District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional
Breitbart | 16 Mar 2024 | Awr HawkinsOn March 8, 2024, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman decided against a federal ban on gun ownership for illegal immigrant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores.
The case at hand centered on Carbajal-Flores, who was “charged with possession of a firearm while illegally or unlawfully in the United States.” He had a handgun in his possession “in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois,” on June 1, 2020. He was charged for being a non-citizen in possession for a firearm.
Coleman ultimately concluded, “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.”
Questions:
(1) Is entering the country illegally a felony?
(2) Is it illegal for a felon to possess a handgun?
(3) If yes, what’s the problem?
I’m a bit torn on this one, as I believe that rights come from the Creator, not the government, so it doesn’t really matter what your status is, you still have unalienable rights, and people who believe themselves outside society might have more of a reason to be more vigilant about their own self defense. But the Second Amendment specifically states that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In no way, shape or form can aliens, even legal aliens, be considered part of “the people” for Constitutional purposes, and, despite Judge Coleman’s denial, there has always been a tradition of laws preventing non-citizens, at least certain classes of non-citizens, from access to firearms.
I kind of feel the need to clarify one point above- while I do believe that non-citizens, even ones here illegally, do still maintain their rights recognized by the Constitution, it should be noted that they do not have the right to be in this country, so we abridge no rights when deporting them or holding them in custody, even for an indefinite period, while processing for deportation.
So, if they are accused of a crime, yes, they get all the protections of the fourth through eighth amendments. They can speechify and protest to their hearts content, and practice whatever cultist dogma suits them, but once told “You need to leave. Now,” they can be rounded up and held until they get a bus or boat home. Since they have no right to be in the country, we are not abrogating any rights in confining them or sending them off.
I agree, this is a tricky one. What you say makes sense. But also, at what point is a foreigner, here illegally, armed with firearms, not a terrorist, guerrilla fighter, or invader? Wouldn’t it make sense to sneak undercover soldiers into a country before an attack, under the guise of “innocent”, and keep them looking good until enough are here and in place for the actual attack? How many wars are currently happening where the enemy combatants are just guys in normal clothes? Ones who might sell you lunch during the day, and bomb you at night?
#1 I dunno, but it doesn’t matter anymore.
#2 Not anymore. Quickly following the illegal alien decision, another Obama judge ruled it is unconstitutional for felons to be banned from having firearms, using much of the same logic as the alien ruling.
#3 The problem is that these Obama judges are using the rulings not in opposition to actual gun control, but as a malicious method of undermining the Bruen ruling. Like someone arguing that police should be allowed to chase down criminals (a real topic in WA, where they currently are not), so someone says “Fine, while we’re at it, let’s also just let them come into anybody’s house for no reason in the middle of the night and confiscate all their belongings”.