Friday weekly gun law roundup
Previous Post
Next Post

A recent federal court ruling has stirred up controversy. While that happens all the time, this one is special because it’s got the gun rights community divided. The big rub? The question of whether people who entered the country illegally can lawfully possess a gun. Some conservatives and libertarians/liberals are on the side of the defendant, while others are angry about it, with some even thinking it’s part of a plot to create an army of “invaders”.

South Dakota’s Governor Kristi Noem is among those who aren’t happy about it:

And, in the replies, there were several comments like this one from Missouri’s Secretary of State:

Plenty of others said things like, “The Left has turned on we The people!” and “They hate us, they full on, without a doubt, hate the American citizen.” Some even accused the judge of treason, said “America has fallen.” while at the same time there were a bunch of anti-gun zealots siding with Republicans.

Given all of this nonsense, it’s pretty clear that many people on the right and the left need both a history lesson and a lesson on natural rights. If you know what natural rights are and what the Second Amendment is, please share this. If you think I’m some radical leftist for calling the above nonsense, then you’re among those who need to keep reading.

Let’s Start With The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment itself is pretty clear about this:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

We already know that the prefatory clause has no legal effect. It’s just a statement of the intent of the ratifiers, which is to keep the United States from falling prey to tyranny. So, let’s get into the meat. It says

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Notice that it doesn’t say something like “…the Government of The United States of America hereby grants citizens the right to keep and bear arms.” or “Male citizens of military age are hereby given a license to possess arms connected with militia service.”

The key point I’m trying to make is that the Second Amendment doesn’t grant anybody anything. It only restricts government from violating a right that was already assumed to exist. The right to keep and bear arms is something that predates the United States of America. So, the next natural question is where it comes from.

Who Gave Us The Right To Keep and Bear Arms?

To know what pre-existing right the Second Amendment refers to, we have to go further back to the Declaration of Independence. If you’ve never read it yourself, I highly recommend reading it in full and doing some background reading to understand what it’s talking about. It’s a valuable piece of history and it’s vital to understanding your rights.

But, let’s look at a key passage of it that illuminates the Second Amendment’s meaning:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

There is plenty of room for debate on what “Creator” means, as not all of the document’s authors agreed on that point. Some were deists, and felt that we could best understand God through the observation of nature, including human nature. Others were Christians, and would say that this refers to the God Christians worship. But, regardless of whether you side with the deists or the Christians, or believe in some other God or none at all, one thing is abundantly clear: Our rights don’t come from government!

This concept, that rights come from either God or from the nature of humanity is called Natural Rights. This concept stands in contrast with the idea of legal rights, or rights that stem from laws and government. Natural rights are fundamental and inalienable, and apply to all humans. We also call them “human rights”. They cannot be repealed by governments.

In some respects, they’re a natural law, like gravity, because violating natural rights runs contrary to human nature. Governments can try to break natural laws by violating our natural rights, but ultimately it will harm that government and destroy it. History is littered with the corpses of dead governments that tried to ignore natural rights, like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Confederacy. You might get away with violating natural rights for a while, but it always catches up to you.

So, ultimately, even if you believe in God, it’s not about God granting a right to keep and bear arms as much as baking those rights into our very essence as humans. If you don’t believe in God and a literal creation, this still applies, as human rights are the result of billions of years of evolutionary processes. This means that respecting natural rights is part of the survival of the fittest. Societies that respect human rights are thus naturally superior to those that don’t and have an evolutionary advantage at the macro level.

“But, What About The Dangers Of Arming Illegals!”

Before you go to the comments and say that we have to restrict human rights to citizens for practical reasons, I have to point out that we have this argument all the time with anti-gunners. The cold, hard fact is that gun control is worthless, no matter who you try to apply it to.

Why? Because people who entered unlawfully and have bad intentions can always get a gun, just like citizen criminals who are barred from possessing firearms. If gun control doesn’t stop citizen criminals from possessing firearms, why on earth would it stop criminals who were born on the other side of an imaginary line in the desert?

The only thing we accomplish by telling non-citizens that they can’t possess weapons is to disarm the ones who want to follow the law. This puts them at a disadvantage to criminals, and increases crime in the United States. It also gives us a false sense of security, because such laws definitely wouldn’t keep the most dangerous criminals and foreign agents from possessing firearms.

