Overview of the Ohio case on illegal aliens and firearm possession… What I am suggesting is that we need to be philosophically consistent on these things. [Watch]
Absolutely. All people have rights endowed by their Creator that they should be free to exercise.
That’s not the issue. They don’t have a right to be where they have no right to be. The law needs to be consistent with the Preamble’s unequivocal mandates and Democrat political sabotage needs to be reversed.
Instead of chasing a red herring, ask the right question: Why is a known illegal alien allowed to remain in the United States instead of being deported?
Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence” as amended and adopted by the Continental Congress refers to the pre-existing, creator endowed, inalienable rights of all men.
But the language of the Second Amendment forbids the Federal government, and since it was “incorporated” state governments as well, from infringing on the rights of “the people,” as in “We the People of the United States of America.” That phrase “the people” is a “term of art” that refers to a subset of all humanity. We can get a gist of what it means by looking at the militia laws of the various colonies, then states, the later of the Federal government. “The people” are citizens of the United States and others legally in the United States, who have declared their intention of becoming citizens of the United States.
Note that the distinction between “the people” and everyone else, including those held in slavery, is one of the few things that SCOTUS got right in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857). The court ruled that slaves could not be citizens because if they were they could travel where they wished and carry firearms wherever they went. I seem to recall there was a war fought in part to sort that issue out.
All others have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but the Constitution and laws of the United States do not forbid our government(s) from infringing upon it in their case.