https://www.zerohedge.com/political/illegal-immigrant-can-carry-guns-federal-judge

Were our nation governed by non-criminals, this would never become a relevant question, because the instant the authorities realized they were dealing with an illegal alien, he'd be in custody till they could return him to his nation of origin, and the carrying of firearms while in custody has always been illegal in the US.

No

Yep

This a magic time to be illegal in America.

Not good

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He shouldn't have been here - granted but I have a hard time seeing an Obama appointed, female, black, judge basically saying - IN CHICAGO - that a person (part of the people political community or not) has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms as a bad thing.

“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” Judge Coleman, appointed under President Barack Obama, wrote in her 8-page ruling.

Do I want illegals here and armed? No. Absolutely not but them being armed isn't even in question if they're not here.

Do I want zero infringement on the 2A - absolutely and given a lib dem judge making a ruling with unintended consequences of setting the bar lower for the definition of "infringement" and realizing infringement is unconstitutional - I'll take it. Not a lawyer but this sorta sets the tone - it's basically that any infringement is unconstitutional, - his being an illegal alien is the determining factor for prohibition and thus an "infringement" of the right to keep and bear arms. I can't imagine keeping that genie in a bottle for proving infringement now.

There's no such thing then as a "gun free zone" anymore.

What does question 12c on form 4473 mean? Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the US? Can an alien acquire a firearm legally or not?

One can not ignore that Judge Coleman could be a DEI hire.

But doesn't the knock on effect imply anyone is guaranteed the right - based on long standing tradition? Like walking into Montgomery Wards in the 1950's and buying yourself a pistol and a box of shells?

The only right that an illegal alien should have is the right to be quickly deported. When they enter, violating the law, they give up other rights. miles

The fact that this case could even be tried is insane.

I prefer the idea that the right to self defense and the 2A is one from my creator and can't be taken away by a government who can/can not determine if someone counts or not.

Should they be here? No - there's no right to enter the US. That's a separate topic.

A person in the US has a RIGHT to the 2A, endowed from our creator and no government can take that away and this is a good case to point that out. While this person is illegal and this person, technically is a criminal - they still enjoy the right to the 2A while in the US. Now explain how you take the 2A away from someone who isn't.....

So… if a million armed Communist Chinese, crossed the border, we’ll give them a cell phone, put them up in hotels, feed them and tell them “welcome to America” what could go wrong…?
Feel free to substitute Chinese with your choice of country of origin…

2A secures the 1A.

Founders trusted the people more than they trusted govt.

Today, it’s the opposite.

Powers that be have to neutralize the Constitution if we allow that.

Stalin wasn’t worried about the vote, only the counting of the vote.

So it is today.

DF

Valid point, what does the ATF have to say about this ruling...

Illegals can now have firearms...what could go wrong?

Dude

What is their Mission Statement

Hahahaha Hahahaha

Assuming he bought it from a FFL. Surely not the case.
Assuming he "bought" it at all.

Wonder what happens when it's a white guy next ?

Some people are missing the point. He is an alien that has broken the law and defied the Constitution to invade our border illegally. He has no rights as an American Citizen.

That might be the wrong way to approach this question. The function of the Second Amendment is more to restrain the actions of government in the US, in light of rights belonging to all human beings, not just Americans.

That said, the first duty of an official of the US, upon discovering an illegal alien, is to place them in custody (awaiting deportation), and no one argues that a person in custody has a right to bear arms while in that condition. Let them iron out the status of their rights with their own governments, upon their return.

Very interesting Pandora Box she opened.

Liberals will argue the protections of the Constitution apply to anyone physically present in the United States or its territories regardless of citizenship. They are even trying to expand the privilege of voting to illegals. If that be the case the protection of the Second Amendment should apply as well.

If the Executive Branch was doing their job the issue of being here illegally would be more or less mute. In spite of being nominated by the magic knee grow and most likely an unqualified affirmative action hire, I think the judge made the correct constitutional decision. In my opinion the Constitution gives the government no authority to place any infringements on the possession or bearing of arms for any purpose.

A bigger concern is justice brown arguing the government has the right to limit free speech which is also protected by the Constitution.

Yes, and its the exact reason anchor babies aren't citizens either.

The point is - if the 2A covers him - how can it NOT cover you? That's the unintended consequence of this.

And the “intended” consequence of this ruling by a “OBAMA” appointed judge? A ruling like this could potentially put guns in the hands of millions of gang/cartel affiliated persons and persons who are indebted to them who have families back in their home countries…which in turn will create more violent crime, which in turn will increase the cries for more “GUN SAFETY” legislation.

Except those guys - already have the guns and are using them. This guy wasn't one of them apparently but those bad actors - already have the guns. You won't see a net increase. If you believe that suddenly illegals will NOW get guns - you've not paid attention. If a 16 year old urban youth can get them illegally, you think the illegals couldn't until this ruling?

As to the Military Chinese coming over as a sleeper - they'd not send them if they already didn't have a plan to arm them, couldn't have counted on this - it doesn't move the needle.

I'm not even saying it should cover him, but now that you say it does - you have to cover me, completely and with anything that's an infringement, you now lose that argument.

That said - I'd much much prefer he not be here and we had a solid border. But since that's not happening, open the flood gates to me having a MK18, suppressed with the giggle switch - over the counter, no wait.

Laying the groundwork for a federal police force comprised of illegal invaders.

Why would they need to? If the Fed wanted a federal police force of armed illegals, they'd just issue them firearms, no need to send Jose to Bob's Guns n Gear to buy a Glock.

ATF isn't going to tell the .fed they can't because no 4473 was filled out with an appropriate answer to 12c

I like and agree with your theoretical point. But I think there is ample evidence every day in the headlines, that there is a double standard of justice in this country now. Clearly the current laws are enforced differently for white people and people of color. That is reality.
I wish I was wrong, I wish arbitrary ATF rules were invalidated by this case, but I'd bet heavily this won't pass muster in the first round of appeals.

You're going to need to find a lefty willing to appeal this ruling and stand on the fact that an illegal immigrant is not covered under US law and subject to rules/regulations that US citizens aren't and thus don't have standing or rights to US perks, like say - voting.

They'll have to chose what they love more - illegal immigrants or restricting guns. I have a feeling they'll chose the immigrants and we, as a by product, end up with the gun rights restored.

The 4473 form that is in opposition to the infringe nention in the 2A?

Anyone else recall when NRA was lobbying for getting the feds involved in state and local level justice systems by way of Project Exile?

Assuming you are meaning the US border?

If so, what nationality would be trying to prevent you from arming yourself in that scenario?

Who cares if the room temperature scumbag lying in the puddle of blood on the floor has a gun in his hand? No parole from the graveyard!

So a cop(oh what the hell, anyone else too) should be able to rape and murder an illegal alien since they have no rights according to you?

Focus on the question instead of trying to smear me by claiming I support illegal aliens being here because I can assure you that you are wrong if you want to go that route.

Stealing it is an obvious crime. Buying it as being a crime is made up crap after the founding of the country.

[quote]A person Legally in the US has a RIGHT to the 2A, endowed from our creator and no government can take that away and this is a good case to point that out. While this person is illegal and this person, technically is a criminal - they still enjoy the right to the 2A while in the US. Now explain how you take the 2A away from someone who isn't.....
/quote]

Fixed it for you. A convicted felon has no right to bear arms, Neither should anyone that entered this country Illegally. Their rights reside in their home country. Which they should be sent back to as soon as they are discovered here. miles

I worked with a couple of Federal Agents who came over from INS. We were talking about the Marial Flotilla people and I said something like they don’t have rights and they said as soon as they hit US soil they were afforded every Constitutional Right!

Inalienable rights are a thing. Just because elites and their supporters(such as yourself) dislike the concept doesn't make it true.

Still looking forward to hearing this one.

So a cop(oh what the hell, anyone else too) should be able to rape and murder an illegal alien since they have no rights according to you?

Focus on the question instead of trying to smear me by claiming I support illegal aliens being here because I can assure you that you are wrong if you want to go that route.

What do you mean "if"?

Point one...EVERYTHING the ATF has done contravenes the clear and simple language of the 2A. We can agree on that.
But it (the existence of the ATF, the NFA, the GCA of 1968) has never been successfully challenged and decided...so we MUST deal with the law as written and currently on the books...and the law clearly prohibits the acquisition (and by implication, possession) of any firearm by someone unlawfully in the US, 4473, 12c.
As originally intended...Judges do not make law. Judges interpret and apply the law, decide guilt and impose sentences when the law is violated. But since Marxism took over the educational system...what we get now in the legal profession is anybodies guess.