Instead of being idiots and enabling a tyrannical government, we should instead stick to our principles and defend gun rights. Let a mix of good people with guns and good old fashioned constitutional police work take care of the criminals.


Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Op-Ed pieces are those of the author and do not reflect an overall stance, view or position of the website in general. For additional perspective and background on this topic, following are links to additional articles:

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Think uneven law application by region and how that plays out in larger court. Then think permits. Enjoy.

        • Cmon, this is just another attempt to sabotage the 2nd by over-applying it.

          Much like the trolls who insist that people have a right to bear arms in jail.

        • Of course it is an attempt, have you been paying attention to how well articulated such attempts are? The only hope they have is that the cases will be delayed long enough to get new judges on their side to fix them the way they want to and that is looking increasingly unlikely. But hey if they really want to make being armed a right beyond most government intervention I am not opposed to that either. Alternately they may just be trying to run things into the ground out of spite but that would not go well for them either.

      • Illegally entering the country happens to be a misdemeanor so the unconstitutional, but widely accepted, act of revoking 2A rights for a felony conviction wouldnt’t apply here.

        The fact is, the Constitution covers anybody on US soil. Thats why foreign exchange students with appropriate Visas can own firearms too.

        • right to self defense, felons included.
          no right for violent felons.
          no right to handouts.
          oblammo appointee just straining it is all. correct on the basic, wrong on the deep dive.

      • minor49iq…Do you want to take a guess why just any illegal including a member of a murderous drug cartel who crosses the border without any scrutiny whatsoever cannot possess a firearm, etc? Your guess should be the same as why you won’t run an ad on Craig’s list saying free room, board, food and gun in my home awaits any murderous drug cartel member/dreamer who crosses the American border illegally…

        • Debbie Dimwit,

          Who are you talking to??? Yourself, apparently, since, above you on the thread, MajorLiar hasn’t weighed in to give us the benefit of his “wisdom” – but you have, addressing someone who is not even part of the conversation. Stupid and unaware is a bad look. MajorLiar and dacian the demented have perfected it; you are bidding fair to join them in their delusions. That you OSTENSIBLY support POTG might get you a pass, except . . . you “support” us so ineptly that you do more damage to the cause than they do.

          Go away, Debbie Dimwit. Go far away and stay gone.

  1. To even entertain the premise of the question is to admit failure.

    We shouldn’t be arguing whether illegal aliens can or cannot bear arms on American soil. We should be immediately deporting each and every illegal alien, period.

    Don’t get distracted in the weeds on an irrelevant argument. It isn’t about whether illegal aliens have 2nd amendment rights, it’s about whether illegal aliens even have the right to be here at all. And they don’t, according to the laws passed by the congress of the U.S.

    • “And they don’t, according to the laws passed by the congress of the U.S.“

      While it may feel good to say it is illegal for refugees to seek asylum in the United States, unfortunately the United States Senate has ratified these treaties and the President of the United States signed the treaty, United States is bound under these treaties to accept refugees.

      And under the Militia Act passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, any person declaring them their intention to become a citizen of the United States is a member of the militia, and therefore under the second amendment has the right to keep and bear arms.

      “Core principles of the 1951 Convention

      The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

      The document outlines the basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, including the right to housing, work and education while displaced so they can lead a dignified and independent life. It also defines a refugee’s obligations to host countries and specifies certain categories of people, such as war criminals, who do not qualify for refugee status.

      In addition, it details the legal obligations of the States that are party to one or both of these instruments.“

      The actual facts of history and governance can be quite surprising to the average person.

      • “United States is bound under these treaties to accept refugees.”

        false. you apparently can’t comprehend what you read or understand the context.

        legal refugees… not illegal entry people.

        • The US did not aceed to the 1951 Convention. The US did aceed to the 1967 Protocol which is not a treaty.

        • The actual facts of history, as usual, elude you Miner49er because you don’t know what context means.

        • plus, the US, senate/president has never entered into a treaty with any country or the UN that required the US to accept people who enter the country illegally.

      • “The US did aceed to the 1967 Protocol which is not a treaty“

        I understand the complexities of international law can be quite confusing.

