Court Rules That Illegal Aliens Have Second Amendment Rights
-Gun Control a Key Hillary Clinton Campaign Component
-Poll: 60% Of Americans Against More Gun Control
-NYT’s Barro: ‘Massive’ Gun Grab Only Way To Impact Violent Crime
August 30, 2015 by Joshua Krause | The Daily Sheeple
The words “the people” in the Second Amendment, apply to everyone in the US, including illegal aliens
When Mario Meza-Rodriguez was five years old, his parents brought him into the United States illegally.
By the time he was an adult, he managed to get in trouble with the police after getting into a bar fight two years ago. When the police arrested him, they discovered a .22 caliber pistol in his pocket. Even though illegal aliens can’t own firearms under federal law, Meza-Rodriguez argued in court that charging him for possessing the pistol would violate his Second Amendment rights. The court disagreed. He was convicted and deported.
However, the 7th Circuit Court has recently ruled in Mario’s favor, while also upholding his conviction. They believe that the words “the people” in the Second Amendment, apply to everyone in the US, including illegal aliens. At the same time though, they believe that his conviction is still valid since the US government can restrict gun ownership for known law breakers. Mario’s lawyer is challenging their decision on the grounds that it contradicts itself.
Their decision is certainly confusing. Obviously, everyone in this country is supposed to have certain rights regardless of their citizenship status. Even if you’re an illegal, you be can’t be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, you can’t be tortured into a confession, and you have the right to an attorney (at least you did before 9/11). But once you’re convicted, you can lose your rights. If you couldn’t restrict the rights of a known criminal, then you couldn’t punish anyone for anything. If you ask me, it sounds like the 7th Circuit Court is trying to establish a new precedent for illegal aliens.
Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
August 25, 2015 1:10 pm • By TODD RICHMOND
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.
Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.
The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term “the people” in the Second Amendment’s guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to people in the country illegally.
“We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.
But the panel upheld Meza-Rodriguez’s conviction, saying the federal ban on people in the country illegally possessing weapons remains valid. Wood wrote that the right to bear arms isn’t unlimited and the government has a strong interest in preventing people who have already broken the law by coming to the country illegally from carrying guns.
Meza-Rodriguez’s attorney, Joseph Bugni, said the decision contradicts itself. He plans to ask all nine active 7th Circuit judges to review the case together. If Meza-Rodriguez doesn’t prevail at that level he’ll go to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bugni said.
Judge Joel M. Flaum, a member of the panel, wrote in a concurring opinion that he doubts the Second Amendment applies to people in the country illegally. He acknowledged that the decision conflicts with other federal rulings and said the panel shouldn’t have addressed the broader constitutional question since the possession ban is clearly legal.
Follow Todd Richmond on Twitter at https://twitter.com/trichmond1
Gun Control a Key Hillary Clinton Campaign Component
29 Aug 2015 by AWR Hawkins
Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is vigorously campaigning on a platform of more gun control for law-abiding citizens.
She wants an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and myriad new regulations on gun purchases and purchasers, as well as new record-keeping requirements on gun owners. In short, she wants national laws to mirror the kind of laws we see in Chicago, California, and New York.
The Associated Press previously reported that “universal background checks” are the cornerstone of her gun control push. This one proposal will make private gun sales illegal, which means a neighbor could not sell a gun to his neighbor or a friend to a friend or a co-worker to a co-worker the way Americans have done since 1791, unless they do so with government oversight.
It also means every gun purchaser would be required to pass the same background check Vester Lee Flanagan (Virginia), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), James Holmes (Aurora movie theater), and Jared Loughner (Gabby Giffords’ attempted assassin) passed to acquire their firearms. And Clinton would use the information gathered from the background checks to achieve one of her other gun control goals: a “national registry” of gun owners.
According to The Daily Beast, Clinton wants to couple the gun registry with a licensing requirement for gun owners. In 2008, Clinton told the late Tim Russert, “Everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry.”
It is interesting to note that California has “universal background checks,” a gun registry, and a “high capacity” magazine ban, none of which prevented Elliot Rodger from passing a background check for his handguns and registering them with the state, then using only ten-round magazines to go on a shooting spree in Santa Barbara in May 2014.
It is also interesting to note that in addition to the demonstrable evidence that the federal “assault weapons” ban did not reduce crime, The New York Times has reported that the entire notion of a group of guns called “assault weapons” is Democrat-sponsored fiction. According to the NYT, the Democrats created the term in the 1990s–while Bill Clinton was president–to ban a “politically defined category of guns.”
Pertinent to attempts to ban “assault weapons” is the fact that criminals rarely even use such guns for crime. For example, in 2011, the number of rifle-related deaths was so minuscule that they represented only “.012 percent of the overall deaths in America.”
Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton wants to ban them, she wants to compile a list of law-abiding gun owners, she wants to require law-abiding gun owners to get a license to own a gun, she wants to ban “high capacity” magazines for law-abiding gun owners, and she wants to outlaw private gun sales between law-abiding citizens.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Study: Most Criminals Don’t Buy Guns From Gun Shows
AK-47s also unpopular with gangs, despite media claims
August 31, 2015 by Kit Daniels
The vast majority of criminals don’t buy guns from gun shows, according to a survey by the University of Chicago Crime Lab.
