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 5th 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
armedselfdefense.blogspot.com
1 comment:
So let's take this a step farther.Could this be Sherrif Joe's defense against the DOJ,that illegals are not afforded the protections of the Civil Rights laws??? Sounds good to me!!They are NOT citizens,they should NOT be afforded all the protection of law that we are.Mabye then they would think twice about coming across illegaly.
Post a Comment