        “Harry Truman did not sign the 1951 Convention because he felt it infringed on U.S. sovereignty, but in 1968 Lyndon Johnson reversed course and signed the Protocol, and the Senate ratified it, binding the U.S. to its terms. The treaty’s provisions were formally incorporated into U.S. law by the Refugee Act of 1980”,the%20Refugee%20Act%20of%201980.

        • once again, the complexities of this subject elude you. the protocol is not a treaty nor does it bind the US to accept people who enter illegally.

          once again, learn what context means.

        • Except 99.9% of them aren’t refugees. They’re immigrants seeking better economic opportunities. We have a system in place to deal with immigration. These illegal immigrants are trained by the NGOs to say the magic word: asylum. This is a game played by liars like Miner49er to take advantage of a system designed for moral people.

      • MajorLiar,

        I admire how you just keep coming back with that lame-@$$ argument, after I already curb-stomped your idiot face over it. Define, legally, the term “refugee”, articulate the UNDERLYING factual premise of categorizing a person as a “refugee”, explain how that process is accomplished by ALL GOVERNMENTS, and then articulate WHY you believe the US is somehow obligated to admit all CLAIMANTS to refugee status, without a prior determination that they actually QUALIFY for such status.

        You remain, as always, a persistent liar AND too stupid to insult.

      • We aren’t bound to take refugees who absolutely should have taken asylum in the first country they could. HINT:It wasn’t the US.

        • They’re seeking a better life. They aren’t refugees unless you count being from a S_hole country, a refugee. If that’s the case, then we have to take in the third world. Oops, that’s exactly what’s happening thanks to the lying Democrats, and every ignorant or evil person voting for them.

    • problem is that illegal immigration is only a misdemeanor. if we want more serious prosecution of that crime we need to write our senators and Congressmen to change it to a felony. we don’t even have a national language. it’s been voted on I think over 30 times amd never ratified. it’s hard to argue a lot of these valid argument when we don’t even have a legal base to stand on. a lot of what we base our values on are just cultural norms and not enforceable.

  2. I have to admit I’ve wrestled with this since I became aware of the ruling. I’ve always argued that our rights were ours simply because we were standing on top of the ground and breathing free air. I’d like more information before making a decision in this particular case. How did the illegal alien come to be arrested to begin with? What was the defendants intentions with the firearm? Self defense, or did he posess it with the intention of committing a crime? How did he acquire the firearm? Years ago I had contact with several migrant workers on the farm. They were all armed. They were trespassing and conducting a deer drive. I just ran them off. They were familiar with the property because they were picking the fall tomato crop. A made contact with the Jeffe the following Monday. Never had another problem.

    • Natural right, sure. But the US govt is not obligated to ensure or defend the natural rights of foreign nationals within our borders illegally. Or even legally.

      For example, many believe in a natural right to hunt, including pursuing game wherever and whenever it exists. Would this mean you would have to give those folks the run of your land, if this belief were universally held? Of course not. Such has been tried many times thru history, and the result is war, chaos, economic damage and even famine.

      Your 4th Amendment rights supersede the natural right to hunt – and the common weal benefits greatly.

    • intent doesn’t matter until actions. that is a slippery slope to go down. the powers at be could imply you mean insurrection with training amd take all.your guns with that logic.

    • he was shooting towards cars that he believed carried incoming looters, discouraging them from entering “his” neighborhood.

  3. “It only restricts government from violating a right that was already assumed to exist”

    “assumed” is the wrong word here. the correct word is ‘unalienable’.

    It only restricts government from violating a right that was already unalienable.

  4. Nowhere in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution is the word “citizen.” The Bill of Rights protects everyone, including illegal aliens, to exercise free speech, religion, assembly, and to be free from unlawful government interference, within our borders and territories.

    Now, the problem here is “illegal alien”. They have already (presumably) committed a crime, however, they are innocent until proven guilty.

    Simple possession should not be a criminal offense.

    • “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.
      Sounds an awful lot like they were describing citizens. I would go so far as to say it includes foreign nationals at least those who are legally and lawfully in the US but definitely not those who are here illegally.