Only because a convicted felon is prevented from via law which which may/may not be constitutional. A convicted felon, having served their time should be allowed a firearm under the Constitution. I see nothing in the Constitution that restricts the 2A based upon one's legal record. US law says they can't.

One might argue that an illegal immigrant hasn't received any due process at all, compared to the felon and thus - again, has a 2A right absent some other proof/due process he doesn't.

US law also says an illegal can't have a gun (ATF form 4473 12c) - the judge says "that's in infringement and illegal. This person can have a gun" - think that out just a little bit. Laws against firearm ownership is an infringement under her ruling and thus - unconstitutional. It opens the floodgates to everything by being so literally applied. 2A - Shall not be infringed. ZERO conditions upon that.

Enforce the border - this isn't an issue. You haven't enforced the border, creating this issue and her ruling has opened the door to something her side of the aisle probably doesn't want.

And this judge has ruled that this law is unconstitutional - which immediately calls into question ALL ATF restrictions on ownership.

Sounds like a judge just ruled against the existence of an infringement so not seeing why anyone except the anti2A crowd would be upset by that.

We can only hope, Teal...

I'm hoping but still planning on the worst case scenario.

I'm just saying this is a bit of a victory because now it's case law on the books by the left showing a VERY literal application of 2A. Hopefully it provides more ammo for FPC/GOA etc.

I look at our rights according to the constitution as pertaining to legal citizens, or some one that has entered this country by other legal means. I think this ruling will lead to them having other rights bestowed on them. I am not saying "take away their guns" I am saying send them home. All other points are moot. miles

Agreed - but I'm talking about what is happening, not what I'd want to happen.

A bit pyrrhic.

Indeed...

Truthfully... I doubt the Judge has a clue about that.

If he was armed that means the antigun law(which infringes on actual citizens) didn't work in the first place.

I don't pretend to know anything of legal schmegal workings...but one would assume this would be appealed by .gov in the 7th CCA. And I think in cases of this nature the appeals court can only examine the very narrow question of whether a person in this country illegally, 1. can in fact acquire or possess a firearm
2. did Flores violate any law or rule of ATF (a 10 year felony)
3, did Judge Coleman apply the law fairly to Flores
I don't see a 2A legal challenge here...but I sure hope I'm wrong. My point, the validity of 12c (and the entire structure of ATF laws) is outside the scope of the 7th Circuit.

Cut to the chase.

They may just be one day, until perhaps Congress can write a Constitutional law (might be hard to do now), that only allows citizens protection of their God given rights.

Bruen is screwing up, in a mostly good way, a lot of heretofore settled law.

This came from a case the judge in the OP used to get to her conclusion (my bold)

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/04/221010P.pdf


If there were no historical regulations regarding the keeping and bearing of arms by aliens, legal or otherwise, at the time of the acceptance of the Bill of Rights, then I can't see how "18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), " can stand as Constitutional.

Matters not if I like it or not, as Teal points out. Under Bruen, it would seem to be the case at the moment.

The good part...................perhaps a whole bunch of the presently enforced regulations will be tossed too. Can we please get unlicensed, tax free suppressors and other goodies in this Country again.

And among other things, get rid of the damn Roster and weapons/mag bans in this State.

There is more to this decision than meets the eye, much more.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

And that's where I am - she went very literal on application of "shall not be infringed" and now it's on record. That literal application now needs to apply to everything. Setting their 2A nerves on fire as a lefty and restoring our 2A rights as intended.

If an illegal isn't covered under this because of their status - then the other Constitutional perks don't apply due to the same status. Miranda, 4th amendment for asking their legal status, voting, etc. Setting their "replacement theory nerves on fire".

It becomes a Dutch door that swings 2 ways and they're going to have to make a determination.

When I had my shop I had several green card holders that wanted to purchase a firearm. The ATF gave “clarification” that said it was legal to do so as long as minimum residency restrictions were met. I didn’t like that idea so I simply refused to sell a firearm to a non citizen. I wasn’t comfortable with the idea that I was arming individuals who had not gone to the trouble of swearing their allegiance to the USA and getting their citizenship. I felt, for right or wrong, that I was arming potential enemies of my country so I just decided that I would only sell my inventory to citizens. I was under NO obligation to sell anything I had to anyone for any reason. If someone gave me a gut feeling of unease I would not sell to them and I didn’t care if that upset them. They would often say that they’ll just go down the road to buy a gun and there was nothing I could do about it….

I can’t stop others from making the sale but I can and WILL conduct my business in the safest way possible and I’ll always listen to my intuition.

Thank you! That is the significance of this most ignorant ruling.

Ignorant was letting .gov create infringements.

I understand how this could be used against the anti-gun crowd, but I wasn't aware that our constitution protects non-citizens too. Especially those here illegally. What part of illegal does this judge not understand?

Where was my father's constitutional protection when his name was "Americanized" at Ellis Island?

All I know is that in every country that the USAF sent me to we had a "new comer's briefing" and the first thing they would tell us is that, "You are now in _ _ _ _ and are subject to their laws. You have NO RIGHTS here, so be careful of what you say and do."

From:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...13/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_20-cr-00613-2.pdf

"Conclusion
The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as
applied to Carbajal-Flores. Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 3/8/2024 Entered: _____________________________
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
United States District Judge"


Bruce

The exposure of the Criminal DOJ such as this are necessary to show the people what traitorus pukes fill our Government and that they hate America, our Constitution and We the People.

The people are being led from Dark to Light and its working. That's why Trumps numbers are going up. We are witnessing The Great Awakening.

Trust Trump, trust the Plan and trust the Military and Buckle up buttercups, because it's going to get much more bumpy.

Things much more grevious than this must occur before we reach the precipice where the snowflakes and useful idiots have to change direction and call for Trump to step in and make that phone call.

It's Coming.

The USA.gov recognized the existence of inalienable rights in the 18th century, going so far as writing it down in a contract.

Anyone who would trust this Obama DEI appointed,tranny looking apparatchik,to do what benefits the citizens of this nation or accurately interpret the constitution,have been bamboozled.

So we need to double down on criminalizing being armed along with the claim that prohibiting the posession of arms is done to prevent actual crimes(murder as an example) while doing little to nothing to apprehend or convict the perpetrator when a crime such as murder occurs?

MM

An 18 year old can not purchase a handgun from an FFL. That does not mean he can not possess a handgun.

This I fully agree with.

I think Constitutional Carry in my state agrees with it also.

Since when did illegals, and almost all other criminals NOT have firearms?

Heads are exploding on both sides.....

i.e. "Division"... is not that the exact dream of Obongo?

Ah yep.....

Why did these illegal aliens leo's get a free pass a few years back?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spring-break-miami-beach-covid-19-protocols-hundreds-arrested/

That seems like an absurd way to look at it.

Do you think the same about border laws? It was possible for him to get into the country illegally so why bother with border law? Murder still happens so murder laws are obviously pointless?

Border law is a form of trespassing so there is a victim and a perpetrator.

Murder has a victim and a perpetrator.

Who is the victim when the crime is firearm possession? Why do you want firearm possession(and sub categories such as rifles with flash suppressors, over 10rds mags, and similar) to be a crime?

You moved the goalposts but I knew you would.

I don't want firearm possession specifically to be a crime, I want every single thing an illegal immigrant does in this country to be a crime. They shouldn't be able to possess a gun on our soil, or a drive a car, or walk on the street, or breath our air.

You people who think this decision will somehow insulate your 2A rights against encroachment have not been paying attention.

I didn't move the goal post. Trespassing and murder both have a victim and a perpetrator.

Possessing a firearm(unless it is stolen) doesn't have a victim.

Why do you want the news to be able run the headline "gun crime" which associates firearm ownership with crime to aid the anti 2A turds and put the illegal alien up in prison for possessing a firearm for 10 years instead of just sending him back to his country of origin?

One question: Would this judge have ruled the same way if the illegal alien was Lars Helgeland, who snuk into this country on board a ship from Norway?

She set a legal precedent that if, the descendant of Norwegian immigrants, Chuck Helgeland from North Dakota is armed in Illinois the Illinois gestapo might not hassle him.

I believe the Second Amendment only ratifies what the Magna Carta ratified (centuries ago) after the right of all men to bear arms was previously ratified in both Testaments of the Holy Bible.
Citizenship notwithstanding. A basic human right for all men.
Citizenship is a totally separate matter.

This is not a second amendment issue.
American Citizens have rights under the second amendment.
Illegal Foreign NATIONALS DO NOT!!!!!!!!!

A lot of people dislike rights for various reasons.

Well, that was kinda the curious irony in this most cockamamie ruling. You got the first part at least....

What cruel and unusual punishments have you meted out to people you believe to be illegal aliens to demonstrate before all that you think the 8th Amendment only applies to US citizens?