Illegal Immigrants can Possess Firearms

[ggibson511960]

Federal Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. Federal District Court of Northern Illinois has ruled that illegal immigrants may legally possess firearms. She dismissed prosecution case against illegal immigrant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores arguing the Bruen case broadened the 2nd Amendment context and scope to include illegal immigrants.

Judge Coleman, appointed by Barack Obama, was surely torn between progressive/liberal leniency towards illegal immigrants and antipathy towards any gun rights.

[CH4]

FOID card?
Wonder how the 7th will handle this?

[djohns6]

NOTHING surprises me . I think I know what the end game is though . More gun legislation to combat the rising crime rate that they created .

[pricedo]

Originally Posted by djohns6

NOTHING surprises me . I think I know what the end game is though . More gun legislation to combat the rising crime rate that they created .

... disarm The People and go soft on crime ... it's working great in Canada ... thefts and home invasion stats are going through the roof

[hkcavalier]

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven would approve.

[ladder13]

Can felons in jail (they need protection too), wife beaters, dopers, etc, be far behind?

Maybe a good time to buy stock in gun manufacturers.

[Frailer]

I’ve not read the text of the decision, but IMHO the right to bear arms is a *human* right.

Meaning it applies to everyone.

[hdfinder47]

Originally Posted by Frailer

I’ve not read the text of the decision, but IMHO the right to bear arms is a *human* right.

Meaning it applies to everyone.

I thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied to American citizens - not foreigners on US property illegally.
Ed

[Frailer]

Originally Posted by hdfinder47

I thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied to American citizens - not foreigners on US property illegally.
Ed

There are some rights that are conferred to citizens alone, such as the right to vote or run for federal office, but in general Constitutional rights apply to all.

To quote Jefferson:

“…a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse…”

Edited to add: For the record, none of what I said should be in any way construed as a reflection of my political opinions regarding the current situation with immigration (legal or otherwise) into the US. It is merely my opinion (and that of others who know much more about the law than I) regarding the nature of rights guaranteed (as opposed to granted) by our Bill of Rights.

There are many people I would personally ban from firearms ownership if I were king. But thankfully for all of us I’m not king.

[Oldsalt66]

Hopefully the same consideration will be extended to Americans who happen to live in gun rights restrictive municipalities and states.

[ladder13]

That’s one way to find out their names and country of origin, maybe.

Does the rest of the world do BGC’s?

[mtgianni]

Originally Posted by hdfinder47

I thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied to American citizens - not foreigners on US property illegally.
Ed

Similar to the rest of the Constitution, rights are for all, not just legal residents. We do not require visiting tourists to house our army, nor can they be arrested or charged without Miranda or other legal procedures. Felons can not be gun owners but those charged with and convicted of misdemeanors can. It's a slippery slope to decide whether firearm ownership should be with the most popular of groups or all.

[hdfinder47]

Originally Posted by mtgianni

Similar to the rest of the Constitution, rights are for all, not just legal residents. We do not require visiting tourists to house our army, nor can they be arrested or charged without Miranda or other legal procedures. Felons can not be gun owners but those charged with and convicted of misdemeanors can. It's a slippery slope to decide whether firearm ownership should be with the most popular of groups or all.

Visiting tourists have come here legally. Illegal immigrants - not so.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by hdfinder47

I thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied to American citizens - not foreigners on US property illegally.
Ed

being in the US illegally IS a felony. Just not a violent one, presumably.

[Frailer]

Originally Posted by Racer X

being in the US illegally IS a felony. Just not a violent one, presumably.

No, it isn’t

[rosewood]

Originally Posted by Frailer

No, it isn’t

It should be, maybe that is the 1st thing our new president should get passed.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by hdfinder47

I thought the Second Amendment of the US Constitution applied to American citizens - not foreigners on US property illegally.
Ed

I realize this is a tough one for many conservative Americans to swallow, but it was the right decision for the court to make.

It’s consistent with how we extend amendments like the first, fourth and fifth amendments to *all* persons present in the US, rather than only recognizing these inalienable rights for citizens.

We don’t for example condone beating confessions out of immigrants - legal or otherwise. We treat them like the humans they actually are.

Similarly, unless an individual arrested for a crime was in fact a prohibited person prior to the crime, the court is just saying charging them with illegal possession of a firearm won’t wash. They would however still be subject to any sentence enhancements in place for using a firearm in commission of a crime.

It’s a pretty reasonable ruling. You can argue they were here illegally, and thus were in violation of immigration law. But unless and until they have been charged with the crime or convicted of the crime, it won’t prohibit firearm possession.

——

If we start carving out specific groups who don’t enjoy second amendment protection, we run the real risk of starting precedents where they can carve away 2A rights for a number of other status offenses. We don’t want to go there.

[hdfinder47]

Originally Posted by BB57

I realize this is a tough one for many conservative Americans to swallow, but it was the right decision for the court to make.

It’s consistent with how we extend amendments like the first, fourth and fifth amendments to *all* persons present in the US, rather than only recognizing these inalienable rights for citizens.

We don’t for example condone beating confessions out of immigrants - legal or otherwise. We treat them like the humans they actually are.

Similarly, unless an individual arrested for a crime was in fact a prohibited person prior to the crime, the court is just saying charging them with illegal possession of a firearm won’t wash. They would however still be subject to any sentence enhancements in place for using a firearm in commission of a crime.

It’s a pretty reasonable ruling. You can argue they were here illegally, and thus were in violation of immigration law. But unless and until they have been charged with the crime or convicted of the crime, it won’t prohibit firearm possession.

——

If we start carving out specific groups who don’t enjoy second amendment protection, we run the real risk of starting precedents where they can carve away 2A rights for a number of other status offenses. We don’t want to go there.

I understand your logic but I believe that, at some point, we need to start using common sense or what is left of our Republic will be lost forever. It may already be. JMO.

[HeyJoe]

Originally Posted by hdfinder47

I understand your logic but I believe that, at some point, we need to start using common sense or what is left of our Republic will be lost forever. It may already be. JMO.

that is quite an ironic statement. That is exactly what the gun grabbers say, never mind the text of the constitution we need to use common sense and restrict gun ownership, and ban anything i dont like. The text of the constitution decides what is constitutional or if it doesnt, thats when the onerous gun laws and bans begin.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by Frailer

I’ve not read the text of the decision, but IMHO the right to bear arms is a *human* right.

Meaning it applies to everyone.

Legal immigrant with a green card and permanent residency is reasonable.

[Oldsalt66]

Originally Posted by Racer X

Legal immigrant with a green card and permanent residency is reasonable.

And it is currently legal for permanent resident aliens ( green card holders) to purchase and own firearms.

[A10]

Originally Posted by Frailer

I’ve not read the text of the decision, but IMHO the right to bear arms is a *human* right.

Meaning it applies to everyone.

Like the right to vote? Thats the goal....

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by A10

Like the right to vote? Thats the goal....

That will be the next, or is it current, “human right” for them.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by A10

Like the right to vote? Thats the goal....

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote. Congress decides who gets to vote. They must abide by the amendments that control things like poll taxes, voter discrimination based on race or gender and who gets to be a citizen. Voting is controlled by legislation and interpretation of that legislation by the courts. The individual states maintain a large role in setting voting rules (Think mail in ballots.) but they must stay within the laws made by Congress. I have no illusion that the Blue's would like nothing better than making all of the new residents citizens but I think it's something much more simple. The US is in the middle of a huge demographic shift with the boomers dying off and being replaced by a much smaller generation. There has been a big shift in population from the eastern and western urban areas as the middle class follow the jobs to the south and southwest. There has been a large drop in population in those Blue states and what do they use to decide how many representatives a state gets? Population. And it's JUST population. It does not matter. When they count, they count bodies. Not just citizens. So that's what they are doing. Propping up the numbers so that they can keep their Blue seats in congress. Right now it's working great for them but soon the bill is going to come due and it's all going to implode.