  5. That’s fine and all but expect the open borders (tolerant) crowd to market this as a giant fear injection to work against the 2nd just like the same tolerant crowd did in the 90’s with the “urban” population right after they spent millions of tax dollars dragging rap music in front of congress to fill primetime TV with Joe Biden approved “jungle music is threatening to turn your white children into prostitutes and crackheads” messaging.

  6. If we follow this to its logical conclusion, then currently incarcerated prisoners and institutionalized persons should have the right to own and carry weapons.

    • Pretty much MZ. Pretty much. Let’s free the prison’s & let the cannibal Haitian’s have at it!😀🙄

    • Incarcerated prisoners have had due process, consistent with the 5th Amendment, and thus can be deprived “liberty” (rights/freedom):
      nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

      When an incarcerated person is “returned” to society, then, it could be argued, they should regain their rights – all of them.

  7. “Let a mix of good people with guns and good old fashioned constitutional police work take care of the criminals.”
    The only problem is, “good old fashioned constitutional police work” doesn’t exist anymore.

  8. So Jennifer obviously agrees with us that the ATF should be abolished and the NFA cancelled. Thats what we all want, to rid ourselves of overt government over-regulation. No more 4473s to fill out, just go in and buy a firearm or suppressor without any ID at all. The 10M people who have crossed our borders illegally have no valid IDs, most have been thrown away on the ground prior to crossing the border. How do you expect to be able to verify someone’s identity who has no ID?

    • Fingerprints are a good start especially on shared criminal databases. More for after they end up in custody somewhere obviously but has been great for creating known terrorists identity profiles of various sorts throughout the war on terror amongst other methods.

  9. It’s illegal for people to just willy nilly jump fences and enter your home. By the same token anyone illegally crossing borders into America should be deported. The same democRats who ignored cities burning had a cow on Jan. 6 over so called illegal entry into the a whitehouse are the same democRats holding the doors open for illegal imigration…hypocrites.
    Frankly one would have to be out of their mind to sell a firearm to an illegal. And I do not see any FFL being able to sell to an illegal. No prayer or meditation necessary, illegal imigration is cut and dry…fjb.

  10. The Constitution does not grant rights.
    To citizens, or anyone else.

    The Constitution, constrains the Government. Period.

  11. This judge opened a huge can of worms, not the one she thinks she did either. Think about this:
    1-A question on a 4473 has been ruled unconstutional. The implications of this alone are huge.
    2-Where does that put laws, like the FOID Law in Illinois? Other permitted states? Concealed carry permitting in other states?

    I am also eagerly awaiting Mexico to blame us for guns getting sent backwards since the cartels and gangs have a new group of people to exploit in buying guns for them at this point. I could see a lot of straw manning coming from this.

  12. I’ve been giving it some thought and kind of leaning toward supporting this decision if the Democrats will admit that it clearly shows that background checks are meaningless and must be abolished.

  13. There is actual legal precedence for non US citizens who are in the country legally to possess firearms. Legally being the key word. I have noticed that Jennifer strongly pushes the appeasement and compromise line but only from those who tend to lean conservative.

  14. Idiots.
    You are blind to what the BOR is and what the 2nd Amendment means.
    9 of the 10, excluding the 2nd, are proscriptions against what the Government may do to the people of the Unite States, its citizens.
    One of the 10 allows the people of the United States, to impose its will against the Government that, perhaps, ignores some or all of the other 9.
    The result being that the Govt of the US is barred from acting as proscribed in 1 and 3-10 against ANYONE but that only citizens of the US have 2nd amendment rights.

    FFS read the 14th amendment and understand it!!!!!!!!!

  15. Nice.

    Unfortunately there is no such thing as “natural rights”. There are only actions and consequences, both on a personal level and scaled up to the social and civilization levels. Any valid analyses of these are probabilistic and/or economic.

    See here:
    Natural Law, or Don’t Put a Rubber on Your Willy
    by Robert Anton Wilson

    • A so_shall_list libertarian for guaranteed income posted on the Center for a Stateless Society, Left Market Anarchist Think Tank? I don’t think the guaranteed income so_shall_list dream will work out so well without an intrusive government. This guy never learned how to write concisely. It looks like he was going for a certain word count to make it seem like there was more substance there.

  16. “as human rights are the result of billions of years of evolutionary processes. This means that respecting natural rights is part of the survival of the fittest.”

