• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Does the Second Amendment Protect Non-Citizens? Judge Menashi finds that Heller limited the Second Amendment to "citizens."

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
627
Location
Washington Island, WISCONSIN. Out in Lake Michigan

JOSH BLACKMAN | 7.31.2021 2:33 PM
The Second Amendment provides "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." The Framers used the word "people," and not the word "citizen." Does this right apply only to U.S. citizens, or does it apply to all people in the United States? Since Heller, the circuit courts have split on this question. In 2015, I wrote about Judge Wood's Seventh Circuit opinion, which found that aliens were protected by the Second Amendment.
On Thursday, a Second Circuit panel declined to resolve this issue in United States v. Perez. However, Judge Menashi concurred, and found that only citizens are protected by the Second Amendment. This conclusion follows from Heller, which repeatedly used the word "citizen."
[ … ]
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,822
Location
Granite State of Mind
Judge Menashi invoked "at the time of the founding", so he should have spent more time examining what it meant to be a citizen at that time, and what it took to be considered one.

One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that the King would not allow free and unrestricted immigration.

("He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.")

Short version: to be a citizen in the eyes of the Founders, was to show up and be American.

Nowhere else is the right of the people guaranteed that it is restricted to citizens.

(Voting doesn't count, because you don't actually have a right to vote; voting rights laws just say that when elections are conducted, the government can't discriminate based on race or sex.)
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,687
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Judge Menashi invoked "at the time of the founding", so he should have spent more time examining what it meant to be a citizen at that time, and what it took to be considered one.

One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that the King would not allow free and unrestricted immigration.

("He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.")

Short version: to be a citizen in the eyes of the Founders, was to show up and be American.

Nowhere else is the right of the people guaranteed that it is restricted to citizens.

(Voting doesn't count, because you don't actually have a right to vote; voting rights laws just say that when elections are conducted, the government can't discriminate based on race or sex.)
The court's idea of arguing about the term citizen versus people is a red herring. Regulating immigration did not happen until 94 years after the ratification on the U.S. Constitution. Until immigration being regulated, 1882, the term citizen and people were synonymous.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,687
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Commerce Clause – Active versus Inactive

After the New Deal, it seemed as if the limits on federal power had been discarded and nearly any federal law could be upheld as an exercise of authority under the Commerce Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (setting the precedent for an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, and dramatically increasing the regulatory authority of the federal government). This began to change in the mid-1990s with three Supreme Court decisions: United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Collectively, these cases signaled the Court’s intent to more narrowly construe congressional powers. More recently, the Court addressed the Commerce Clause in NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) regarding the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Focusing on Lopez’s requirement that Congress regulate only commercial activity rather than inactivity, the Court held that the individual mandate could not be enacted under the Commerce Clause, NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 at 558.

In other words, per Lopez the mere possession of a firearm is not a commercial activity, but an inactivity.

Now what does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) say?

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (Y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The first offence of being found guilty for being an alien illegally and unlawfully in the United States is a misdemeanor, not a felony, effectively making 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,341
Location
northern wis
I have no problem with any one using firearms legally.

Again instead of going after the real problem. They try and regulate an object instead of the criminals.

Typical communist/socialist move blame the object not the induvial causing the problem .
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,159
Location
here nc
sorry the founding fathers refer'd in the preamble 'WE THE PEOPLE' as well as later on mentioned in the same document 'ordained & ratified' of the same document ~ historians who follow the contextual meaning of the time have unequivocally stated the white founding fathers, not woman, natives, negros, etc.

Judge Menashi invoked "at the time of the founding", so he should have spent more time examining what it meant to be a citizen at that time, and what it took to be considered one.

One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that the King would not allow free and unrestricted immigration.

("He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.")

Short version: to be a citizen in the eyes of the Founders, was to show up and be American.

Nowhere else is the right of the people guaranteed that it is restricted to citizens.

(Voting doesn't count, because you don't actually have a right to vote; voting rights laws just say that when elections are conducted, the government can't discriminate based on race or sex.)
So sorry kb to be considered a citizen during the founding of this country, WE THE PEOPLE meant you were a white MAN of means...period!

BTW is there a cite to your voting rights law commentary?

uh kb...wondering bout the excitement in February 3, 1870 regarding the ratification of the 15th amendment which states, in part...

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,159
Location
here nc
sidebar...the NRA has no course material in any other language except english nor can aliens be certified in firearm courses. Of course as pointed out, since FFLs can't sell aliens firearms, guess there's no need for the NRA to put their material in another language, such as Spanish, er, uh...

[nypost quote "There are currently 41 million native Spanish speakers living in the US today — and another 11.6 million people who are bilingual..." https://nypost.com/2015/06/29/us-has-more-spanish-speakers-than-spain/]
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,687
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
If our founding fathers believed in the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God 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. Then the founding fathers believed the first ten amendment to the constitution (The Bill of Rights) where the basis of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If true, those fundamentals apply to ALL men, wherever they reside in this world.
 
Top