[gerhard1]

Originally Posted by Frailer

I’ve not read the text of the decision, but IMHO the right to bear arms is a *human* right.

Meaning it applies to everyone.

People in prison too?

[Frailer]

Originally Posted by gerhard1

People in prison too?

I am going to be naive and assume this is a serious question and not just snark.

No. Prisoners do not enjoy the same rights as free persons. For example, most people would agree that the freedom to come and go as one pleases is an inherent human right, but no one would rationally suggest this applies to those who are imprisoned (because limitations on this freedom literally defines imprisonment). In recognition of this, the crafters of the Bill of Rights dedicated fully half of the document (Amendments 4-8) to enumerating the rights those accused or convicted of crimes retain.

[gerhard1]

Originally Posted by Frailer

I am going to be naive and assume this is a serious question and not just snark.

No. Prisoners do not enjoy the same rights as free persons. For example, most people would agree that the freedom to come and go as one pleases is an inherent human right, but no one would rationally suggest this applies to those who are imprisoned (because limitations on this freedom literally defines imprisonment). In recognition of this, the crafters of the Bill of Rights dedicated fully half of the document (Amendments 4-8) to enumerating the rights those accused or convicted of crimes retain.

Of course: I merely asked the question to make the point that certain rights can be lost and this loss does not mean that the rights in question are not rights. Provided due process is followed, rights can be lost. This includes those rights protected under the second amendment.

It has been said by some, although not in this thread, that if rights can be lost then they are not rights but privileges.

That was my point; not to put you down. Sorry if you took it that way.

[rosewood]

Originally Posted by gerhard1

It has been said by some, although not in this thread, that if rights can be lost then they are not rights but privileges.

If this was a true statement, then rights don't exist.

[hkcavalier]

Originally Posted by gerhard1

People in prison too?

They have been deprived of liberty through the due process of law, just as the 5th and 14th Amendments intended.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by hkcavalier

They have been deprived of liberty through the due process of law, just as the 5th and 14th Amendments intended.

I agree; however, it did not stop the left from calling for felons in prison to be allowed to vote.

While it may not make sense, those who would take our guns have never been know to use logic. They operate solely on emotion.

[Frailer]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

I agree; however, it did not stop the left from calling for felons in prison to be allowed to vote.

While it may not make sense, those who would take our guns have never been know to use logic. They operate solely on emotion.

You’re absolutely right. But they act more out of emotion than logic not because they are politically left-leaning. They do so because they are human.

What is incumbent upon those of us who wish to behave rationally is to recognize we *all* have this Achilles' heel. It is in our very natures. Logic dictates we acknowledge the fact that just because we disagree with a law or policy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It is perfectly OK to dislike—or even hate—a thing. It is not, however OK to insist everyone else share our views.

The only difference between the “Left” and the “Right” is which specific rights they wish to infringe upon. And they *both* appeal to emotions to do so.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

I agree; however, it did not stop the left from calling for felons in prison to be allowed to vote.

While it may not make sense, those who would take our guns have never been know to use logic. They operate solely on emotion.

I agree with the post that mentions that felons are deprived of their rights through due process. People are deprived of their rights and property every day. It is done legally and necessarily using due process and is the whole purpose of our justice system. In the case of convicted felons, they loose their right to vote because at some point, congress decided that felons shouldn't vote. That could be changed at any time by congress. I think it's an important point to remember because there is a difference between depriving someone of a constitutional right and finding them in violation of a law and that distinction tends to muddy the waters when you talk about what rights felons have.

[twodog max]

I cannot agree with this decision. As these individuals have demonstrated a disregard for the laws of this country. The rights and privilege's thereof should not extend to them. A bus trip south is in order.

[Rustyt1953]

[Buford57]

2nd Amendment advocates have long argued that it should be on equal footing with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th. Since we do.not limit the right to worship, or a fair trial or advice of counsel to citizens, this appears to be what we asked for. There are pending suits challenging the whole FOID system. Again, this is the hoped-for outcome, that post-Bruen a FOID requirement is an unconstitutional infringement. Now if some brave judge will just apply it to US citizens.

[cololab]

Originally Posted by Buford57

2nd Amendment advocates have long argued that it should be on equal footing with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th. Since we do.not limit the right to worship, or a fair trial or advice of counsel to citizens, this appears to be what we asked for. There are pending suits challenging the whole FOID system. Again, this is the hoped-for outcome, that post-Bruen a FOID requirement is an unconstitutional infringement. Now if some brave judge will just apply it to US citizens.

Well said!

[DWalt]

They are NOT illegal immigrants. They are now officially Newcomers. That came straight from the top.

[rosewood]

Originally Posted by DWalt

They are NOT illegal immigrants. They are now officially Newcomers. That came straight from the top.

You mean the same one that said to shoot someone through the door and to fire up in the air to scare off intruders?

[Breakaway500]

Arming their armies.And WE are paying for it all, one way or the other. The socialists really don’t care about Constitutions. I was hoping not to see more wars before I pass but that’s out the window. Psychopaths!

[ASA335]

I suspect that some judges will take Bruen close to extremes just to force the reversal or at least weakening of Bruen.

Isn't carrying of a firearm while committing a crime historically prohibited?

Isn't being a criminal in possession of a firearm a crime historically prohibited?

Heriberto Carbajal-Flores admits to being here illegally, and may have been found through due process as such, and as such is a criminal.

[ASA335]

But, this judge's reasoning has some merit. A person who is not committing a crime, or has not be found guilty of a crime, or has not been found to be a danger to themselves or other, through a due process, should not be prohibited from possessing or bearing a firearm in any of the states.

[hdfinder47]

Originally Posted by ASA335

But, this judge's reasoning has some merit. A person who is not committing a crime, or has not be found guilty of a crime, or has not been found to be a danger to themselves or other, through a due process, should not be prohibited from possessing or bearing a firearm in any of the states.

They are committing the crime of being here illegally.

[Oldsalt66]

Originally Posted by ASA335

But, this judge's reasoning has some merit. A person who is not committing a crime, or has not be found guilty of a crime, or has not been found to be a danger to themselves or other, through a due process, should not be prohibited from possessing or bearing a firearm in any of the states.

They did not enter this country by means of due process, so no firearms for them.

[Greyman50]

Constitution and Bill of Rights are for US Citizens. Remember back when they were written people came here to BECOME Citizens and enjoy freedom. These illegal invaders are just part of a soros et- al plan to destroy our country.
Round every one of them up from few days old to 90 and ship them back to Mexico.

[Rustyt1953]

[RMFnLA]

Originally Posted by Rustyt1953

Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…

[Rodan]

Originally Posted by RMFnLA

Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…

[Oldsalt66]

Originally Posted by RMFnLA

Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…

Not at all, since the immigrants of which the poem speaks, and who passed under the statue's torch, entered this country lawfully through the Ellis Island point of entry.

As opposed to this:

Migrants break barriers and rush border guards in shocking scene at El Paso - YouTube

[6string]

Originally Posted by RMFnLA

Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…

If you are referring to the sonnet, The New Colossus, that was never part of the conception of the Statue of Liberty as intended by the French artist Frederic Bartholdi.
Rather, that sonnet was written by an American as part of a fundraising gimmick to finance the statue’s pedestal.
American journalist John T Cunningham wrote, "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch and the shining face, heading toward Ellis Island. However, it was [Lazarus's poem] that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants.”
And, furthermore,
"Bartholdi's gigantic effigy was originally intended as a monument to the principles of international republicanism, but 'The New Colossus' reinvented the statue's purpose, turning Liberty into a welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world." (Paul Auster)

What is ironic, however, is seeing yet one more act of historic revisionism taken as fact.

But, I digress. Going back to Judge Coleman’s ruling, I don’t think she could care one bit about the second amendment.
Her intent is, I believe, to foment chaos and violence by empowering criminals.
Look at who appointed her!

[pantannojack]

Originally Posted by RMFnLA

Pretty ironic considering what’s written at the base of that statue…

Then REMOVE the STATUE.