Federal Judge Rules: Illegal Immigrants May Carry "Pistolas Ocultas"!!!

[army judge]

In a ruling that had both proponents and opponents of the Second Amendment do a curious double take, a federal judge has ruled that an illegal immigrant was wrongly banned from possessing firearms.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled on March 8 that the defendant, Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who is residing in the United States illegally, had his Second Amendment right's violated when prosecutors originally charged him with 18 U.S.C § 922, which bars illegal immigrants from carrying guns or ammunition.

"The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores," Judge Coleman wrote in her ruling. "Thus, the court grants Carbajal-Flores' motion to dismiss."

The defense team for Mr. Carbajal-Flores had argued in their recent motion that the government could not show the law referenced was "part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the government must show that each regulation "is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

The precise wording of the high court's decision was enough for the defense to argue successfully in favor of dismissal. "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' lawyers said.

"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," Judge Coleman wrote.

The ruling has promoted a large range of reactions across the legal and Second Amendment community. Writing on The Reload, attorney Matthew Larosiere agreed with the decision saying that even those in the country illegally are part of "the people" the Framer's mention in the Second Amendment. "To find that illegal immigrants are outside of 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment, you must believe that the Framers were talking about a different 'people' in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments," he wrote.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/second-amendment-illegal-immigration-chicago/2024/03/18/id/1157731/

Gun Ban for Illegal Immigrants Ruled Unconstitutional

bearingarms.com

The NEXT article adds more context.

United States v. Carbajal Flores, No. 19-3100 (D.C. Cir. 2021)

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts related to his involvement in a Mexican cartel called the Los Zetas. The first count involved a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) conspiracy to import controlled substances into the United States, and the second and third counts related...

law.justia.com

 

[adjusterjack]

Not the same guy.

The court decision names him Heriberto Carbajal-Flores.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.389849/gov.uscourts.ilnd.389849.101.0.pdf

 

[adjusterjack]

There's two of us in the thread this morning. I voted yes in support of the decision.

I wonder who voted no.

 

[Redemptionman]

Pretty sure the constitution does not apply to illegal immigrates but rather the legal kind who come in from a process. I just got through listening to the Shawn Ryan podcast and this is not just immigration it is an illegal invasion coordinated through the UN and helped by individuals such as George Soros. It appears they are coming in through a pass from South America to the United States via the Dorian Gap.

The started showing up once Biden was installed, Hussein O'Bama was in England this past week. One can only assume that he was there to help Palestinians in the Israeli conflict. What business does O'Bama have visiting foreign dignitaries while he has been gone from office for 8 years, one can only assume. Looks to me to be meddling in foreign affairs could be a significant criminal international charge.

 

[army judge]

Obama, it is said, chairs the governing body overseeing their "caretaker" president.

The rather feeble, somewhat infirm, and mentally incapacitated person who claims he beat and battered the infamous "Corn Pop"!

I can't say that the "caretaker" president revelation is fact.

I can only say it has been and is being rumored.

 

[Redemptionman]

Obama, it is said, chairs the governing body overseeing their "caretaker" president.

The rather feeble, somewhat infirm, and mentally incapacitated person who claims he beat and battered the infamous "Corn Pop"!

I can't say that the "caretaker" president revelation is fact.

I can only say it has been and is being rumored.

Right, yet I thought the right was the dictators? according to their narrative.

I was wondering why O'Bama has a house in DC, the first president of the USA to ever linger around after their presidency was long over. Will democracy or the cabal of evil win? that is yet to be determined.

 

[army judge]

Will democracy or the cabal of evil win? that is yet to be determined.

After the Hijinks, tricks, and shenanigans back in 2020, I wouldn't wager 5¢ on the REAL outcome of the Great Election of November 5th 2024.

I'm being told that a certain faction is building a rather large gang to ensure "certain" ballots are counted and reported correctly.

Just in case you read this thread Mr. Corn Pop, reach out to me, I've got some rather good news to pass along.

