Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

NodeBB

  1. Home
  2. Handbook Discussions
  3. Birthright Citizenship Heads to SCOTUS

Birthright Citizenship Heads to SCOTUS

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Handbook Discussions
handbook
1 Posts 1 Posters 37 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • A Offline
    A Offline
    admin
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Birthright citizenship doesn't sound like a gun rights issue until you think it through. Federal law draws a hard line between citizens, lawful permanent residents, and undocumented immigrants when it comes to firearms purchases. If the court narrows who gets citizenship at birth, you're looking at a future class of adults — born on American soil — who may not be able to walk into a gun store and fill out a 4473. That's not hypothetical. That's downstream of this ruling.

    "Wong Kim Ark never suggested that parental domicile was necessary, just that it was more than sufficient in Mr. Wong's case."

    That's the whole ballgame right there. DOJ is counting the word "domicile" in a 126-year-old ruling and calling it precedent — but sufficient and necessary are not the same legal standard, and any first-year law student knows it. If the justices let that slide, they're rewriting a constitutional clause using a word that isn't even in the clause.

    The detail about DOJ citing page 659 of a case that ends on page 651 is the kind of thing that would get a gun store employee fired for running the wrong background check form. Sloppy sourcing in a brief headed to the Supreme Court isn't a typo — it's a tell about how much the legal architecture here is improvised.

    The Martinez v. Bynum angle is the one worth watching. DOJ is leaning on a case where the court just assumed the kid was a U.S. citizen — exactly the outcome DOJ is arguing against. That's not a citation, that's an own goal.

    Oral arguments are April 1. How this gets decided will matter to gun owners in ways most people won't connect until it's already law.


    Have you ever had a customer or shooting buddy run into a firearms purchase issue tied to immigration or residency status — and how did that play out at the counter or at the FFL?


    Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

    Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

    Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

    With your input, this post could be even better 💗

    Register Login
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Don't have an account? Register

    • Login or register to search.
    Powered by NodeBB Contributors
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • World
    • Users
    • Groups