3.16.24, US District Judge: Gun Ban for Illegal Immigrants Ruled Unconstitutional

YeeHaa

YeeHaa

Member
Charter Life Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
6,827
Location
T'ville ~ Trinity
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
That’s the ruling handed down by US District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday. She found the federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning guns is unconstitutional, at least as applied to Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. She ruled the ban did not fit with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation as required under the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling.


However, if we’re going to assert that it’s a natural right, then it would naturally apply to everyone, even those who broke the law in coming into this country – at least if they’ve not been stripped of that right under due process of law.

federalobserver.com

Gun Ban for Illegal Immigrants Ruled Unconstitutional - The Federal Observer

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, meaning all free men and women have that right, regardless of where they are on the planet. It’s part of why so many of us find other nations’ gun laws so insulting. It’s a repression of people’s right to have weapons to defend themselves […]
federalobserver.com
 
From the standpoint of do I think the founders would have made illegal entry a 2nd-A exception, no.in that regard I think the “judge” got it right. Were the founders aware that illegal “immigration” would be a problem, or even weaponized? No. Do I think this is a case of give those MAGA types what they ask for? Maybe.
 
It was obvious at the outset that Bruen would create some situations like this.

Here is the actual decision text.


Bruen did not extensively probe hundreds of different circumstances in which it might be applied, so it seemed pretty obvious that there would be exceptions identified that would be controversial.

It will be interesting to see if this makes it all the way back to the supreme court and the requirements on the 4473 get changed because of it. Based on this decision, maybe you’ll have to agree to a loyalty oath to the United States. I think I’m going to start including that in my private sale requirements anyway, just cause it sounds like fun.
 
Illegal immigration is illegal, but it's not a felony. Even if it was a felony, an illegal immigrant who hasn't been convicted of that offense wouldn't be prohibited from owning guns. Your right to own a gun is taken away when you're convicted of a felony, not the moment you commit the crime.
 
Jperr said:
Again, what constitutional rights can you claim when you are not a citizen of the United States of America?
Click to expand...
Same thought line opens up voting to anyone. Not just state but federal. Why do you think all the illegals are being let in.

Mark me: In a couple of years there will be a lawsuit building upon all this little stuff. It will argue you don't need to be a citizen to partake in ANY Constitutional freedoms. You can guess how the Federal elections will turn. 🤬
 
Last edited:
illegal aliens are already voting just by the simple fact that they were counted in the census which will affect the number of representatives in states (mostly progressive states where illegals are being welcomed) and by default affecting the presidential electoral votes awarded to the progressive states.
 
Jperr said:
Again, what constitutional rights can you claim when you are not a citizen of the United States of America?
Click to expand...
The philosophy of America is found in the following statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”

That doesn’t state “all US citizens”, it states “all men”. Previously court interpretations include women with men as far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned.
 
Scsmith42 said:
The philosophy of America is found in the following statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”

That doesn’t state “all US citizens”, it states “all men”. Previously court interpretations include women with men as far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned.
Click to expand...
Well there’s your wet blanket on this conversation…
Where then is the divide between a citizen’s and an alien’s (illegal at that) rights?
 
Scsmith42 said:
The philosophy of America is found in the following statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”

That doesn’t state “all US citizens”, it states “all men”. Previously court interpretations include women with men as far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
What ID documents are acceptable to use to fill out a 4473?
 
so im supposed to believe that the men who extensively studied history/forms of governance before drafting our constitution, would agree that non-citizens would be allowed all the rights and privilege's of citizens? i find this laughable as rome, one of the civilizations they studied, citizenship was a coveted title and if one was not born one they had to work to gain it--the rights of citizenship weren't thrown to the barbarians.
 
The Preamble of the Constitution specifically mentions "the People of the United States", not "the People in the United States".

Seems pretty clear that the term "the People" doesn't apply to illegal alien invaders.
 
ontheroad said:
The Preamble of the Constitution specifically mentions "the People of the United States", not "the People in the United States".

Seems pretty clear that the term "the People" doesn't apply to illegal alien invaders.
Click to expand...

