Federal Judge: Illegal Immigrants Can Carry Guns

[Guest]

In a ruling that had both proponents and opponents of the Second Amendment do a curious double take, a federal judge has ruled that an illegal immigrant was wrongly banned from possessing firearms.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled on March 8 that the defendant, Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who is residing in the United States illegally, had his Second Amendment right’s violated when prosecutors originally charged him with 18 U.S.C § 922, which bars illegal immigrants from carrying guns or ammunition.

“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” Judge Coleman wrote in her ruling. “Thus, the court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

The defense team for Mr. Carbajal-Flores had argued in their recent motion that the government could not show the law referenced was “part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the government must show that each regulation “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The precise wording of the high court’s decision was enough for the defense to argue successfully in favor of dismissal. “Lifetime disarmament of an individual based on alienage or nationality alone does not have roots in the history and tradition of the United States,” Mr. Carbajal-Flores’ lawyers said.

“The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country. The court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” Judge Coleman wrote.

The ruling has promoted a large range of reactions across the legal and Second Amendment community. Writing on The Reload, attorney Matthew Larosiere agreed with the decision saying that even those in the country illegally are part of “the people” the Framer’s mention in the Second Amendment. “To find that illegal immigrants are outside of ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment, you must believe that the Framers were talking about a different ‘people’ in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments,” he wrote.

What Say You.....

[Guest]

Interesting situation.  I'll have to sleep on this topic.

[Guest]

Guess now the Fed. Gov't can legally arm all those young men crossing the boarder......omo.

[Guest]

When I was in high school, we learned that illegal aliens that were caught here have no rights and were shipped back to their country of origin.  This information was valid as of the mid 1970's () so either case law argued since then or new legislation signed since then has changed this whole legal look at what "rights" illegal aliens have. 

[Guest]

always wondered why HLS needed to stockpile 750mil rounds of ammo as reported............omo.

[DirtyDigz 1,815]

1 hour ago, xXxplosive said:

What Say You.....

My opinion - an illegal alien should be considered the same as a felon-in-possession until such time as they become compliant with US immigration law and provide law enforcement/criminal records from their legal country of residence.

[Guest]

So maybe the illegals in NJ don't have to apply for a LTC like the rest of us..........I dunno.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled on March 8 that the defendant, Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who is residing in the United States illegally, had his Second Amendment right’s violated when prosecutors originally charged him with 18 U.S.C § 922, which bars illegal immigrants from carrying guns or ammunition.
What Say You.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Johnson_Coleman 

Appointed by	Barack Obama

 

That should tell you what you need to know.  She is not a pro 2A Judge.  This is intentional arming of the illegals (mostly military age men) that the Biden administration encouraged to infiltrate the US by opening the boarders.   This is an invasion.   

 

 

[Bt Doctur 188]

Caught a new wrap that said a federal judge said illegals can posses  firearms?

[GRIZ 3,369]

59 minutes ago, Bt Doctur said:

Caught a new wrap that said a federal judge said illegals can posses  firearms?

Where?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Where?

https://thereload.com/gun-ban-for-non-violent-illegal-immigrant-found-unconstitutional/

[njJoniGuy 2,139]

Chicago - where else?

[GRIZ 3,369]

28 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

https://thereload.com/gun-ban-for-non-violent-illegal-immigrant-found-unconstitutional/

Okay, but if you're a strict "Constitutionalist", you'd have to go along with this.  No where in the Bill of Rights does it say citizens.  It says people.  The 2A doesn't say citizens, it says people.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Okay, but if you're a strict "Constitutionalist", you'd have to go along with this.  No where in the Bill of Rights does it say citizens.  It says people.  The 2A doesn't say citizens, it says people.

I didn’t say I was against it.   I think the Bill of Rights applies to all.  They are natural rights.  That isn’t necessarily true for the Constitution at large.  There are powers that are afforded to citizens.. voting for example.

Note that this case is for possession.  It would be very interesting to apply this precedent to purchase.  Someone in the country illegally cannot pass a background check.  Are they being denied a right?

[Guest]

Nice to see our replacements get to do what citizens won't be able to. You know I've always wanted to be Juan Ferris and rack up a few speeding tickets with his illegals DL, maybe soon Juan Ferris can carry legally in NJ with out training, friends, a bank roll and shooting test like Sucker Citizen/Subject Ferris does.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

The 2A doesn't say citizens, it says people.

It says "the people", not simply, people, not referring to anyone with a pulse on US soil, but US citizens.  "The people", is specific to a distinct group.   Illegal immigrants are some people, but they are not "The People".

"The People" referenced in 2A are, We The People of the United States, as prescribed in big bold letters, page one of the Declaration of Independence.

There is no contradiction for a constitutional purist.

[Guest]

@Bt Doctur - this thread - on the same topic as yours - was started 8 hours earlier. I merged them together. No point having dueling threads. I hope you don't mind!

And thank you, as always, for posting!

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

6 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

It says "the people", not simply, people, not referring to anyone with a pulse on US soil, but US citizens.  "The people", is specific to a distinct group.   Illegal immigrants are some people, but they are not "The People".

"The People" referenced in 2A are, We The People of the United States, as prescribed in big bold letters, page one of the Declaration of Independence.

There is no contradiction for a constitutional purist.

Hmm...that seems like a stretch saying "the people" refers only to citizens.  Illegal aliens have been granted every other right why not 2A?

[Guest]

In states with NICS requirements for purchasing a HG (because you need a gun to carry one) or obtaining a CCW, how exactly does an illegal pass a NICS check?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Xtors said:

In states with NICS requirements for purchasing a HG (because you need a gun to carry one) or obtaining a CCW, how exactly does an illegal pass a NICS check?

Lol. That's a good point.

For example, if they obtain a handgun in NJ without passing NICS, because they can't - they would then be disqualified from carrying it because they committed a crime .

Except in NJ, it is only a crime if you get caught. The same is every law is Constitutional, unless the court says it isn't.

[Guest]

obviously, the fella broke many laws and still..............we're in trouble folks.....omo.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Xtors said:

how exactly does an illegal pass a NICS check?

Next step, NICS is unconstitutional?

[Guest]

was a ghost gun......probably illegal in some states.

[Guest]

How about the situation where a foreigner travels here for a shooting competition and wants to bring their own firearms?  I believe this is legal to do though it does require some paperwork (temporary importation.)  So not being a citizen of the USA doesn't necessarily preclude someone from possessing firearms in the USA, just has to be done properly.

The original story did not disclose how the alien immigrant acquired the firearm.  Though he may have acquired it legally if he established residency:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-nonimmigrant-alien-who-has-been-admitted-united-states-under-nonimmigrant-visa-and#:~:text=A nonimmigrant alien without residency,have the firearm directly exported.

"A nonimmigrant alien who has established residency in a state may purchase and take possession of a firearm from an unlicensed person, provided the buyer and seller are residents of the same state, and no other state or local law prohibits the transaction. A nonimmigrant alien with residency in a state may purchase a firearm from a licensee, provided the sale complies with all applicable laws and regulations."

Ultimately my feelings on this is if you are not in jail you should be able to own/possess firearms in this country.  If they are too dangerous to be on the streets then they should be under supervision one way or another.

[Guest]

Simple...... They're here illegally, therefore criminals. Criminals aren't allowed to "legally" own guns. Am I missing something?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, FDHog said:

Simple...... They're here illegally, therefore criminals. Criminals aren't allowed to "legally" own guns. Am I missing something?

What about non-violent felons like the Range case:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/people-convicted-nonviolent-crimes-can-guns-court-says-rcna88030

He is a 'criminal' but it was a non-violent crime.

I believe that's why they came to this ruling:

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”

Citizen status shouldn't be a limiting factor IMO.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Xtors said:

In states with NICS requirements for purchasing a HG (because you need a gun to carry one) or obtaining a CCW, how exactly does an illegal pass a NICS check?

The case declares the specific statute prohibiting possession.  It had nothing to do with purchase. 

[Guest]

Isn't there a question on the form that asks if you're in the country illegally....

How do they get around this?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, FDHog said:

Simple...... They're here illegally, therefore criminals. Criminals aren't allowed to "legally" own guns. Am I missing something?

Unless you have been convicted in a court of law you are not a criminal. The current regime  is not and has no intention of ever bringing any of the invaders to court so therefore they will never be criminals till we get a government that enforces the law.

[Guest]

Unless you’re Donald Trump