    When will China begin to evolve? How did they become the second most powerful country on the planet while skipping this evolutionary process? Do you reach a certain point in the evolutionary process, then begin to go backwards? That might explain the current situation in the US.

    “This means that respecting natural rights is part of the survival of the fittest.”

    If my family is hungry, and I can’t get food anywhere, wouldn’t survival of the fittest mean that I club someone over the head, and take their food? Furthermore, wouldn’t my family stand a better chance of surviving in today’s world if I accumulated as much wealth as possible, by any means necessary? What if I can take someone’s valuables when no one is looking? If it’s survival of the fittest, then why wouldn’t I take it?

  17. “So, let’s get into the meat. It says

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, “”

    Do you think the Framers were referring to “people” globally? Presuming to dictate to the govts of sovereign countries? They did not specify ‘the people of the United States’ because it never crossed their minds anyone would think otherwise.

    “…shall not be infringed.”

    So we can’t disarm invaders? Imprisoned criminals?

    Like I said, nuts…

  18. After some thought, I agree with the writer, but I wonder if these new members of our nation are being registered for the draft.

  19. Natural rights do not exist. Natural rights have never existed.

    You don’t have natural rights in communists China.
    You didn’t have natural rights in the USSR.
    And you don’t have natural rights in communist Cuba.

    In fact, there are many places on earth. where you don’t have natural rights. You don’t have natural rights in the United Kingdom.

    What does exist are a group of rights that a civilized society, has agreed to, that the people should have.

    The term “Natural rights” were created by group of @theists. Who can change their mind anytime they want to.

    Like when the @theists tell the christians that they don’t have 1st amendment civil rights. Outside of a church.

    Our rights were God give for two hundred years in this country. It’s when they began calling them “natural rights” that we started to lose our rights.

    Illegal aliens don’t have civil rights in this country. And no, that doesn’t mean you can mistreat, or them murder or rape them, or rob from them. No you can’t commit crimes against them.

    But they should be deported immediately.

    The entire world believes in national borders, except for the libertarians liberals and the left. They live in an upside down “unicorn” world.

    • “You don’t have natural rights in communists China.”

      Sure you do. They are just routinely violated by a govt that works for itself and against the individual.

        • Theory vs reality can be a bitch to deal with. XYZ you are correct in that we in theory have rights but in all functional situations such rights are subject to infringement unless defended with enough violence (threat of counts) to discourage such infringements. Overly simplistic take of the issue but I tend to have to do a lot of reduction in presenting issues.

    • All Rational, sentient beings are endowed with rights, by the very act or status of being rational and sentient.
      Thus. “Natural Rights,” as opposed to civilly-granted (mere) privileges.
      The trick is and always will be enforcing those rights.
      What else is new?
      In most of America, based upon our Common Law status — so you may want to move away from Louisiana, the way this works is that “Rights are secured by the *belligerent* claimant in person.”
      That’s from SCOTUS, but you’ll need to look up the exact case.
      So… if bad guys have taken over your local, state, or federal government, abusing you and denying your rights (in some cases a capital offense), then you will need to be that belligerent claimant, or else simply grin and waive your rights — along with your property, your daughters, and perhaps your ass.
      Did I say,’ belligerent? ADJECTIVE: hostile and aggressive.

  20. Our rights were established because we killed a lot of people. In order to establish them.
    That’s the bottom line.

    • Directly addressing Chris T, but applies to a lot of other statements made on this thread.

      “Natural Rights” is not a new concept. John Lock (late 1600s) is probably the most famous proponent of the concept, and this philosophy was rather uniquely incorporated into the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the United States constitution. Many of our founding fathers (Jefferson and especially Madison) were very explicit about this.

      As I understand it (someone feel free to correct me), the term “Natural Rights” was a bit of an end run around getting into trouble with the English Nobility – it had to be discussed in terms such as “Of course the King is God’s voice on earth and he has complete sovereignty over man, but what if we were stranded on a desert island where the divine perfection of the King’s word could not reach us and we had to institute a new structure until such time as the King sought fit to rescue us” type of BS. The general idea is that all people have these rights – they pre-exist a government.

      Having rights is does not alter physics or human action. Philosophically, people in China do have human rights (up to and including the uninfringible RTKBA). What people in China don’t have is a government based on respecting those rights.

