Started By
Message

re: Judge appointed by O'Bama rules illegals can legally carry firearms and ammo

Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:24 am to
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
261685 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:24 am to
quote:

Background checks already exis


You didnt need one for an 80% lower.

You also dont for an "antique" gun.
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 10:24 am
Posted by BCreed1
Alabama
Member since Jan 2024
1301 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:24 am to
quote:

What are the laws that prevent illegals from owning them?


The 2nd. You have been shown this about 7 times now.

United States v. Jimenez-Shilon, the 11th Circuit rejected a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits firearm use or possession by any “alien” who is “illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
261685 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:25 am to
quote:


The 2nd. You have been shown this about 7 times now.



The second amendment bans ZERO firearms.
Posted by SDVTiger
Cabo San Lucas
Member since Nov 2011
74306 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:25 am to
quote:

The 2nd. You have been shown this about 7 times now.



Rogers a liberal dem. He loves illegals and wants to arm them up
Posted by BCreed1
Alabama
Member since Jan 2024
1301 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:26 am to
quote:

The second amendment bans ZERO firearms.




United States v. Jimenez-Shilon, the 11th Circuit rejected a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits firearm use or possession by any “alien” who is “illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”

8th time.
Posted by Pecker
Rocky Top
Member since May 2015
16674 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:26 am to
quote:

You didnt need one for an 80% lower.

You also dont for an "antique" gun.
Then I guess illegals can acquire those. They can also still acquire them in private exchanges. My post was very clear
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 10:27 am
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
261685 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:26 am to
The second amendment bans zero firearms.

It limits the governments ability to take yours.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
261685 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:27 am to
quote:

Then I guess illegals can acquire those



Indeed.

Posted by Pecker
Rocky Top
Member since May 2015
16674 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:28 am to
quote:

Rogers a liberal dem. He loves illegals and wants to arm them up
No, he just thinks the constitution is still a bulwark against tyranny. He doesn't realize that only a small minority of Americans still care about it. The new additions to our country certainly don't, and neither do our political enemies.
Posted by Pecker
Rocky Top
Member since May 2015
16674 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:29 am to
quote:

Indeed.
ok, so I guess we're in agreement that no illegal should ever be able to "pass" a background check to purchase a weapon in the retail market.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
261685 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:29 am to
Make 80% lowers great again..
Posted by Sal Minio
17th Street Canal
Member since Sep 2006
4182 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:35 am to
quote:


Judge appointed by O'Bama rules illegals can legally carry firearms and ammo
LINK

An illegal immigrant was wrongly banned from possessing guns, according to a recent ruling.

A federal law, Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, bars illegal immigrants from carrying guns or ammunition. Prosecutors charged Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, the illegal alien, in 2020 after he was found in Chicago carrying a semi-automatic pistol despite “knowing he was an alien illegally and unlawfully in the United States.”

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman rejected two motions to dismiss, but the third motion, based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, triggered the dismissal of the case on March 8.

“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. “Thus, the court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Lawyers for Mr. Carbajal-Flores had argued in the most recent motion to dismiss that the government could not show that the law in question was “part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2022, the Supreme Court determined that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment “presumptively protects” conduct that is covered by the amendment’s “plain text.”

To justify regulations, governments must show that each regulation “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the high court said at the time. “Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command,’” it said.

“Lifetime disarmament of an individual based on alienage or nationality alone does not have roots in the history and tradition of the United States,” Mr. Carbajal-Flores’s lawyers argued.

They pointed to several rulings interpreting the Supreme Court’s decision, including an appeals court ruling that declared stripping a man convicted of a nonviolent crime of his gun rights was unconstitutional.

The government opposed the motion, noting that neither of the cited decisions applied to illegal immigrants and that the defendant ignored other rulings that did, including a 2023 ruling that found that Second Amendment rights aren’t afforded to illegal immigrants. The government also offered examples of laws that prohibited certain categories of people from carrying guns, including “individuals who threatened the social order through their untrustworthy adherence to the rule of law.”

But Judge Coleman ruled for the defendant, finding that the laws against untrustworthy people contained exceptions for people who signed loyalty oaths and were deemed nonviolent.

“The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country. The court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” she wrote.

“Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants. The court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”

An attorney representing Mr. Carbajal-Flores declined to comment. Federal prosecutors didn’t respond to a request for comment.


Advertising Info  •  Privacy Policy  •  Contact Us  •  Terms

© 2024 TigerDroppings.com. All Rights Reserved





Oh this makes a whole lotta' sense...
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
261685 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:36 am to
quote:

n, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”


When I read this, sure seems like a win for gun owners to me. The language bolsters traditional 2a arguments.
Posted by BCreed1
Alabama
Member since Jan 2024
1301 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:36 am to
quote:

Oh this makes a whole lotta' sense..


Will be struck down by higher courts.
Posted by i am dan
NC
Member since Aug 2011
24865 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 11:04 am to
quote:

ut youre apparently wanting government to make firearms off limits to non residents.


This is an interesting conversation.

The right to bear arms is a right granted to the citizens of the United States by the US Govt. I feel this is indicated in the wordage of the constitution.

Just seems that's correct.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
423482 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 11:24 am to
quote:

The right to bear arms is a right granted to the citizens of the United States by the US Govt.

The 2nd Amendment literally does not say this.

quote:

. I feel this is indicated in the wordage of the constitution.


Where is the word "citizen" used in the 2A?
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 11:25 am
Posted by i am dan
NC
Member since Aug 2011
24865 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:18 pm to
The preamble. That's what I was saying earlier. The Constitution is written for "We the People", meaning it's citizens.
Posted by momentoftruth87
Member since Oct 2013
71663 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:19 pm to
Lawyers and Marine Corps Officers (SFP & Northshore) who are “educated” apparently can’t understand what is implied.
Posted by roadGator
Member since Feb 2009
140737 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:20 pm to
Do tourists enjoy protections delineated in the constitution?
Posted by momentoftruth87
Member since Oct 2013
71663 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:21 pm to
quote:

Do tourists enjoy protections delineated in the constitution?



Yes because they come here LEGALLY via passport or visa. We are talking about the 30 million undocumented migrants coming from all over the world. Keep up
first pageprev pagePage 18 of 21Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram