Supreme Court To Debate Interpretation Of Second Amendment Protections

The U.S. Supreme Court, comprised of mostly Republican-appointed justices, is unlikely to agree that illegal immigrants should be allowed to own weapons.

In U.S. v. Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, a federal judge recently argued that a section of the U.S. Code barring illegal immigrants from possessing weapons constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment.

While discussing the application of the Second Amendment, it should be noted that there is a distinction between the amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms, according to The Reload.

The idea of natural rights marks self-defense as nature’s first law. It is a right given to all people and can only be barred if a person has demonstrated that they are a danger to others unjustifiably.

“Like any other person, an illegal immigrant has the natural right of self-defense and, therefore, by necessity in the modern age, the right to keep and bear arms,” The Reload wrote.

This natural right is separate from the Second Amendment, which, by contrast, tries to codify the preexisting right. In other words, the law is “inspired by” the natural right of self-defense.

“Given that, we should not be surprised when the Second Amendment does not reach the expansiveness of its philosophical inspiration,” the outlet added.

Another challenge to the idea that somehow illegal immigrants not owning weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment is the ways that modern courts have interpreted the law.

In D.C. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the term “the People” is one that “unambiguously refers to all members of the political community.” Such terminology “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

Illegal immigrants have not established an adequate connection with America.

The Reload pointed out that some foreign nationals have started a family in the U.S., gained employment and paid taxes, adding that recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) have obtained a “quasi-legal” status in the U.S.

“The question of whether illegal immigrants are thus part of ‘the People’ would seem to sometimes be a heavily fact-based determination,” the outlet wrote.