|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NY: Illegal Immigrant Shoots Gun, Claims He's Protected By The Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Javier Perez, a Mexican national, was charged after he fired a round into the air in Brooklyn in order to ward off rival gang members in 2016, reported The New York Daily News. Perez is now claiming in a Brooklyn federal court that his right to bear arms is guaranteed under the constitution despite not being a United States citizen.
“The Framers were clear: if they meant citizens, they would have said citizens. But they didn’t,” Samuel Jacobson, Perez’s lawyer, argued. “There is no suggestion that there was a concept of ‘illegal alien’ and no suggestion that if you were from a foreign country, you couldn’t bear arms.” |
Comment by:
jac
(8/3/2018)
|
Illegal aliens are not subject to the protections of the Constitution. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|