Federal agents hunt for guns, one house at a time - Page 3

natticarry · July 2nd, 2009, 08:42 AM

"Among other things, the agents are combing neighborhoods and asking people about suspicious purchases as well as seeking explanations as to how their guns ended up used in murders, kidnappings and other crimes in Mexico."

The above bold print seems to indicate not all of these guns ended up over the border. A "suspicious" purchase as illustrated later in the article

"It turned out two handguns, of a type drug gangsters prefer, were bought by a pastor for target practice."

Now I agree there is nothing wrong with asking people who have guns registered to them used in crimes some questions. This appears to be going above and beyond. You are correct they are not violating the 4th amendment yet but it is a very small step to get to that point. They are also creating a de-facto database by now having case files that include the addresses of people who own types of guns that "drug gangsters prefer." As for hiking guns across there are people who actually use their trail rated vehicles off road. I am well aware that a great many things go through border check points and never get caught but that is no the only method used. As for the constitution applying to everyone who is in the country? This is most defiantly not true. I realize that there are court cases that indicate otherwise but that does not make it so (point to me the amendment that applies to abortion being a right). By definition a document put together to outline how a government will govern their citizens does not apply to non citizens unless a clause specifies otherwise.

Even if I cede you the point the fact that you are illegal means you committed a crime which means you give up much of the protections provided anyway.

mcp1810 · July 2nd, 2009, 01:53 PM

From the U.S. Constitution....

Quote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Please note, it does not say states shall not deprive citizens of life, liberty or property, without due process. It says "any person". Then we have "any person within its jurisdiction" that have "the equal protection of the laws."
It seems to me that if this was only in reference to "citizens" they would have used that word throughout. As "citizen" is defined in the amendment "any person" would appear to include someone who is excluded by that definition, therefore a person who is not a "citizen".

falcon1 · July 2nd, 2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcp1810

From the U.S. Constitution....

Please note, it does not say states shall not deprive citizens of life, liberty or property, without due process. It says "any person". Then we have "any person within its jurisdiction" that have "the equal protection of the laws."
It seems to me that if this was only in reference to "citizens" they would have used that word throughout. As "citizen" is defined in the amendment "any person" would appear to include someone who is excluded by that definition, therefore a person who is not a "citizen".

I just checked the text of the Constitution for "equal protection." The only place this phrase comes up is in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Interesting question...literally, the states may not deny persons the equal protection of the laws per this amendment. The national government is not so constrained?

Tom G · July 2nd, 2009, 02:49 PM

The agents should work on securing the border instead of screwing with the gun shops and home owners. We are going to have a lot of job less people when the troops come home from Iraq. We can use those who want to remain in the service to patrol our borders and secure them.

mcp1810 · July 2nd, 2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by falcon1

I just checked the text of the Constitution for "equal protection." The only place this phrase comes up is in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Interesting question...literally, the states may not deny persons the equal protection of the laws per this amendment. The national government is not so constrained?

That was the first part of the Fourteenth. As far as the feds, we go back to the Fifth:

Quote:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Does not limit these protections to citizens.

falcon1 · July 2nd, 2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcp1810

That was the first part of the Fourteenth. As far as the feds, we go back to the Fifth:

Does not limit these protections to citizens.

Fifth Amendment guarantees due process, as does the "citizenship" protection of the Fourteenth. Since the "equal protection of the laws for persons" segment of the Fourteenth is separate from the due process segment of the Fourteenth, it implies (under a strict reading) that they are not the same thing. So again, strictly parsing the text, the states may not deprive equal protection, but the national government is not so mentioned for persons.

I'm not advocating this per se, I'm just taking your original argument to one logical end....

natticarry · July 2nd, 2009, 06:03 PM

agreed as originally stated and to the point of the argument. The 4th nor the 5th amendment apply to non-citizens or else it would not be necessary to enumerate those rights under the 14th amendment. Also as stated it is very specific that states are not allowed to violate those rights not the federal government. This is why the Federal Government is free to detain people immigrating to this country as they have done at locations such as Ellis Island and Angel Island.

Superhouse 15 · July 2nd, 2009, 08:51 PM

How about:

" I don't consent to any search officer"
" If you have a warrant, you know you don't need my consent to search"
"I don't discuss my investments"

mcp1810 · July 2nd, 2009, 10:36 PM

From Bolling v Sharpe 347 U.S. 497 (1954)
Chief Justice Warren writing for the majority ( I am just grabbing the parts I believe to be relevant)

Quote:

We have this day held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools. 1 The legal problem in the District of Columbia is somewhat [347 U.S. 497, 499] different, however. The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The "equal protection of the laws" is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than "due process of law," and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. 2

Later

Quote:

In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government. 5 We hold that racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

From Graham v Richardson:

Quote:

Accordingly, we hold that a state statute that denies welfare benefits to resident aliens and one that denies them to aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years violate the Equal Protection Clause.

and then we have Takahashi v fish and game

Quote:

'All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.' 16 Stat. 140, 144, 8 U.S.C. 41, 8 U.S.C.A. 41.
The protection of this section has been held to extend to aliens as well as to citizens. 7 Consequently the section [334 U.S. 410 , 420] and the Fourteenth Amendment on which it rests in part protect 'all persons' against state legislation bearing unequally upon them either because of alienage or color. See Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24 . The Fourteenth Amendment and the laws adopted under its authority thus embody a general policy that all persons lawfully in this country shall abide 'in any state' on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under non-discriminatory laws.

Takahashi was legally prohibited from becoming a citizen. California passed a law that prohibited Japanese from obtaining commercial fishing licenses. SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional. As they did with the Puerto Rican law requiring civil engineers to be U.S. citizens to obtain a license.

So, can anyone show me some SCOTUS opinions that say that non citizens do not enjoy the same protections that citizens do?

natticarry · July 2nd, 2009, 11:47 PM

MATHEWS v. DIAZ, 426 U.S. 67 (1976)

Now I know this is not necessarily a protection but I would say it is just as valid as your fish and game or welfare cases.

This by the way assumes I believe in a living breathing constitution which I do not. I am a strict constructionalist and at most an original intenter. If you start opening things to interpretation you end up with court cases such as Wickard v. Filburn which arguably has caused much of the Federal Governments over reaching policy. I would also argue the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson falls into this category.

If we were to use original intent on the 14th amendment a little historical perspective would be called for. The 14th amendment was drafted shortly after the civil war to try to make sure southern states couldn't find a back way into keeping slavery around. That is specifically why they use person instead of citizen in the amendment to try and protect slaves who were already born before the amendment was ratified or had been shipped over after they were born which would have nullified their rights. I would also contend this is why it did not limit the federal government because it was not foreseeable that at the federal level an attempt would be made to nullify these peoples rights during the remainder of their life times. However I would argue that it did not limit the federal government because it specifically wanted to maintain control over immigration. This is just my opinion but I believe with historical perspective it is hard to dispute that logic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 2nd, 2009, 08:42 AM	#21
natticarry Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: cincinnati Posts: 91	"Among other things, the agents are combing neighborhoods and asking people about suspicious purchases as well as seeking explanations as to how their guns ended up used in murders, kidnappings and other crimes in Mexico." The above bold print seems to indicate not all of these guns ended up over the border. A "suspicious" purchase as illustrated later in the article "It turned out two handguns, of a type drug gangsters prefer, were bought by a pastor for target practice." Now I agree there is nothing wrong with asking people who have guns registered to them used in crimes some questions. This appears to be going above and beyond. You are correct they are not violating the 4th amendment yet but it is a very small step to get to that point. They are also creating a de-facto database by now having case files that include the addresses of people who own types of guns that "drug gangsters prefer." As for hiking guns across there are people who actually use their trail rated vehicles off road. I am well aware that a great many things go through border check points and never get caught but that is no the only method used. As for the constitution applying to everyone who is in the country? This is most defiantly not true. I realize that there are court cases that indicate otherwise but that does not make it so (point to me the amendment that applies to abortion being a right). By definition a document put together to outline how a government will govern their citizens does not apply to non citizens unless a clause specifies otherwise. Even if I cede you the point the fact that you are illegal means you committed a crime which means you give up much of the protections provided anyway.

July 2nd, 2009, 02:49 PM	#24
Tom G VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,031	The agents should work on securing the border instead of screwing with the gun shops and home owners. We are going to have a lot of job less people when the troops come home from Iraq. We can use those who want to remain in the service to patrol our borders and secure them.

July 2nd, 2009, 06:03 PM	#27
natticarry Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: cincinnati Posts: 91	agreed as originally stated and to the point of the argument. The 4th nor the 5th amendment apply to non-citizens or else it would not be necessary to enumerate those rights under the 14th amendment. Also as stated it is very specific that states are not allowed to violate those rights not the federal government. This is why the Federal Government is free to detain people immigrating to this country as they have done at locations such as Ellis Island and Angel Island.

July 2nd, 2009, 08:51 PM	#28
Superhouse 15 Distinguished Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 1,490	How about: " I don't consent to any search officer" " If you have a warrant, you know you don't need my consent to search" "I don't discuss my investments"

July 2nd, 2009, 11:47 PM	#30
natticarry Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: cincinnati Posts: 91	MATHEWS v. DIAZ, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) Now I know this is not necessarily a protection but I would say it is just as valid as your fish and game or welfare cases. This by the way assumes I believe in a living breathing constitution which I do not. I am a strict constructionalist and at most an original intenter. If you start opening things to interpretation you end up with court cases such as Wickard v. Filburn which arguably has caused much of the Federal Governments over reaching policy. I would also argue the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson falls into this category. If we were to use original intent on the 14th amendment a little historical perspective would be called for. The 14th amendment was drafted shortly after the civil war to try to make sure southern states couldn't find a back way into keeping slavery around. That is specifically why they use person instead of citizen in the amendment to try and protect slaves who were already born before the amendment was ratified or had been shipped over after they were born which would have nullified their rights. I would also contend this is why it did not limit the federal government because it was not foreseeable that at the federal level an attempt would be made to nullify these peoples rights during the remainder of their life times. However I would argue that it did not limit the federal government because it specifically wanted to maintain control over immigration. This is just my opinion but I believe with historical perspective it is hard to dispute that logic.