEPT.
and then hash out the details per state or district what the gun licensing and training requires.
I would recommend at least the minimum training and oath required of police before being authorized to use guns, including community training on procedures for lawful apprehension and due process. If per district the citizens got on the same page as their police, then that would become the mutually agreed standard for law enforcement and citizens to bear arms --
for the purpose of DEFENDING Constitutional laws, not violating any.

I think we need to start with a direct agreement among citizens, leaders and parties.
Then if we need to clarify or amend the laws, we can decide that afterwards. Maybe it's enough to agree on interpretation.

So given that interpretation of "law abiding citizens" then
this distinguishes qualified citizens from anyone with illegal status or unlawful intent.
We could agree on that much, first,
and then hash out how can we screen out who has unlawful intent without profiling
and how to respect due process but also protect law enforcers and citizens from
people who don't respect the same but will attack if not physical subdued by force (such as the gunman in France).

Can the same education, training and screening done for police and military to weed out the
criminally ill or personality disorders be developed accurately enough to catch abusive people.

We may have to implement pilot study programs and make sure the screening and training
methods work better than whatever it was that failed in the case of the Ft. Hood shooter who
should have been screened out, but wasn't, and cost people their lives.

First step is to agree the law does not apply to people with criminal intent or mental illness
that creates a threat to public safety, and only applies to DEFENDING not breaking laws.