Decision here.
Huitron-Guizar was an illegal alien. Officers searching his home with a warrant found some guns. He pled guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm transported or shipped in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A), 924(a)(2), if you're interested), but he appealed his conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the law.
The tenth circuit upheld the law. The most comprehensible part of the decision says: "Heller (meaning District of Columbia v. Heller) held 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. This right was understood by eminent authorities like William Blackstone and James Wilson as but an application of the natural right of self-preservation. 554 U.S. at 593-94, 585. Yet 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." The court goes on to assert that while everyone present in the US is entitled to the protections afforded by certain rights, there is nothing which says illegal aliens receive the protections of all rights afforded to citizens. Equal protection means that similarly situated individuals be treated equally, but aliens (especially those unlawfully present) are not similarly situated to citizens.
The decision gets a little weird from there, with discussion of whether "the people" or "persons" is a more inclusive term, dissections of previous court decisions, and contrasting the application of different constitutional amendments to different groups of people. The lawyers can knock themselves out with that stuff if they want to; for law enforcement purposes it's probably enough to know that the statute in question was ruled constitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment