District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
28,084
Likes
20,391
Feedback: 125 / 0 / 0
On 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.

Continues...
 
The judge is likely trying to weaken Bruen by daring an unpopular outcome be overturned.
Don’t think it will work, I’m not sure this outcome should be overturned. Let’s assume for the sake of argument of course that the judge is correct in her finding that illegal immigrants are considered a part of “the people” as implicated by the plain text of the 2nd amendment. I have initial doubts about that, but I’m more willing to believe it to be the case than not at the moment.

At that point the burden would then shift to the government to justify disarming this group of people with historical regulations. We are still awaiting a decision from SCOTUS in US v. Rahimi. The decision SCOTUS comes out with in Rahimi later this summer will probably say that the only groups of people that can be disarmed are those deemed to be dangerous.

The illegal in question here is obviously not dangerous in any way, at least according to the facts of the case. The only illegal activity in play here is his undocumented status in this country. Thus, there would be no justification for disarming the individual involved in this case under Rahimi’s new dangerousness standard.
 
an Obama appointee handed down that ruling?
It's Leftist logic. The judge had 2 choices. Rule that illegals entered the country illegally and therefore have committed a crime or rule that illegals are not illegal and therefore committed no crime and have all the rights of any US citizen.

As much as it must have pained the Judge granting 2A rights the greater Leftist cause is that there are no illegals and flooding the country with them is the more important agenda.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That means the citizens of the United States, AND THEIR POSTERITY..........NOT FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That means the citizens of the United States, AND THEIR POSTERITY..........NOT FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.
I’m not so sure it’s that black and white upon reflection. The term “the people” appears more than once in The Bill of Rights. SCOTUS themselves have said that the 2nd Amendment is not a disfavored right to be treated differently than any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights doesn’t “give” people their rights. Rather, it enshrines and codifies preexisting rights given unto us by God.

So if we apply SCOTUS logic, would illegal immigrants not be afforded 8th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments? Would they not be afforded 4th amendment protections against warrantless searches? How about the 6th amendment right to counsel? 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination?

I’m not saying either one of us is right or wrong, I just think this is something SCOTUS hasn’t tackled yet in the context of 2A and until they do, we don’t have a sure answer.
 
Don’t think it will work, I’m not sure this outcome should be overturned. Let’s assume for the sake of argument of course that the judge is correct in her finding that illegal immigrants are considered a part of “the people” as implicated by the plain text of the 2nd amendment. I have initial doubts about that, but I’m more willing to believe it to be the case than not at the moment.

At that point the burden would then shift to the government to justify disarming this group of people with historical regulations. We are still awaiting a decision from SCOTUS in US v. Rahimi. The decision SCOTUS comes out with in Rahimi later this summer will probably say that the only groups of people that can be disarmed are those deemed to be dangerous.

The illegal in question here is obviously not dangerous in any way, at least according to the facts of the case. The only illegal activity in play here is his undocumented status in this country. Thus, there would be no justification for disarming the individual involved in this case under Rahimi’s new dangerousness standard.

The 2ndA is a natural right of all people and the government has the duty to protect the natural rights of all US citizens. While the government need not abridge the natural rights of non-citizens, it also need not facilitate their natural rights, whether they are on US soil or not.

Sure, we want Mexico to be a Democracy and let their citizens vote for their government and ballot laws. If a Mexican citizen is in the US, legally or illegally, they they can still vote back home if Mexico allows them to, but they cannot vote for any US elected official or law. Paying US taxes does not make you a citizen nor require our government to facilitate your rights. Where The People choose to offer foreign nationals privileges, we can, but government cannot make such privileges into rights. And “The People” is not the Biden Administration, 51% of Congress, or a Circuit Court.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but that’s my take on it.
 
Don’t think it will work, I’m not sure this outcome should be overturned. Let’s assume for the sake of argument of course that the judge is correct in her finding that illegal immigrants are considered a part of “the people” as implicated by the plain text of the 2nd amendment. I have initial doubts about that, but I’m more willing to believe it to be the case than not at the moment.

At that point the burden would then shift to the government to justify disarming this group of people with historical regulations. We are still awaiting a decision from SCOTUS in US v. Rahimi. The decision SCOTUS comes out with in Rahimi later this summer will probably say that the only groups of people that can be disarmed are those deemed to be dangerous.

The illegal in question here is obviously not dangerous in any way, at least according to the facts of the case. The only illegal activity in play here is his undocumented status in this country. Thus, there would be no justification for disarming the individual involved in this case under Rahimi’s new dangerousness standard.
I tend to agree with you on this. Having said that, this illegal should be deported. Put him and his gun (in a locked case) onto a plane back to where he came from. When he leaves the airport in his home country let the cops there give him the key or not.
 
