OK so it's a Wisconsin judge. That explains a lot.
What -- are they crazy? If the Constitution covers illegals, then the word "ILLEGAL" has no meaning. The very fact that they are here illegally puts them outside of the protection of the law with the only exception being representation in a trial. If they are granted all the rights of a citizen the moment their feet touch USA ground, why should they bother to become legal? Perhaps in order to vote? Seems like a heluva lot of them even get to do that anyhow.

Not at all. It just means that overstaying a visa is a misdemeanor.

They have slowly been changing the parts that make us a republic.

Example - The Senate

Originally Senate seats were appointed by legislatures of the states.

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

By April 8, 1913, three-fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, making it the Seventeenth Amendment. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan formally declared the amendment's adoption on May 31, 1913.

Any surprise the progressives pushed that amendment?

An item on that agenda that comes up every single election....
ending the electoral college process and replacing it with a straight vote for president.

This I believe that is why politicians (liberals in particular, but seems like more and more republicans as well), want people to believe The US is a democracy.

Its not! Its a republic (Article 4, section 4), in a republic that behavior is not allowed.

.

There are several problems with that stance. The most problematic being how many actions have been criminalized because a group doesn't like it, not because it is an actual crime.

For example:
Prostitution
Using certain words (1st Amendment WTH?)

Distribution of drugs by prescription - legal
Distributing the same drugs without prescription - Illegal

So...in the case of Marijuana if you get a scrip, no matter how bogus you are technically legal at the state level, but the federal law makes no exception. Consequently if the feds have a beef with you they will nail you for that anyway.

Pharmacy Cocaine - Legal
Street Cocaine - Illegal

Ditto for heroin and any other drug you find on the street, the same drugs are available legally with the right paperwork.

Unfortunately, being in the US either by sneaking in or overstaying your visa isn't considered a felony. So I cannot see how the Federal Government can prohibit misdemeanor violators from having firearms. And the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution covers everyone within the US border and it's protectorates whether here legally or illegaly.

it does not. . it's my opinion;;; feel free to make it yours. -- j
.

Actually you have to be convicted of a crime. Having committed one does not automatically make you ineligible.

Freedom is a RIGHT. But if you commit a crime it can be TAKEN from you.

The IRS, the EPA and the whole bloated mess of other laws can go shove it.
IMO, anything an illegal does is illegal because they do not belong here.
Myself a retired corrections officer of 21 years, I've seen convicted felons up close. I say keep them away from guns and voting booths.

Your comment is contradictory. Half of all ILLEGAL immigrant could not have come here LEGALLY.

Absolutely. 1st of all rights apply to all people and the second amendment does not say it only applies to citizens.

If you standard is they committed a crime, then no one in the US has 2nd amendment rights. Between the IRS, EPA, and the myriad of other laws we have all broken the law. Not to mention by that standard the founders would have been prohibited from owning guns.

If that is the case then no one in the US has 2nd amendment rights. Between the IRS, EPA, and other laws, every person in the US has committed a crime.

Most illegal immigrants have not committed felonies. About half came in legally and merely overstayed their visas.

Felons are “prohibited persons” and may not possess any modern firearm, either handgun or long arm. In the old days (before 1967) when a man got out of prison, the authorities returned to him his horse and gun. Now, a la AS, make everyone a felon for crimes none of us typically think are felonies, and you have a disarmed society.

so is the second amendment an acknowledgement of the independence of rights (gun...property rights) from government..or are rights given by and within government???...if rights are independent of govt, then illegals still have right to property (guns), life and liberty...ref. Hobbes & Locke...govt does not bestow rights...it can only acknowledge them...

Criminals do not have a right to posses firearms. Illegal gave committed a crime.

Seemingly Americans have no protections any more, so I'm glad to see that at least someone has a use for the Constitution.

+1

I think you mean the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

So you side with Seventh Circuit Court in saying that the Constitution has jurisdiction over illegal aliens? Just to be clear, here is the text of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This ruling also is of note because current US law forbids convicted felons from owning handguns. Should we see an overturning of that law as a result of this ruling?

My bet is that this will go to the Supreme Court.

The Seventh District. I believe the right to defend ones self is universal.

Meaning that you agree with the Seventh Circuit or the District Court?

I would have to agree and caution others to consider this may be a way for the left to convince enough conservatives to consider a gun control measure.