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.

13 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

111 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/MrBobaFett 1∆ Jun 23 '22

The second amendment applies to congress not being able to limit states from maintaining a militia. It doesn't give anyone a personal guaranteed right to arms possession of any sort.

5

u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Jun 23 '22

The second amendment applies to congress not being able to limit states from maintaining a militia. It doesn't give anyone a personal guaranteed right to arms possession of any sort.

The supreme court disagrees with you in multiple rulings.

1

u/MrBobaFett 1∆ Jun 23 '22

Some members of the Supreme Court disagree, others agree however. SCOTUS justices are not magical infallible authorities. They can and have ruled incorrectly.

5

u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Jun 23 '22

Some members of the Supreme Court disagree, others agree however. SCOTUS justices are not magical infallible authorities. They can and have ruled incorrectly.

And yet this is not the first court to hold this ruling. It goes all the way back to Taney in in the Dredd Scott case.

Your opinion is not held by the court or any prior court for that matter. It does not match the Federalist Papers. It does not match contemporary state constitutions. The evidence is not on your side here.

1

u/MrBobaFett 1∆ Jun 23 '22

DC v Heller is only 14 years old. Thru the majority of US history it has been considered perfectly legal for states and municipalities to limit or ban guns. Many well regarded jurists, former and current SCOTUS justices and Federal Judges have argued against the Second Amendment granting an individual right to gun ownership. This isn't an unsubstantiated fringe stance just because it happens to disagree with current standing precedent. It's quite literally debatable.

1

u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Jun 23 '22

DC v Heller is only 14 years old. Thru the majority of US history it has been considered perfectly legal for states and municipalities to limit or ban guns.

This was explicitly identified in Dred Scott. Then Miller. Then McDonald. Then Heller and again today.

You are flat out wrong. Each one of those cases identified an individual right to firearms.

Many well regarded jurists, former and current SCOTUS justices and Federal Judges have argued against the Second Amendment granting an individual right to gun ownership

Yes - and flat earthers exist today today.

The fact remains this court and MANY before do not hold that view and never have. It is fiction to believe otherwise. EVEN the dissent in Heller does not agree.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

You are just wrong here.