That's because at the time the Constitution was written, there were people IN the United States that considered themselves to be British Subjects. The population was effectively divided into three categories: former British citizens who supported the revolution and became American citizens, British citizens who still supported the British government and became enemy aliens, and a murky middle ground of fair‐weather residents. Those in the first category were "in" the United states but you can bet that t hey weren't the ones ordaining the Constitution.

Also, there were no immigration laws prior to the 1780's as I recall. Anybody could come here who wanted to and could afford to make the trip (excepting slaves).

My responses are not aimed at arguing "for" illegal immigrants being able to acquire, keep and bearing arms; but rather at providing insight into the reason why the judge ruled the way that they did.
 
Scsmith42 said:
That's because at the time the Constitution was written, there were people IN the United States that considered themselves to be British Subjects. The population was effectively divided into three categories: former British citizens who supported the revolution and became American citizens, British citizens who still supported the British government and became enemy aliens, and a murky middle ground of fair‐weather residents. Those in the first category were "in" the United states but you can bet that t hey weren't the ones ordaining the Constitution.

Also, there were no immigration laws prior to the 1780's as I recall. Anybody could come here who wanted to and could afford to make the trip (excepting slaves).

My responses are not aimed at arguing "for" illegal immigrants being able to acquire, keep and bearing arms; but rather at providing insight into the reason why the judge ruled the way that they did.
Click to expand...

i think the 14th amendment entered the chat somewhere, and it specifically talks about citizenship
 
P01135809 said:
It will probably be voting…in federal elections. Some municipalities are letting illegal Aliens vote in local elections already.
Click to expand...
And where do a lot of fed.gov get their start? Local office. Be it town board or school board.

You want to let illegals vote in local elections? No one elected is eligible to hold any office outside that locality
 
The Heller and McDonald rulings by SCOTUS cited “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Leftists judges have repeatedly stretched "law-abiding" to the breaking point to try to maintain gun control laws.

The judge in this case totally ignored the fact that illegal aliens are not "law-abiding, responsible citizens" covered by the Second Amendment.
 
One of the things I remember from sitting in on legislative committee hearings where gun ban laws were being debated in Illinois is the FFLs speaking about their ability to deny sales for any reason. If they aren't comfortable selling to a person they don't have to. I'd bet that gets some play now.
 
21. l. Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States? If you check yes, no go on the transfer.... well, its what it used to be.
 
I can't sell to a someone who is not a resident of NC. If you are here illegally are you an official resident of this state or any other?
 
Research the judge and you see how this fits into the democrats assault on America and the constitution. Same reason they are letting criminals have guns , keep there guns and want yours.
 
Last edited:
Scsmith42 said:
That's because at the time the Constitution was written, there were people IN the United States that considered themselves to be British Subjects.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine forcing somebody to have freedom?
"You WILL have this freedom, and you darn well better like it!"
actually, it's not so far fetched considering folks like us have been demanding people understand they have freedom to say unpleasant and unpopular things, own guns, not incriminate their selves, etc.

Sneakymedic said:
21. l. Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States? If you check yes, no go on the transfer.... well, its what it used to be.
Click to expand...
That's a loaded question - they were told to come here, claim refugee status once approached, and wait for a trial. They did.
Are they here illegally?
 
The Constitution constrains the government, and defines it's powers that are granted by the people. It does not define the people or grant rights to people. Regarding illegal immigrants, the Constitution requires that the government treat them as all other people, according to the law.

Instead of trying to make laws that treat illegal aliens in a particular manner, why not close the border and enforce existing law? Instead of disallowing them from owning firearms, why not deport them?

@DrScaryGuy raises a good question... are they really here illegally? The solution is clear. Stop Presidential Human Trafficking.
 
MacEntyre said:
The Constitution constrains the government, and defines it's powers that are granted by the people. It does not define the people or grant rights to people. Regarding illegal immigrants, the Constitution requires that the government treat them as all other people, according to the law.

Instead of trying to make laws that treat illegal aliens in a particular manner, why not close the border and enforce existing law? Instead of disallowing them from owning firearms, why not deport them?

@DrScaryGuy raises a good question... are they really here illegally? The solution is clear. Stop Presidential Human Trafficking.
Click to expand...
That is the solution to the whole mess. But it's never going to happen with the current administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom