Last August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a prohibition on gun ownership by illegal immigrants. But the ruling’s logic — which applies a complex “balancing” approach rather than declaring categorically that illegal immigrants cannot own firearms — could threaten your Second Amendment rights.
The Seventh Circuit decision in United States v. Mariano A. Meza-Rodriguez continues an unbroken appeals court trend of upholding prohibitions on gun ownership by illegal aliens. Regrettably, the court reached its decision by applying a flawed “balancing” approach that threatens Second Amendment rights in other contexts. It is to be hoped that to minimize uncertainty, future courts will eschew applying a Fourteenth Amendment “balancing” approach and hold conclusively either that illegal aliens are not included among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment or that prohibitions on the ownership of firearms by illegal aliens fall within a category of presumptively justifiable restrictions on gun ownership.
A balancing approach, Kloster argues, “is inherently uncertain in application, complicated, and often counterproductive.”
What do you think? Should a misreading like this affect your constitutional rights?