Federal Appeals Courts Say Illegal Aliens Have No 2nd Amendment Gun Rights

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the Fifth Circuit Court this week in ruling that Illegal aliens have no right to own or possess a firearm while being here. The Firth Circuit had said earlier that illegal immigrants are not part of the "people" protected by the Second Amendment and have no constitutional right to bear arms.

Emmanuel Huitron–Guizar entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession of firearms. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, and then will be deported when he finishes the sentence.

According to the Court's opinion, “Mr. Huitron–Guizar was born in Mexico and brought to Wyoming at age three. In March 2011, officers executed a warrant on his home and discovered three firearms—a 7.62x39mm rifle, a 12–gauge semi-automatic shotgun, and a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol. They learned from his sister that Mr. Huitron–Guizar, now 24 years old, was, unlike her, not a U.S. citizen.”1

He argued to the Court that his conviction for illegal possession of firearms violated his “Second Amendment Rights” as interpreted by the Heller decision that the, “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, like self-defense within the home.”1

The Court pointed out to Mr. Huitron-Guizar that, “…no right is absolute. The right to bear arms, however venerable, is qualified by what one might call the “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “why.” For instance, it is unlawful to knowingly receive guns with obliterated serial numbers… A juvenile, with some exceptions, cannot possess a handgun…. An airline passenger may not carry aboard a concealed firearm …Nor may a drug dealer use or carry a weapon to protect his stash…” 1

The Court then turned its attention to the Gun Control Act of 1968 saying, “…amended Gun Control Act of 1968, forbids gun possession by nine classes of individuals: felons, fugitives, addicts or users of controlled substances, the mentally ill, illegal and non-immigrant aliens, the dishonorably discharged, renouncers of their citizenship, those subject to court orders for harassing, stalking, or threatening intimate partners or their children, and those convicted for misdemeanor domestic violence. No Second Amendment challenge since Heller to any of these provisions has succeeded.” 1 They then informed him that the illegal alien firearms prohibition was upheld by the 5^th Circuit last year.

Huitron–Guizar agreed that, “… those guilty of serious crimes and the mentally ill are sensibly stripped of firearms they might otherwise lawfully keep. Yet he wonders what it is about aliens that permits Congress to impose what he considers a similar disability?”1

The Court said this about Alien’s rights. “Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization.

This ascending scale of constitutional rights is elaborate. An alien outside the country has fewer rights than one within, e.g., an alien held at the border has no right to a deportation hearing. ..An unlawfully present alien has fewer rights than one lawfully here; an illegal alien generally has no right to assert a selective-enforcement claim to thwart deportation. A lawful alien here fewer than five years can be denied enrollment in Medicare, unlike one here for, say, a decade... A temporary resident alien has fewer rights than a permanent resident alien; the former, for example, may be barred from making campaign contributions…Likewise, a lawful permanent resident has fewer rights than a citizen, since a state can form a citizens-only police force. ..Finally, one right is limited to natural born citizens: eligibility to run for president.”1

What it came down to was, “The line separating lawful and unlawful aliens is often as bright as that between aliens and citizens.” That, and the fact that, “Federal statutes that classify based on alienage need only a rational basis; they flow from plenary powers over admission, exclusion, naturalization, national security, and foreign relations.”1

Finding the law denying gun rights to Illegal Aliens Constitutional on a "Rational Basis" simply meant that the Government had to show to the Court that the law was rationally connected to its objective. This is the least strict way to interpret a law’s Constitutionality.

The Court closed the door completely on Illegal aliens’ gun rights here by saying,

“That Congress saw fit to exclude illegal aliens from carrying guns may indicate its belief, entitled to our respect, that such aliens, as a class, possess no such constitutional right.”1

1  

UNITED STATES v. HUITRON GUIZAR

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Emmanuel HUITRON–GUIZAR, Defendant–Appellant. No. 11–8051.-- May 07, 2012

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG:
armedselfdefense.blogspot.com

Mindless Destruction Is The Name Of The Game On May Day, 2012