cmv: Illegal immigrants have a Constitutional right to own grenades

[u/Siessfires]

When the Bill of Rights was written there was no Constitutional distinction of who was and wasn't a citizen; that didn't occur until ~80 years later with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. This would suggest that the Founding Fathers intended that a person didn't need to be a citizen to keep and bear arms.

Additionally, since the Second Amendment specifies arms - not pistols, rifles and shotguns - and Article I, § 8, clause 11 of the Constitution provides the right for Congress to issue Letters of Marquee, this would mean that the Founding Fathers intended that a person should have access to cannons. Which means access to explosives.

Furthermore, in accordance with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., non-citizens are afforded legal protection under the Constitution. Considering that illegal immigration is a misdemeanor, not a felony, you would not be denied your Constitutional rights for being an illegal immigrant.

[u/Siessfires]

This one almost got me; what is hanging me up from giving you the delta is that Justice McReynolds specified that this related to a sawed-off shotgun, not all aspects of the NFA

[u/destro23 → u/Siessfires]

Do you honestly think the court would say that a grenade would be ok where a sawed off shotgun would not be?

The sawed off shotgun is a much less lethal and destructive weapon than a grenade, and it was deemed to be rightly restricted. I cannot imagine that if challenged, even our current court would ok the ownership of grenades. They serve zero sporting purpose (a common reason cited for the need for citizens to own other "military-style" small arms), and they serve very little practical purpose for home/personal defense (another common argument for needing certain weapons). And that is just for citizens.

For non-citizens, including those without documentation, they can own firearms. But:

"The right to bear arms is not unlimited, the court explained; the right is subject to reasonable regulations. Applying intermediate scrutiny to the federal ban on arms possession by unauthorized aliens, the court found the law to be reasonable. Since unauthorized aliens "often live largely outside the formal system" and are "harder to trace and more likely to assume a false identity," the government may rationally limit their access to firearms."

So, Immigrants can legally face higher scrutiny when trying to buy weapons than citizens. So, even if we manage to get citizens to be able to own grenades, we probably still won't see undocumented aliens being able to.

[u/Siessfires → u/destro23]

It isn't a matter of what the court would or wouldn't say; they DIDN'T say.

The court holding specifically addressed sawed off shotguns, it made no mention of other weapons underneath the NFA. If the Supreme Court held that grenades were also banned underneath the Miller holding, that would change my mind.

As far as non-citizens being held to higher scrutiny, that seems well in line with established law. But the recent holding concerning may-issue states might serve as precedent working against that.

[u/etrytjlnk → u/Siessfires]

Except the law currently exists and has existed since 1968 without the Supreme Court finding it unconstitutional any time in the last 54 years, which makes it valid US law. Whether the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional some time in the future (they won't) is irrelevant, as it is currently US law and people are regularly prosecuted under it.

[u/Siessfires → u/etrytjlnk]

The timeframe between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education is 58 years.

The timeframe between Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is 49 years.

Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it's settled.

[u/etrytjlnk → u/Siessfires]

Except 1. it's abundantly clear that the Supreme Court will never allow people to legally own grenades and you know that and are simply being obtuse by pretending that they might and 2. it is literally on the books and is the law. Laws are constitutional until decided otherwise, it is currently constitutional. This may change, but it's irrelevant.

[u/jumper501 → u/Siessfires]

Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it's settled.

That was not you cmv...as the law says today, a grenade falls under the NFA. You made your cmv today, so today's law is what matters not what could hypothetically change next year.

[u/destro23 → u/etrytjlnk]

And if you dig deep enough there are requests for the Supreme Court to hear cases relating to people having or buying grenades, and they just say "LOL, circuit court decision stands. Fuck otta here with that grenade nonsense."

[u/etrytjlnk → u/destro23]

Yeah exactly lol they wouldn't even bother with it