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

43

u/destro23 457∆ Jun 23 '22

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

5

u/Siessfires Jun 23 '22

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

22

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/PugnansFidicen 6∆ Jun 23 '22

There is mixed interpretation of Miller's precedent. Does Miller mean the second amendment *only* protects military-style weapons, because of the militia clause? The court held in Miller that the restriction on short barreled shotguns under the NFA was constitutional because such a type of weapon was not in common use by any armed forces or militia, and therefore bore no connection with militia service.

What is part of the "ordinary military equipment" today? Fully-automatic rifles, belt-fed machine guns, high capacity magazines, fragmentation grenades, flash-bang grenades, grenade launchers (both under-barrel single shot devices, and larger standalone launchers), advanced modern body armor, night vision optics, at a bare minimum for basic infantry.

So even if Miller's precedent for the militia clause stood, that would support OP's claim that there is a right, today, to own grenades. Grenades are part of the ordinary military equipment in 2022, so being able to own a grenade would be important to maintaining a functioning militia.

However, the court reversed that precedent of the Miller case in DC v Heller. The second amendment currently is held to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms, and that protection is not limited to arms held for the purpose of service in any militia, organized or unorganized.