In the survey of nearly 100 detainees at the Cook Co. Jail, about 70% said they bought guns from “social connections” or corrupt cops and only a handful of them purchased guns from licensed dealers at gun shops or shows.
“Some of the pathways people are concerned about don’t seem so dominant,” said Harold Pollack, co-director of the crime lab.
The survey also revealed that AR-15s and AK-47s, often demonized as “assault rifles” by the media, are unpopular among thugs and despite Chicago’s strict gun control laws, inmates were able to get a gun within six months of release.
“Police take guns and put them back on the street,” one inmate revealed.
In other words, gun control works – at keeping criminals armed and their law-abiding victims disarmed.
The study runs contrary to claims made by New York Times correspondent Josh Barro, who promoted gun control on MSNBC Saturday morning.
“If you did something like Australia did, where you really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially in society, you could have a big impact on violent crime,” he claimed, oblivious to the fact that the most violent cities in America also have the strictest gun laws.
Another survey by Rasmussen found that 60% of Americans are against more gun control in response to the latest high-profile shootings in Virginia and South Carolina.
“The fact is that criminals break the laws, and it seems the laws don’t work anyway,” Steve Watson reported. “Further infringing on the rights of those who abide by the laws will not change either of these situations.”
“Two separate polls last month, following the church shooting in Charleston, S.C., also found that the majority of Americans do not believe tighter gun laws would prevent mass shooting incidents.”
Guns Used 199X More Often to Stop Crime Than to Kill
Poll: 60% Of Americans Against More Gun Control
More than two thirds say shootings are a “mental problem”
August 31, 2015 by Steve Watson
A survey conducted in the wake of last weeks Virginia shooting of two reporters on live TV finds that a majority of Americans do not believe stricter gun laws would have prevented the incident.
Rasmussen finds that only 29 percent of likely voters feel that further gun control laws would have done something to prevent the shooting.
While, 60 percent, of Americans, more than twice as many, said they believe more gun control would not have done anything to stop the attack.
The poll also found that 68 percent agree with Donald Trump’s statement that “It’s not a gun problem. It’s a mental problem.”
Only 24 percent disagreed with Trump’s statement.
The survey also found that a majority are more inclined to believe that exposure on social media encourages perpetrators to commit violent crime. A total of 54 percent said they agreed that sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be a catalyst.
The shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan, posted sick video footage of the shooting to Facebook and Twitter after he had committed the atrocity.
The incident prompted gun grabbers, such as Hillary Clinton to immediately call for more gun control. Clinton declared that if elected to the nation’s highest office she would be a ‘gun control’ president.
Today, Bernie Sanders, perhaps Clinton’s closest rival on the left, said he would also make gun control a priority if elected. Sanders said he would make universal background checks mandatory.
As Infowars noted last week, the gun Flanagan used to carry out the shooting was obtained legally, after he passed a background check. Indeed, in all major mass shootings in recent years the weapons used were obtained after background checks were carried out.
The shooters at Virginia Tech, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Fort Hood, Isla Vista, the Washington Navy Yard, the attempted mass killing at Arapahoe High School ALL passed background checks.
The shooter at Washington Navy Yard even managed to buy his firearm after the background check system was supposedly strengthened following the incident at Virginia Tech.
The fact is that criminals break the laws, and it seems the laws don’t work anyway. Further infringing on the rights of those who abide by the laws will not change either of these situations.
Two separate polls last month, following the church shooting in Charleston also found that the majority of Americans do not believe tighter gun laws would prevent mass shooting incidents.
Support for gun control has steadily declined since the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, despite several other high profile shootings.
NYT’s Barro: ‘Massive’ Gun Grab Only Way To Impact Violent Crime
“Really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially.”
August 31, 2015 by Newsbusters | Mark Finkelstein
Give Josh Barro credit for candor. When it comes to guns, the New York Times correspondent makes no bones about the kind of draconian, Second Amendment-defying approach he thinks is necessary.
Forget about expanded background checks or other such measures. The only way to have a “big impact on violent crime,” according to Barro, is to emulate Australia and “really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially.”
Barro made his comments on MSNBC’s Up With Steve Kornacki this morning [with Jonathan Capehart guest-hosting] during a discussion prompted by the on-air shootings of two TV station employees in Virginia.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hillary Clinton made her comments about gun reform. What do you make of that? I’ll start with you, Josh.
JOSH BARRO: It’s what I would expect a Democratic presidential candidate to say. But if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she’ll be a president facing a Republican House at least, possibly also a Republican senate. So I don’t think that there will be significant change in gun policy if Hillary Clinton is president. I mean, we already have a Democratic president now and we haven’t had significant change on it.
But I would also note, the things that we talk about in the United States are so at the margins on this stuff that I wonder how they would impact gun violence. If you did something like Australia did, where you really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially in society, you could have a big impact on violent crime.
But, I mean, changes with background checks will help at the margin, but I wouldn’t expect that to have big impacts on the rate of violent crime in the country, which I think is part of the reason you haven’t had the knock down drag out fight from proponents that could have on this. Because I think there is a sense that while these changes would be positive changes, they would not be sea changes.
Court Ruling says these guys are protected by the Second Amendment
They should beware of signs like this