TexasCHLforum.com

Vol Texan wrote:To be honest, I can see both sides of this argument.

• On hand, if they are granted any other protections under our constitution, then why not be granted all the protections it offers? Relegating the RKBA to a second-class right does none of us any benefit.
• On the other hand, why should those who criminally trespass in our country be afforded ANY constitutional rights at all? The constitution is (or at least should be) a document that protects the citizens and legal residents of this country from an oppressive government. It's not here to empower those who enter and stay illegally, if you ask me.

Doesn't seem like much of a dilemma to me. They should be able to own a gun right up to the time of their deportation, and then their gun ownership is an issue for their country of origin.

The part that I struggle with more is that many States prohibit citizens from owning guns. In IL, you have to have a FOID to purchase one. How then can an illegal immigrant in Texas, who would never be granted a FOID in IL, be allowed to have a gun under Federal rights. I do understand that there can be differences between the States but this is under 2nd Amendment.

It is not possible for someone to live legally in this country if they entered it illegally. They are breaking a lot of other laws from driving and auto insurance to taxation, anyone one of which could be used against a citizen to keep them from purchasing a gun in at least some States. I strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment and the natural right to self-defense so I'm not against allowing those here illegally to have guns - in principal. But if they can have them without jumping through all of the hoops that citizens do, how can that be equal protection under the Constitution?

chasfm11 wrote:The part that I struggle with more is that many States prohibit citizens from owning guns. In IL, you have to have a FOID to purchase one. How then can an illegal immigrant in Texas, who would never be granted a FOID in IL, be allowed to have a gun under Federal rights. I do understand that there can be differences between the States but this is under 2nd Amendment.

It is not possible for someone to live legally in this country if they entered it illegally. They are breaking a lot of other laws from driving and auto insurance to taxation, anyone one of which could be used against a citizen to keep them from purchasing a gun in at least some States. I strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment and the natural right to self-defense so I'm not against allowing those here illegally to have guns - in principal. But if they can have them without jumping through all of the hoops that citizens do, how can that be equal protection under the Constitution?

Equal protection under the Constitution.....that's a quaint notion now....that's so your parent's Constitution. As far as something like, say, an FOID goes....I guess if California can issue driver's licenses to illegals Illinois can issue them FOIDs. Not sure where the liberals would come down on that, but I think they might go for it since: 1) they think all conservatives are racists and it would be a poke in the eye to evil conservatives; and 2) it could be conceived as some kind of multi-cultural equity or something. OTOH, trying to reconcile their hatred of guns and self-defense with a racial/multi-cultural/social justice justification for gun ownership might make their heads explode.

But you've got me thinking and the more I think about it, the more I think I'd like to see illegals demanding the right to own guns....the libs would either have to oppose or endorse it and that seems like a win win to me. As far as I'm concerned everyone has a right to defend themselves. I have no problem with illegal aliens owning guns. In fact, I think every gun owning illegal alien and every illegal alien using a gun in self-defense would be a win for our side.

VMI77 wrote:But you've got me thinking and the more I think about it, the more I think I'd like to see illegals demanding the right to own guns....the libs would either have to oppose or endorse it and that seems like a win win to me. As far as I'm concerned everyone has a right to defend themselves. I have no problem with illegal aliens owning guns. In fact, I think every gun owning illegal alien and every illegal alien using a gun in self-defense would be a win for our side.

Talk about thinking outside the box!

I don't want to wade too far into the immigration waters. However, the fact they are here illegally precludes them from owning and carrying guns. If they are so worried about having guns for protection, they should realize they will be gunless among other things if they sneak into our country illegally. Their illegal status needs to be addressed before any of the other stuff, especially recognizing any kind of rights afforded citizens. Interesting how people seem to jump past their illegal status.

mojo84 wrote:I don't want to wade too far into the immigration waters. However, the fact they are here illegally precludes them from owning and carrying guns. If they are so worried about having guns for protection, they should realize they will be gunless among other things if they sneak into our country illegally. Their illegal status needs to be addressed before any of the other stuff, especially recognizing any kind of rights afforded citizens. Interesting how people seem to jump past their illegal status.

I'm looking at it through a liberal don't let a crisis go to waste sort of lens. I'm against amnesty, sanctuary cities, and the like, but as long as the liberals are issuing driver's licenses, free education, and Obamacare, why not FOIDs. But I'd prefer enforcing the law and closing the border.

I don't see a struggle with this... an ILLEGAL alien should be no more legally entitled to have weapon than a felon of any other type.

I have no issue with an immigrant or legal alien of any type, being armed or participating in firearms ownership.

They do keep a registry, all handguns are registered to you upon purchase and private transfers must go through a dealer. All AW's were required to be registered on Jan. 1, 2000. They then extended the period a few times due to lack of participation. When I lived there, up to 2004, long guns not considered AW's were not registered by the state, you completed a NICS and filled out a 4473 and that was it. Could have changed since then.