      The United States government is based on respecting those rights. (How well this is adhered to is a separate, if related discussion).

      The wording of the Constitution is very explicit and deliberate. People have natural rights, and perhaps explained better: Government is explicitly prohibited the authority to violate them, the federal government in particular is explicitly prohibited the authority to do *anything* not explicitly granted by the Constitution. The word citizen *does* appear in the constitution several times – With respect to altering the government (voting, holding office).

      This is all philosophy, and you’re not far off the mark that respect for our rights ultimately relies on “killing a lot of people”. As I said above, the universe does not bend physics or human action from violating those rights.
      Oversimplified (as I don’t have time to write a novel, nor the skill or writing to make everyone want to read it): Those rights are supposed to be the agreed upon guidelines for who is supposed to be on the receiving end of said “killing”/implementation of violence / threat thereof: The ones who violate those rights.

      • to  Indigo Carmine
        Let me assure you or anybody else I’ve read John Lock. And I know of the dilemma the founders had trying to avoid using “the king” who was supposedly given to us by God.

        The only thing that has kept the United States free for over two hundred years. Is the very real possibility of violence being used against people. Who would try to take our rights away.

        You can be comfortable with your philosophy. When you have guns within arms reach.

        We used to agree on our civil rights. Unfortunately our leadership and their sycophants don’t anymore.

        I suggest you look up what Chairman Mao had to say. About the people in China and the RTKBA.

  21. Be sure to tell the judges that can’t read this as they want to make shit up and ignore their oath. There is no Penalty or punishment for their disservice. They should be dragged out and beaten with a stick.

  22. This isn’t rocket science folks. And trust me, the judge here has not “suddenly seen the ‘2A light’!”

    The elephant in the ruling is the prominent “blame” or “credit” to the Bruen decision.

    This is nothing more than a Leftist “judge” doing their dead level best to author a ruling BLAMING Bruen for an absurd outcome that is unacceptable to as many people as it possibly can.

    The goal here is to point the finger at Bruen, influencing future election results that will allow a shift i the balance of the court, and eventual OVERTURN of Bruen, McDonald, and Heller.

    NEVER forget, these radical Leftists play the long game. Even when they – in their view – “sacrifice” a bad court ruling or two in order to get their final solution in place.

    • Another possibility is that this judge is wanting to work towards “normalizing” or “legitimizing” illegal aliens. The leftists are already trying to blur the definition of “refugee” so the decision may be a twofer.

  23. OK…Rights are not granted by government (e.g. other people).
    So far so good.
    Just remember that the concept of Rights implies responsibilities– as in the responsibility to stand trial and hang for one’s actions.
    Remember also the one ancient right that many never think about — a major right that HAS been severely infringed: the Right to vengeance.

  24. When someone says that unlawful invaders don’t or shouldn’t have rights, what they are attempting to say is that such people shouldn’t have their rights respected or acknowledged and that we don’t need to do that and should not do it. The important question will be is this a locally grown criminal (who must be considered innocent until proven guilty) or is this an alien unlawful invader, e.g. Enemy non-combatant aka partisan, subject to immediate arrest and possible summary punishment. Hint: pay no attention to people from groups known for loving to split hairs, who are now trying to wreck your nation.

    • “Hint: pay no attention to people from groups known for loving to split hairs, who are now trying to wreck your nation.”

      This. This whole article from Sensiba is subversion and an attempt to undermine. It is a shame that TTAG has sunk this low.

  25. “The People” are citizens of the United States.
    I see no issues with recognizing the RTKBA of non citizens. But illegals aren’t the same as non-citizens. If their entrance into the country was illegal, they committed a criminal act AND their continued presence is an ongoing criminal act. If there were a firearm delivery service, would you want one delivered to the burglar in your living room? The analogy works because illegal aliens are basically home(land) invaders.

  26. If they are people and not convicts deprived of rights the government cannot infringe their natural rights which come from God, or if you prefer, nature. They may be guilty of something, but you got to prove it in Court for that to count. And in Biden’s America we are all probably guilty of something. So let the Haitians and Venezuelans get strapped and, maybe, the people of Maryland, California, New Jersey and New York will finally be free to exercise their rights, too.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here