Illionois has just made it illegal to own "assault weapons" and must register them to the state police. Does this include illegal aliens and criminals

[Libby von H]

MSN
MSN So we know that the Constitution is there to protect US citizens from a rogue government that wants to take their rights away. But what Constitutional right does an illegal alien have to own a gun, because he committed a Felony just crossing the southern border. I think the Joe Biden admin wants to form his own army, and then go around breaking windows at night. What do you think?


Maybe we can get lucky and have a gun carrying illegal criminal shoot and kill that flaming liberal judge from Chicago...

THat will be struck down with gusto. Don't worry about it.

This is the most shakey of all legal maneuvrers, the arguing about what 'assault weapon" means
Relax, get a beer

 

[Jarlaxle]

Thank you for following up and actually posting a link to support your case. This takes you a couple of notches over the usual idiots who come to argue with me. They usually keep arguing in circles without producing any links to back up their point.

Unfortunately, you only got it partly right. Yes, the 1967 Haynes vs United States did invalidate the National Fire Arm statutes.

However, the NFA was later amended in 1968 to remove the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register them.
"Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes. "

National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


Prove me wrong. The ball is back in your court.

You didn't read my post.

 

[Magnus]

You didn't read my post.

I did. Point out what I got wrong.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I did. Point out what I got wrong.

Everything. You started with the wrong conclusion and never wavered. Haynes is still the reason criminals cannot be charged with not registering guns.

 

[Magnus]

Everything. You started with the wrong conclusion and never wavered. Haynes is still the reason criminals cannot be charged with not registering guns.

Tut...tut. Just when I was having high hopes for you and here you go sliding back into retardism.

What part of "Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes. " don't you get?

Did you read my link? Try again, bud.

 

[Moonglow]

MSN
MSN So we know that the Constitution is there to protect US citizens from a rogue government that wants to take their rights away. But what Constitutional right does an illegal alien have to own a gun, because he committed a Felony just crossing the southern border. I think the Joe Biden admin wants to form his own army, and then go around breaking windows at night. What do you think?


Maybe we can get lucky and have a gun carrying illegal criminal shoot and kill that flaming liberal judge from Chicago...

Well duh.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Tut...tut. Just when I was having high hopes for you and here you go sliding back into retardism.

What part of "Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes. " don't you get?

Did you read my link? Try again, bud.

Your link is not relevant. Due to Haynes, criminals (still) cannot be prosecuted for failing to register guns. Most registration is not at the federal level.

 

[Magnus]

Your link is not relevant. Due to Haynes, criminals (still) cannot be prosecuted for failing to register guns. Most registration is not at the federal level.

Retard. Same response as the last time.
What part of "Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes. " don't you get?

Since you are a retard, let's try another way, shall we? Post a recent case (as in after 1970) where a criminal was not prosecuted under the Haynes law. Go

Let's see if you can climb back up from retardism. I have my doubts but hey, surprise me. Go.

 

[San Souci]

MSN
MSN So we know that the Constitution is there to protect US citizens from a rogue government that wants to take their rights away. But what Constitutional right does an illegal alien have to own a gun, because he committed a Felony just crossing the southern border. I think the Joe Biden admin wants to form his own army, and then go around breaking windows at night. What do you think?


Maybe we can get lucky and have a gun carrying illegal criminal shoot and kill that flaming liberal judge from Chicago...

No. Those Filth just carry them across the Border.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Retard. Same response as the last time.
What part of "Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes. " don't you get?

Since you are a retard, let's try another way, shall we? Post a recent case (as in after 1970) where a criminal was not prosecuted under the Haynes law. Go

Let's see if you can climb back up from retardism. I have my doubts but hey, surprise me. Go.

Grade school insults are your concession.

 

[woodwork201]

Crossing the border is a misdemeanor but you probably know that already. I know I've posted it enough times.

Only the first time. The second and beyond is a felony with a 2-year sentence - should the Biden administration ever choose to actually enforce the law.

 

[pknopp]

Only the first time. The second and beyond is a felony with a 2-year sentence - should the Biden administration ever choose to actually enforce the law.

