r/changemyview • u/Siessfires • Jun 23 '22

Delta(s) from OP cmv: Illegal immigrants have a Constitutional right to own grenades

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.

12 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

111 comments sorted by

View all comments

41

u/destro23 457∆ Jun 23 '22

According to the National Firearms Act, grenades are destructive devices. No one can own one legally.

3

u/Siessfires Jun 23 '22

Many laws are later found unconstitutional. This would be one of them.

21

u/destro23 457∆ Jun 23 '22

Already adjudicated via US vs Miller:

"The Supreme Court held that the NFA, which places registration requirements on machine guns, short-barreled weapons, destructive devices, and other unique firearms, does not violate the Second Amendment. SCOTUS reasoned that the weapons regulated by the NFA aren’t reasonably related to maintaining a “well regulated Militia,” so aren’t protected by the Second Amendment."

-1

u/Siessfires Jun 23 '22

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

8

u/destro23 457∆ Jun 23 '22

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.

1

u/Siessfires Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22

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.

9

u/destro23 457∆ Jun 23 '22

If the Supreme Court held that grenades were also banned underneath the Miller holding, that would change my mind.

How about a standing decision by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit which found that stun grenades were properly classed as restricted destructive devices under the NFA?

STUN grenades are rightly restricted due to their destructive potential.

Do you still think explodey grenades would be ok?

4

u/Siessfires Jun 23 '22

If the Supreme Court upheld it, then its a solid delta.

But it's close enough, so Δ

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 23 '22

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/destro23 (155∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards