Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A judge this month dropped gun charges against an illegal migrant in Illinois, sparking further debate about the rights associated with the Second Amendment.
U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois referenced lower court rulings in dismissing firearm possession charges against Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who was illegally or unlawfully in the United States when he possessed a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago on June 1, 2020.
"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," Coleman, who was appointed under President Barack Obama, wrote in her eight-page ruling filed March 8.
Carbajal-Flores was charged under Title 18 of U.S. Criminal Code, which legally disallows undocumented individuals to possess firearms and ammunition "or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."
The defendant, who contended the firearm was possessed for self-defense and protection of property "during a time of documented civil unrest" in the spring of 2020, has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime or a crime involving the use of a weapon.
There were myriad protests across the nation that spring following the May 25 killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin, who was later sentenced to 21 years in prison.
Carbajal-Flores "has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release," the ruling says, adding that he is gainfully employed and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants.
The court previously denied two motions by Carbajal-Flores to dismiss charges. The first time was on April 13, 2022, and the second on December 19, 2022—about six months after the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down a 100-year-old New York law requiring that individuals show "proper cause" to get a license to carry a firearm outside a home, stemming from the 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. et al v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
That ruling was brought to the higher court after being challenged by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and gun owners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash.
"We hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's majority opinion. "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun control advocates in Illinois and denied a request for an emergency injunction against the state's ban on the sale and new possession of semiautomatic firearms.
The request was made by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) in response to Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's signed legislation enacting a statewide ban on "assault-style" weapons, including limits on magazine capacities.
"Those who are here illegally cannot possess a firearm of any kind that is obtained in illegal fashion," political commentator Jay Oliver told Newsweek via email. "There is a civil duty of gun shop owners, if by that route, to lawfully indemnify those who are trying to obtain weaponry of choice by cutting corners.
"Unfortunately, we have seen too many trends where innocent lives are being lost based on upon the progressive nature of those in charge of courts and opinions."
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
"We hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's majority opinion. "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Clarence - "this nation's historic tradition of firearm regulation" has been for U. S. Citizens - not ILLEGAL ALIENS.
See the difference?
And that has what to do with this thread?
Uh...the 2nd is one of 10 Bill of Rights......
JR, see "Sparty On" post 4 below
Duh - if constitutionality is being considered - which it is not.
In this particular case, the law dealing with Illegal Aliens/non-citizens being able to obtain, carry, or utilize any weapon within the boundaries of the U. S., as written by Congress and administered by ATF, is already in compliance with the 2nd Amendment (See 18 USC 922(g) as referenced by "Sparty On" posts 3.1 and 4.0, and then review the referenced ATF Form 4473).
Folks who don’t acknowledge current law established for legal gun ownership related to non citizens are either:
1- ignorant of the law
2- being purposefully disingenuous about it. Knowing NTers like I do, it’s pretty much even money on which it is.
It's getting so in the USA that guns should be distributed free to every person who is even VISITING the USA let alone all persons living there who are of the age of 12 and up, you know, for SELF DEFENCE. I sure as hell don't have to justify why I will NEVER again step foot in the USA, even to see my only grandchildren in person.
Like usual, you are only getting part of the story from media.
See 4 below.
The Constitution applies to everyone within our borders.
So does ATF form 4473.
Agreed, I was just making an "in general" statement.
Roger that
This judge is full of it. ATF form 4473 specifically denies non citizens the right to own a weapon without exception as noted. When in doubt, don’t sell them the weapon.
It does say that on the form. This guy should be compelled by the court to identify where he bought the weapon and that person should be charged.
Absolutely
it could have been a private sale, that is why all sales should go through a licensed FFL dealer. if 15 bucks is the difference in being able to purchasing a firearm, you probably can't afford it.
I’m of the school it should be the sellers responsibility regardless. As long as private sellers have access to the NICS background check system that works well.
I don't think it makes a difference, the private seller can be charged. That's why you never sell a firearm to someone you don't know or you have a FFL handle the transaction.
I guess it depends on your state laws, because in many states you can sell a firearm privately with no paperwork. as long as the person lives in the same state and you have no reason to believe they are a felon.
A lot of states have no restrictions on private sales, In Illinois, if the gun was a gift from a family member he is good.
Yes, in some states you can sell guns to total strangers at flea markets and swap meets or out of your car's trunk FCOL...
Like Bernie's home state of Vermont
Yes, to strangers from out of state with no background check, no records and no way to trace. Most Voters hate that shit...
Live Free Or Die?
That is not true, if most voter hated it they would change the law. Vermont obviously trusts it's citizens more than other states do.
NH is the live free or die state.
Vermont is the Green mountain state.
$15? Hell going rate here is $25-50 bucks per gun to do an FFL transfer.
Even though some states don't have the regulations and requirements of some , all the states have to follow federal law. And that also extends to those doing private sales legally.
It just takes asking the right questions sometimes and asking to see photo id , preferably a state driver's lic.
18 USC 922(g)
- It shall be unlawful for any person—
(5) who, being an alien —
Next thing you know , the right to vote will be extended to illegals and non citizens.
There are certain constitutionally protected rights that only belong to citizens, and no others.
Nope, that is bullshit fear mongering. Only citizens can vote for statewide or national offices per the US Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Amendment which will never happen...
You obviously didn't read the entire post, only what you decided to respond too.
I will admit to not marking the first sentence as sarcasm , but as a whole the post is still true.
Just as to change who can vote would need an amendment to effect such , to remove the 2nd would also require one, which will never happen.
This appears to be an attempt to use Bruen against itself, even if there is lawfully passed statutes, codes and laws that have passed constutionality, and throughout history laws and regulations supporting the limiting of firearm's to specific person's and regulating the prohibition of same to certain others.
Personally I think this Illinois judge is going to get slapped into progressive liberal lala land on appeal and judicial review.
If they were not allowed to be here this would not be a problem