The 2ndA is a natural right of all people and the government has the duty to protect the natural rights of all US citizens. While the government need not abridge the natural rights of non-citizens, it also need not facilitate their natural rights, whether they are on US soil or not.

Sure, we want Mexico to be a Democracy and let their citizens vote for their government and ballot laws. If a Mexican citizen is in the US, legally or illegally, they they can still vote back home if Mexico allows them to, but they cannot vote for any US elected official or law. Paying US taxes does not make you a citizen nor require our government to facilitate your rights. Where The People choose to offer foreign nationals privileges, we can, but government cannot make such privileges into rights. And “The People” is not the Biden Administration, 51% of Congress, or a Circuit Court.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but that’s my take on it.
I just want to be clear that in no way am I advocating for this illegal to be able to vote in US elections, nor for us to grant them citizenship status automatically. However, the entire Bill of Rights applies to “the people,” not just certain amendments. To your point about abridging natural rights, should the government be allowed to kick down his door anytime they want without getting a warrant? How about subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment?

IMHO, it’s clear from the court record that the only reason this illegal got the gun is for armed self-defense and without a finding of dangerousness, I don’t think you can disarm him consistent with SCOTUS precedent. That wouldn’t be us refusing to facilitate his natural rights, that would be us abridging them. Heck, SCOTUS is about to say in Rahimi that you can’t even disarm American citizens for breaking the law unless they’re dangerous.

None of this is to say he should get off scot free. There’s another crime he’s guilty of committing for which he can be punished: illegal entry into the United States.
 
You are correct. However, SCOTUS says that some infringements are ok if there is a longstanding historical tradition of regulations to justify it.

Now if anyone on the anti-gun side could point out the infringements that would be greatly appreciated because all I know about are some very racist laws from the 18th century but nothing else.
 
All gun laws are infringements.

Gun issues aside for a moment,

The constitution is not and was never meant to be a suicide pact by applying it's protections to anyone and everyone who washes up on our shores. It is the instructions and prohibitions directed at the federal government as to how it is to operate and what it is prohibited from doing. (aka the Bill of Rights)

There are reasons why we have clearly defined immigration laws and have had them since the constitution was written. Those laws were put in place to define government's duties, limit the intake of foreign nationals and protect the citizens of this country who already have "skin in the game" from being robbed of their wealth by non citizens.

When a country's government doesn't control its borders (which they are duty bound to do) and then that same government deliberately opens the flood gates and allows the country to be overrun by people from every other country, it is committing national suicide.

So, now to the gun issue,

If anyone here doesn't see that this country is being set up for an internal war, you are blind.

When that internal war starts, that's when the dictatorial powers step in and squash everyone's rights.......worse than what is happening now.

This government has been trying to illegally disarm "citizens" for a century...... and now they're in favor of letting illegal, unvetted, non-citizen foreign nationals with no allegiance or connection to this country other than illegally standing on its physical ground, possess guns in our midst?
The next step will be, government ISSUING all these fighting age illegals guns to be used against the legal citizens of this country.

Sorry, I do not and will not accept that on my watch.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
*****************************************************

The constitution was written to protect WE THE PEOPLE of the United States.....AKA CITIZENS........NOT ILLEGAL FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO JUST HAPPEN TO BE STANDING ON OUR GROUND.

All illegals should be deported at every possible opportunity and the immigration laws that are clearly written and defined should be enforced with and by all possible means and with all due diligence.
 
Last edited:
Now if anyone on the anti-gun side could point out the infringements that would be greatly appreciated because all I know about are some very racist laws from the 18th century but nothing else.
Well SCOTUS is about to say in Rahimi that founding era surety and affray laws would justify infringing on the rights of dangerous people, allowing them to be disarmed
 
Well SCOTUS is about to say in Rahimi that founding era surety and affray laws would justify infringing on the rights of dangerous people, allowing them to be disarmed
Surety laws required trials. It required an actual conviction in court. It wasn't some star chamber proceeding like we have now.
 
Surety laws required trials. It required an actual conviction in court. It wasn't some star chamber proceeding like we have now.
Correct, and the Rahimi decision will undoubtedly say that a finding of dangerousness can only be made after a proper trial with robust due process protections.
 
I’m not so sure it’s that black and white upon reflection. The term “the people” appears more than once in The Bill of Rights. SCOTUS themselves have said that the 2nd Amendment is not a disfavored right to be treated differently than any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights doesn’t “give” people their rights. Rather, it enshrines and codifies preexisting rights given unto us by God.

