A FREE REPUBLIC AND THE ARMED CITIZEN ARE INDIVISIBLE; NOTHING MUST LOOSEN THAT BOND
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution refers to “The People.” And to what does the word, ‘People’ refer? The word refers to the Citizens of the United States. And the word, ‘Citizen’ apropos of the word ‘People’ is synonymous with the word ‘American.’ And the word ‘American’ in turn is equivalent in meaning to the phrase ‘The Common Man.’If a person is not a citizen, he is not to be construed as an ‘American,’ for he is not an American. He is not one of “The People,” whatever else he may be.
Much confusion has arisen as to whether the Second Amendment applies to denizens of other countries. It does not. To suggest otherwise admits into existence an absurdity. An extreme real-world example of such an absurdity is the practice of some states—curiously Democrat-run (“Blue States”) but more recently some Republican-run “Red States” as well—that allow non-citizens to serve as Police Officers. This means non-citizens in those jurisdictions wear a badge, carry a gun, and have the power to arrest citizens. Let that sink in for a moment. Does that not strike you as strange, no less than outrageous?
See articles posted in New American, Lawshun, Oguz Law, Legal Clarity, and American Police Officers Alliance. Hyperlinks below:
https://lawshun.com/article/can-non-citizens-be-hired-by-law-enforcement
https://oguz.law/asylum-seekers-police-eligibility-us/
https://legalclarity.org/how-to-join-the-us-police-as-a-foreigner/
https://www.thecentersquare.com/virginia/article_474d5434-d757-11ee-b814-d3971be0d8c8.html
See, especially, the article in Daily Caller News Foundation, which succinctly points to the inanity of allowing non-citizens to serve as police officers.
https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2025/05/10/new-mexico-non-citizen-police-law/
‘It is illogical to place people who are violating our laws in a position of enforcing laws against others,’ FAIR spokesman Ira Mehlman said in a statement to the DCNF.
Mehlman also pointed out that federal law ‘prohibits illegal aliens from possessing firearms, which law enforcement officer[s] must carry.’
However, even though non-citizens who become law enforcement officers in New Mexico will presumably now be in a position to carry a firearm, Grisham had previously suspended Second Amendment rights in the state. . . . ‘New Mexico’s crime problems are unrelated to the lack of illegal aliens serving as law enforcement officers,’ Mehlman told the DCNF. ‘As in other places with high crime rates, they are due to lax enforcement policies and unaddressed social issues. None of those issues would be fixed by allowing illegal aliens to service as cops.’
It must be remarked that, if a person wishes to work as a police officer for the Federal Government, that person must be a citizen of the United States. There are no exceptions. Why should the requirement be relaxed for those who seek employment as police officers in the states since the dangers to the security of the Country are not lessened; the incongruity is just as pronounced; and the insult to Americans is plainly visible to all.
U.S. citizenship has traditionally been a standard requirement for law enforcement positions across the country. This is most consistently applied at the federal level. Agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the U.S. Marshals Service all mandate that applicants must be U.S. citizens. There are no exceptions to this rule for these federal law enforcement bodies.
The rationale behind this requirement is tied to the duties these officers perform. Federal agents are entrusted with enforcing the laws of the United States and investigating national security matters.
The oath of office they take involves a pledge to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, a commitment historically linked to citizenship and undivided allegiance [emphasis our own].
What allegiance do non-citizens have, or owe, to the United States? In a word, ‘none.’ But, if non-citizens can carry a gun and if they have the power of arrest over citizens, then the bright line between citizen and non-citizen is blurred and eventually shattered.
The idea that some states would give police power authority to a non-citizen is asinine and for the same salient reasons that non-citizens cannot serve in the capacity of a police officer in the federal government.
Why would Blue-State Progressive Governors suddenly be so willing to arm non-citizens, ostensibly to fight crime, and yet frustrate if not curtail exercise of the right to armed self-defense of actual citizens? More to the point, if as is the case, the armed citizen stops more active shooters than the police and, if, as is also the case, the problem of increasing criminal violence in society is due in great part to lax, ineffective enforcement of, or casual indifference by a state to the enforcement of, its own criminal code, then what is to be gained by a mere numerical increase of police officers to a state’s police force?
The answer is that nothing is to be gained. And, for a State to fill the ranks of its force with aliens—whether they reside here lawfully or not—there is much for a State to lose, not least of all, the confidence of and justified ire of the citizen population toward the government, when a state has the audacity to arm non-citizens and give them the power of arrest over citizens.
See the article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on March 27, 2025, by Tred Law.
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/03/armed-citizens-vs-police-who-stops-active-shooters-better/
This practice is not only audacious and self-defeating but bespeaks an obvious raw and naked contempt of government toward the people to whom government owes a duty to serve—the American citizenry and not non-citizens.
For states to accede to or, worse, exult over citizens serving as police officers also poses an immense national security risk.
The National Police Association expressed its well-justified concern over the hiring of non-citizens as police officers. See the articles in Police1, and in the NPA’s own website. https://www.police1.com/legal/national-le-org-pledges-support-for-bill-that-would-withhold-funding-from-agencies-that-hire-non-citizens
See also the article in Law Enforcement Today.
Have some states simply gone mad? What is going on here?
If there are shortages of Police Officers, then why are some Progressive State Governors, such as Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, so quick to arm and give a badge to non-citizens, and, simultaneously, to frustrate American citizens the right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense?
It goes back to “control” and to Progressive-Marxist suspicion of “The Common Man”—i.e., the Citizen of the United States—and the refusal to acknowledge or even comprehend the concept of ‘Personal Safety’ as the citizens’ fundamental right.
But, “Blue” States adamantly refuse to accommodate “Armed Personal Safety.” It doesn’t exist for them.
Yet——
The citizen’s exercise of “Armed Personal Safety” is not incompatible with, does not clash with, and does not undermine, but complements a state’s obligation to provide for “Public Safety” through use of a State’s Police Power. See, e.g., the article published in Risk Strategy Group. https://riskstrategygroup.com/armed-civilians-vs-active-shooters-what-the-data-really-says/
In practice Blue States do an extremely poor job of providing public safety due to misplaced priorities, or a misunderstanding of what policing in our Country is about. See the article in the New York Post, posted on April 20, 2026. https://nypost.com/2026/04/20/opinion/mamdani-still-plans-to-unravel-the-nypd-and-with-it-public-safety/
Ever a slave to the axiom of ‘Political Correctness’ (archaic for such modern nebulous euphemisms as ‘Political Sensitivity’ and ‘Inclusivity,’), Blue-State officials treat criminals—all criminals, including the most dangerous and violent among them—with blatant and abject fawning servility, (the “its-not-your-fault” syndrome for their bestial behavior), shying away from treating these perverse, deviant creatures in the manner they deserve, by meting out even-handed but steely justice upon them.
The imbecilic Progressives’ DEI Dogma—knows no bounds, ascribing to the maxim: “It is not okay for citizenry to exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense, but it is okay for non-citizens, including the illegal Obama-DACA aliens to be given “a badge and a gun and the code of a lawman”? Really. What dangerous nonsense! A nightmarish travesty! http://www.ctva.biz/US/Western/Lawman.htm
In this topsy-turvy Alice-in-Wonderland world that the United States has lived and suffered through during the Biden years, the Country is still in the throes of transformation, although ‘transmogrification’ is the more accurate word to describe what Progressives and Marxists (those incorrigible Democrats) are plunging our Country into—a Socialist-Collectivist HellHole.
Why should it be that Americans who exult in the exercise of their essential rights be chastened and chastized for it: especially in the exercise of their most vital right (and power)—the right of the people to keep and bear arms against beast, predatory beast-man and against the gravest threat of all, the predatory man-beast of government? And is the Third Branch of the Federal Government to be considered friend of Citizen and Country or has it turned its back on Citizen and Country?
From what we have seen of the Roberts Court to date—certainly on Second Amendment matters since the 2022 Landmark Bruen case—is that the Court has shown to be more foe of Citizenry and Country than friend.
Will we Americans (The Common-Man/Citizen Soldier and Sovereign over Government and Country) witness a revitalization of our Free Constitutional Republic, through a sound, coherent, cohesive, and proper decision in the “Birthright Citizenship” case coming down the pike? Or will we begin to see cracks in the foundation of our Republic through an unsound, illogical, incoherent decision.
In either event that decision will have a decisive impact, for good or ill, on the future of our Republic, on the American People, and on their sacred Rights.
We will know soon enough which it is and where we stand. THE DECISION FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS EXPECTED MOMENTARILY.