Does the Second Amendment apply to non citizens/residents?

[repoman]

What a strange case

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-immigrant-gun-20180801-story.html#

An undocumented immigrant busted for shooting a gun argued in court Wednesday that he should be entitled to the same Second Amendment rights as U.S. citizens.

In a case that may have far-reaching ramifications, Javier Perez, a Mexican national, contends that he is being unfairly hit with criminal charges for shooting in the air on a Brooklyn sidewalk to fend off gang rivals in July 2016.

Is there a specific technical name for this aspect of the case I will lay out here:

The guy is an illegal alien, lets label this fact as "A". The guy used an unregistered gun as self defense (ignore risk of shooting in the air), label this fact as "B".

In general left wing people labelled "L" support A and are against B.
While in general right wing people labelled "R" support B and are against A.

In my pulled from my ass notation:

L -> A+,B- {left wants A, not B}
R -> A-,B+ {right does not want A, wants B}

Right wing wants this guy to be easy picking for legal gun owners (or don't want citizens hurt by illegals if you are being generous). Left wing doesn't want guns at all. Again, this is very broad over stereotyping by me.

 

[phands]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think this is a case of a prosecutor trying to hang whatever charge he can on a bad guy.

Note that he was defending himself against "gang rivals"--that makes him a gangster. There's also the issue of sending a round into the sky, something that is almost never acceptable.

 

[untermensche]

Is the right to bear firearms a human right?

Or is it just something we let some humans do because of an Amendment we're stuck with?

Are we slaves to the insanity of humans living in the past under totally different circumstances?

 

[Trausti]

Is the right to bear firearms a human right?

Or is it just something we let some humans do because of an Amendment we're stuck with?

Are we slaves to the insanity of humans living in the past under totally different circumstances?

So you're characterizing those who view self-defense as a natural right as slaves? Yeah, that's not how it works. The right of self-defense is what separates the free from the slave.

 

[untermensche]

Is the right to bear firearms a human right?

Or is it just something we let some humans do because of an Amendment we're stuck with?

Are we slaves to the insanity of humans living in the past under totally different circumstances?

So you're characterizing those who view self-defense as a natural right as slaves? Yeah, that's not how it works. The right of self-defense is what separates the free from the slave.

The Amendment does not mention the idea of self-defense.

And self-defense, like all rights, is not unlimited.

It is insanity to allow all these shootings because some are very afraid.

 

[Trausti]

Is the right to bear firearms a human right?

Or is it just something we let some humans do because of an Amendment we're stuck with?

Are we slaves to the insanity of humans living in the past under totally different circumstances?

So you're characterizing those who view self-defense as a natural right as slaves? Yeah, that's not how it works. The right of self-defense is what separates the free from the slave.

The Amendment does not mention the idea of self-defense.

And self-defense, like all rights, is not unlimited.

It is insanity to allow all these shootings because some are very afraid.

Unlike the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment did not create a right, i.e., "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is a right that supersedes the document. Only authoritarian tyrants would desire to take it away.

 

[untermensche]

The Amendment does not mention the idea of self-defense.

And self-defense, like all rights, is not unlimited.

It is insanity to allow all these shootings because some are very afraid.

Unlike the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment did not create a right, i.e., "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is a right that supersedes the document. Only authoritarian tyrants would desire to take it away.

Nonsense.

That is thinking like a witch.

Thinking a magic has been cast because the right incantation was spoken.

Humans were here before guns.

Anything concerning guns is just what humans want to do with them.

There was no god of the M16 (I was an expert with it in the Marine Corps) telling humans that they had a divine right to guns.

 

[Derec]

So he is a gang member and an illegal migrant. Independent of the outcome of the case, why isn't he being deported? Oh, that's right, NYC is a sanctuary city. They love illegals there, and do everything to protect them ...

 

[untermensche]

A person can be somewhere illegally.

But a person cannot be "an illegal".

And sanctuary is a good thing.

 

[fast]

I say he has the human right to defend himself and that includes using a firearm to do so. I say because he is not a citizen and was where he shouldn't be, the legal right to act in his own self defense was not extended to him. He needs to suffer the wrath of law. Crucify that son of a bitch if the law should allow it.

The prosecution nor judge has a duty to give a flying fuck about right and wrong, and I stand by doing everything possible to make the good suffer and the bad go free so long as I'm going to be held to pay for my mistakes in same such fashion. Meanwhile, do as you will and make just law; I'll support that, but if society fails, rest assured, I'm playing by the rules society has codified and demanded of me--right or fucking wrong.

 

[untermensche]

So the god-given right to defend yourself with a firearm ends where?

Why should we abandon simple sane harm reduction?

The harm in allowing firearms vs the harm in banning them?

The harm in banning is you or I might get killed by some crazed nut and not be able to kill the nut.

I can live with that.

I can deal with the fear of that.

My assured safety against rare threats is not the most important value.

 

[fast]

So the god-given right to defend yourself with a firearm ends where?

I have a fundamentally natural human right to defend myself that remains intact regardless of any caveats other humans want to impose upon me. When the bad outweighs the good and the net effect of self defense with use of a firearm culminates as an overall immmoral act, it's there that using any means possible to exercise that right ends.

None of that, however, has a thing to do with legal rights and whether I should be prosecuted and held prisoner for my actions. And, how laws should be, yet still, is another matter.

 

[untermensche]

So the god-given right to defend yourself with a firearm ends where?

I have a fundamentally natural human right to defend myself that remains intact regardless of any caveats other humans want to impose upon me.

You may have some ability but the right depends on who you are facing.

The police make a mistake and break down your door you have no right to defend yourself.

But your right is not ultimate. You do not have the right to defend yourself from North Korea by owning nuclear missiles.

You have a right to defend yourself but no right to own a gun.

 

[fast]

So the god-given right to defend yourself with a firearm ends where?

I have a fundamentally natural human right to defend myself that remains intact regardless of any caveats other humans want to impose upon me.

You may have some ability but the right depends on who you are facing.

The police make a mistake and break down your door you have no right to defend yourself.

But your right is not ultimate. You do not have the right to defend yourself from North Korea by owning nuclear missiles.

You have a right to defend yourself but no right to own a gun.

Whether I have a human right to defend myself and whether I have a legal right to defend myself are separate issues. It's best we don't confuse the two.

If police make a mistake and bust down my door, I have a right to defend myself, but I'm not under attack; it's the police making a mistake, not in fact attacking me. If they are plain clothed and wrongfully come in guns blazing with no attempt at identification and I get lucky and successfully defend myself, then between some police admissions of wrongful conduct and supporting video and audio surveillance, I think most would agree that I had a human right to defend myself with a firearm.

No society is going to take the risk of allowing me to own nuclear missiles to retaltate against a foreign aggressor, but that doesn't speak to whether I have the human right to fight back commensurately.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Amendment does not mention the idea of self-defense.

And self-defense, like all rights, is not unlimited.

It is insanity to allow all these shootings because some are very afraid.

Unlike the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment did not create a right, i.e., "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is a right that supersedes the document. Only authoritarian tyrants would desire to take it away.

Nonsense.

That is thinking like a witch.

Thinking a magic has been cast because the right incantation was spoken.

Humans were here before guns.

Anything concerning guns is just what humans want to do with them.

There was no god of the M16 (I was an expert with it in the Marine Corps) telling humans that they had a divine right to guns.

Weapons predate humans. Firearms were simply the most advanced weapons of the day.

- - - Updated - - -

So he is a gang member and an illegal migrant. Independent of the outcome of the case, why isn't he being deported? Oh, that's right, NYC is a sanctuary city. They love illegals there, and do everything to protect them ...

No, the intent of sanctuary cities is that they do not attempt to go after illegals if they have other contact with the system. The intent is to allow them access to things like law enforcement so disputes are settled legally rather than by violence as they are in the criminal world.

 

[untermensche]

If only that had any bearing on a discussion specifically about firearms.

Humans should have free access to all the weapons that predated them.

That is a natural right.

What is that?

A rock? A branch?

 

[fast]

Okay, pungi sticks it is then

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What a strange case

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-immigrant-gun-20180801-story.html#

An undocumented immigrant busted for shooting a gun argued in court Wednesday that he should be entitled to the same Second Amendment rights as U.S. citizens.

In a case that may have far-reaching ramifications, Javier Perez, a Mexican national, contends that he is being unfairly hit with criminal charges for shooting in the air on a Brooklyn sidewalk to fend off gang rivals in July 2016.

Is there a specific technical name for this aspect of the case I will lay out here:

The guy is an illegal alien, lets label this fact as "A". The guy used an unregistered gun as self defense (ignore risk of shooting in the air), label this fact as "B".

In general left wing people labelled "L" support A and are against B.
While in general right wing people labelled "R" support B and are against A.

In my pulled from my ass notation:

L -> A+,B- {left wants A, not B}
R -> A-,B+ {right does not want A, wants B}

Right wing wants this guy to be easy picking for legal gun owners (or don't want citizens hurt by illegals if you are being generous). Left wing doesn't want guns at all. Again, this is very broad over stereotyping by me.

I really like your use of symbolic logic here. It does help reduce the argument to its component parts. I would have used D & R, but that's my own preference.

The escape clause for the R side is what Loren wrote, the bit about "gang rivals", and also shooting into the sky which you specified we are to ignore for the moment. The D/L side doesn't have such an escape clause and therefore has to decide which of two causes ranks higher; A+ or B-.

My position is A+,B+, ignoring the shooting into the air.

 

[Derec]

No, the intent of sanctuary cities is that they do not attempt to go after illegals if they have other contact with the system. The intent is to allow them access to things like law enforcement so disputes are settled legally rather than by violence as they are in the criminal world.

It goes far beyond that. It prohibits local LEOs from assisting federal immigration authorities in any way, and in fact they hinder them actively too.
That case where an illegal killed a woman (and got away with it thanks to a SF jury) is probably one of the most egregious uses of "sanctuary city" policies. Zarate, the illegal, was already in federal custody, but was transferred to SF for a local matter to be adjudicated. After that was done, he was simply released into the wild and not returned to ICE custory because SF is prohibited from assisting the feds. That's messed up.