So if we apply SCOTUS logic, would illegal immigrants not be afforded 8th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments? Would they not be afforded 4th amendment protections against warrantless searches? How about the 6th amendment right to counsel? 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination?

I’m not saying either one of us is right or wrong, I just think this is something SCOTUS hasn’t tackled yet in the context of 2A and until they do, we don’t have a sure answer.
I think you have your definition backwards.

Second Amendment is a 'disfavored right'…
U.S. SUPREME COURT

Second Amendment is a 'disfavored right' in the Supreme Court, Thomas says in cert-denial dissent​

BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS

FEBRUARY 20, 2018, 11:16 AM CST


  • Share
  • Print.




Justice Clarence Thomas asserted the Second Amendment is “a disfavored right” in the U.S. Supreme Court when he dissented Tuesday from the denial of certiorari in a gun case.

Thomas said the Supreme Court should have heard Silvester v. Becerra, a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases. His dissent starts on the 34th page of the Supreme Court order list.

In upholding the law, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used rational basis review, though it claimed to be using intermediate scrutiny, Thomas said.

“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene,” Thomas wrote. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
 
The 2ndA is a natural right of all people and the government has the duty to protect the natural rights of all US citizens. While the government need not abridge the natural rights of non-citizens, it also need not facilitate their natural rights, whether they are on US soil or not.

Sure, we want Mexico to be a Democracy and let their citizens vote for their government and ballot laws. If a Mexican citizen is in the US, legally or illegally, they they can still vote back home if Mexico allows them to, but they cannot vote for any US elected official or law. Paying US taxes does not make you a citizen nor require our government to facilitate your rights. Where The People choose to offer foreign nationals privileges, we can, but government cannot make such privileges into rights. And “The People” is not the Biden Administration, 51% of Congress, or a Circuit Court.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but that’s my take on it.
The 2A is a written prohibition directed towards the federal government that forbids them from infringing on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
The Bill of Rights was written and inserted to protect the rights of CITIZENS, not government or foreign nationals here illegally.
 
I think you have your definition backwards.

Second Amendment is a 'disfavored right'…
U.S. SUPREME COURT

Second Amendment is a 'disfavored right' in the Supreme Court, Thomas says in cert-denial dissent​

BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS

FEBRUARY 20, 2018, 11:16 AM CST



  • Share

  • Print.




Justice Clarence Thomas asserted the Second Amendment is “a disfavored right” in the U.S. Supreme Court when he dissented Tuesday from the denial of certiorari in a gun case.

Thomas said the Supreme Court should have heard Silvester v. Becerra, a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases. His dissent starts on the 34th page of the Supreme Court order list.

In upholding the law, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used rational basis review, though it claimed to be using intermediate scrutiny, Thomas said.

“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene,” Thomas wrote. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
yes the correct term I meant to use is “second-class” instead of “disfavored” as quoted in Bruen:

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”
 
The 2A is a written prohibition directed towards the federal government that forbids them from infringing on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
The Bill of Rights was written and inserted to protect the rights of CITIZENS, not government or foreign nationals here illegally.
Where else in The Bill of Rights does it say that God-given rights are only given to U.S. Citizens? Can we subject illegals to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment?
 
Well SCOTUS is about to say in Rahimi that founding era surety and affray laws would justify infringing on the rights of dangerous people, allowing them to be disarmed

Those old afffay & surety laws had a “to the terror of the people” clause. Some consider carrying guns, if not mere possession of guns, as a “terror” but that’s where non-discretionary “shall issue” policies draw a line - if you’re not prohibited, you can have guns.

Once adjudicated a felon, one is not “dangerous” by necessity, but one might be a situational risk. Financial fraud can get a felon banned from licensure in financial trades. But would a tax cheat felon be a “terror” to the people if armed? Would an armed robber felon be a risk as a tax advisor?

Rahimi, by all accounts, is a dangerous felon and a terror. I wish the choice was, should such people be allowed guns when they’ve served their sentence or are paroled, or should they be sentenced longer and not paroled to avoid letting them out at all. But that’s not the choice we have in this case. In reality, the choice of whether an any felon will possess a gun is up to the felon - laws do not stop them.

I can see where some struggle with the idea of allowing felons who served their sentence or were paroled to have guns, but still banning tax cheats from being bankers.

But SCOTUS will likely rule very narrowly on Rahimi to not throw the baby out with the bath water, as the anti-gun advocates hope for. At best, a minority of the majority will add to the corpus distinguishing dangerous from non-dangerous felons as a topic to be addressed in future 2ndA cases.
 
Gun issues aside for a moment,

The constitution is not and was never meant to be a suicide pact by applying it's protections to anyone and everyone who washes up on our shores. It is the instructions and prohibitions directed at the federal government as to how it is to operate and what it is prohibited from doing. (aka the Bill of Rights)
And it’s SCOTUS’ job to interpret the words of the constitution and faithfully apply their meaning to the law.
There are reasons why we have clearly defined immigration laws and have had them since the constitution was written. Those laws were put in place to define government's duties, limit the intake of foreign nationals and protect the citizens of this country who already have "skin in the game" from being robbed of their wealth by non citizens.
Yes but it’s not SCOTUS’ job enforce those laws. That responsibility falls on the executive branch of government, not the judiciary.
When a country's government doesn't control its borders (which they are duty bound to do) and then that same government deliberately opens the flood gates and allows the country to be overrun by people from every other country, it is committing national suicide.
Again, this has nothing to do with SCOTUS or even the courts in general. SCOTUS has said that interest balancing is not a valid reason for infringing on gun rights. Public safety concerns hold no weight when it comes to the second amendment, which itself is a product of interest balancing. You’re barking up the wrong tree here, blame the current administration for the border crisis.
So, now to the gun issue,

If anyone here doesn't see that this country is being set up for an internal war, you are blind.

When that internal war starts, that's when the dictatorial powers step in and squash everyone's rights.......worse than what is happening now.

This government has been trying to illegally disarm "citizens" for a century...... and now they're in favor of letting illegal, unvetted, non-citizen foreign nationals with no allegiance or connection to this country other than illegally standing on its physical ground, possess guns in our midst?
You’re conflating things here. Again, it’s the Executive Branch looking to disarm people, and in fact it was the Executive Branch that tried to disarm this illegal. It was the Judicial Branch that said it couldn’t be done consistent with this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations.
The next step will be, government ISSUING all these fighting age illegals guns to be used against the legal citizens of this country.
Nope, the government can’t infringe on their rights but doesn’t have to facilitate them either. An armed populace is the exact thing anti-gunners want to avoid, no matter if they’re in this country legally or not.
Sorry, I do not and will not accept that on my watch.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
*****************************************************

The constitution was written to protect WE THE PEOPLE of the United States.....AKA CITIZENS........NOT ILLEGAL FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO JUST HAPPEN TO BE STANDING ON OUR GROUND.
Please cite where “the people” only refers to US Citizens. The Framers were very intelligent men and every single word in the Bill of Rights was carefully considered before ratification. If they intended to only protect the rights of citizens, they would’ve said as much IMHO.
All illegals should be deported at every possible opportunity and the immigration laws that are clearly written and defined should be enforced with and by all possible means and with all due diligence.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you here, but that’s not what this case is about. Courts can only rule on issues presented before them, and this case simply involved the law banning possession of firearms by illegals. It’s the job of the executive branch to enforce these immigration laws and prevent this illegal from ever entering into this country in the first place, not the court’s.
 
Where else in The Bill of Rights does it say that God-given rights are only given to U.S. Citizens? Can we subject illegals to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment?

In other than self-defense situations, the government has the monopoly on legally inflicting violence on residents, whether those residents be citizens, legal immigrants or illegal immigrants. The government can protect illegal immigrants by simply asserting it’s sole power to inflict violence on them.

Through inadequate action and/or inaction, illegal immigrants are indeed suffering. The solution is, don’t let them on US soil unless they legally immigrate. Only when illegal immigrants reside in the US does the problem arise. We have a legal immigration system that defines all that but our policies on illegal immigration is a shitshow.
 
Where else in The Bill of Rights does it say that God-given rights are only given to U.S. Citizens? Can we subject illegals to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment?
I just explained that the 2A is a prohibition on the federal government.

The entirety of the constitution and the added Bill of Rights was written to protect and apply to citizens of this country, not foreign nationals here illegally.

Can we subject illegals to cruel and unusual punishment?

It would not be the norm in a civilized society anywhere to do that and trying to equate that with "guns for illegals" is a long and inapplicable stretch, but if necessity dictated it, yes, we could. Who's going to stop us?
At that point in the game, we'd be at war amongst ourselves and between ourselves and government.

We interned thousands of Japanese during WWII.....and not a word was said about it, right wrong or indifferent, it just happened.

If this government didn't have such devious ulterior motives for their current treasonous actions, we (law enforcement AND citizens) could legally round up and deport every illegal alien in the country........but given that government has turned them all loose into our midst, it will/would be a difficult job.

The real issue here is that government is acting well beyond their legal capacity in some areas and being completely derelict of their duty in others.
 
Back
Top Bottom