No one has ever enforced the law. Business doesn't want that.

 

[justoffal]

MSN
MSN So we know that the Constitution is there to protect US citizens from a rogue government that wants to take their rights away. But what Constitutional right does an illegal alien have to own a gun, because he committed a Felony just crossing the southern border. I think the Joe Biden admin wants to form his own army, and then go around breaking windows at night. What do you think?


Maybe we can get lucky and have a gun carrying illegal criminal shoot and kill that flaming liberal judge from Chicago...

Thank you for following up and actually posting a link to support your case. This takes you a couple of notches over the usual idiots who come to argue with me. They usually keep arguing in circles without producing any links to back up their point.

Unfortunately, you only got it partly right. Yes, the 1967 Haynes vs United States did invalidate the National Fire Arm statutes.

However, the NFA was later amended in 1968 to remove the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register them.
"Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes. "

National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


Prove me wrong. The ball is back in your court.

Overturn....quickly

 

[Magnus]

Overturn....quickly

Define...quickly. Since the amendment went into effect in 1986...

 

[woodwork201]

MSN
MSN So we know that the Constitution is there to protect US citizens from a rogue government that wants to take their rights away. But what Constitutional right does an illegal alien have to own a gun, because he committed a Felony just crossing the southern border. I think the Joe Biden admin wants to form his own army, and then go around breaking windows at night. What do you think?


Maybe we can get lucky and have a gun carrying illegal criminal shoot and kill that flaming liberal judge from Chicago...

Where in the Constitution does it say that any right or the protections of the Constitution for any right is removed by having committed a felony?

Now, without looking it up, can you tell me the one, single, case that is in the Constitution?

Otherwise, no rights are lost by having committed a crime or felony. Common law, most certainly already referred to in the Constitution, allows the incarceration of convicted criminals. Common law also allows the prohibition of arms in jails and prisons. So when a criminal gets arrested, he doesn't lose his right to keep and bear arms and, constitutionally, he doesn't lose the ownership of his guns. If he's arrested, his guns are supposed to be exactly where he left them when he's released, whether 20 minutes later or 20 years later. The only exception would be housekeeping by his family or by the police, should his guns have been left on the streets or in police custody because he wasn't home at the time of the arrest.

Next, illegally entering the United States is a misdemeanor on the first offense with a maximum of 6 months in prison. Additional violations are felonies with up to 2 years in prison - and in both cases I not only support but write to my government to demand (for all the good that's ever going to do) that illegal aliens get the maximum in every instance.

Most gun owners recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right, and not a privilege granted by Government. The Constitution recognizes the right, if not to be exactly God-given then to at least precede the Constitution - and therefore to certainly precede the nation or citizenship in the nation.

As I have stated many, many, times, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute and is the right of every single human being, even every single organism, on the planet. If there is life out there somewhere else, that life, too, has the absolute right to keep and bear arms and to self-defense against any attacker.

The Uyghurs in concentration camps in China have the right to keep and bear arms. The people of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, have an the right to keep and bear arms. Even in the Republik of Kalifornia, there is an absolute right to keep and bear arms. Felons have the right, even violent felons have the right. Terrorists have the right. Even you have the right.

Governments may, as is done in the United States and those other tyrannical states, use the force of their greater arms and their prisons or even firing squads in order to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms but the right exists, always, for everyone. That right stems from the right to self-defense and there is no living organism in the universe, not plant or animal, not intelligent such as human and not the single-celled organisms, that does not have the right to defend itself against attack.

If you support the Constitution, that is meaningless unless you support it even when it benefits the people you hate the most in the world. If you allow the Government to violate the Constitution, even the tiniest little sliver of a way, for any reason, against any person, then you have allowed that they are able to violate the Constitution and it doesn't matter to you. All that's left then is to decide when to violate it, against whom to violate it, and how to violate it - and guess what? It is the Government that always gets to choose the answers to those questions.

You either support the Constitution 100%, fully, absolutely, not bending a bit on any thing at all - or you are just flapping your gums and you don't really support it at all.