For what its worth, I know you weren't beaten to a pulp by the "caretaker" in the White House. You beat the bully into a whimpering, quivering, sobbing, howling pulp.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Pretty sure the constitution does not apply to illegal immigrates but rather the legal kind who come in from a process.

You'd be wrong on that. The Constitution protects everyone within our borders. There is nothing in it that limits the rights granted in the Constitution to just a certain class of immigrant. Indeed, it is worth noting that when the Constitution was ratified, this country had an open door policy; there was no long wait to get into the country, nor multiple hoops to become a citizen. The U.S. welcomed immigrants as we had vast areas of land to fill up with people. The only ones denied the rights granted to everyone else were the enslaved African Americans, a blot on the principle Thomas Jefferson enshrined in the Declaration of Independence: "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." Unfortunately, Jefferson didn't one hundred percent believe what he wrote of all men being equal as he was a slave owner himself.

The immigrant is, of course, subject to the immigration laws until he/she becomes a citizen and the Congress has broad power to regulate immigration. The Supreme Court has also held that states are not compelled to allow immigrants to vote (though the Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing that either). Apart from that, every person in the U.S. gets those important that we keep telling every other nation are fundamental human rights: free speech, free press, the right to assemble, the protection of the 4th and 14th Amendments protecting persons from wrongful arrests and searches, the right to a trial in criminal cases,the right to jury in criminal cases, etc. And, as the District Court held, properly in my view, they also have the protection of the Second Amendment.

 

[army judge]

You'd be wrong on that. The Constitution protects everyone within our borders. There is nothing in it that limits the rights granted in the Constitution to just a certain class of immigrant.

Hmmm, this decision contradicts something.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Those laws seem to be APPLIED for those among without melanin, as opposed to our fellow countrymen/women possessing melanin.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens of the United States and therefore did not have the right to sue in federal court. In so holding, the Court also ruled that the federal government could not prohibit slavery in the territories. The decision was a prime factor leading to the Civil War, but the Fourteenth Amendment—which provides that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the nation and of his or her state—eventually rendered the case moot.

Dred Scott was an African American man who was born a slave in the late 1700s. In 1832, Scott's owner, Emerson, took him into the Wisconsin territory, which outlawed slavery, to do various tasks. While there, Emerson allowed Scott to get married, and left Scott and his wife in Wisconsin when Emerson traveled to Louisiana. Emerson died in 1843, and Scott attempted to purchase his freedom from Emerson's widow, but she refused. Scott then sued in federal court against Sandford, the executor of Emerson's estate for his freedom. He argued that, since he became a permanent resident in the federal territory of Wisconsin, which prohibited slavery, he became a freeman. The district court applied the laws of Missouri to find Scott was still a slave, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court, in a contentious opinion written by Chief Justice Taney, held that persons of African descent were not citizens of the United States. The Court reasoned that, at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, persons of African descent were brought to the U.S. as property, and, whether later freed or not, could not become U.S. citizens. Even though many states granted citizenship to African Americans, the Court distinguished state citizenship from federal citizenship, and found the later precluded to African Americans because of whom the Court believed the founders meant to include in the original Constitution. Native Americans, on the other hand, were considered free and independent residents of North America at the time of the founding, so they could be federal citizens of the United States. As this applied to Dred Scott, he could not sue for his freedom from his time spent in the (at the time) federal territory of Wisconsin because, as the Court interpreted the Constitution, African Americans could simply not become federal citizens. However, as horrifying as this opinion is for Scott, he fortunately eventually became a freeman when Emerson's widow had a change of heart after marrying an abolitionist.

The aftermath of this case is seen to have inflamed the tensions between abolitionists and southerners. Previously, the Missouri Compromise tenuously kept the nation together by keeping federal territories north of Missouri freed. However, after this opinion, that was meaningless since slaveholders could bring their slaves into nominally free federal territory and not worry about the free status of that territory impacting their ownership over their slaves.

Commentators nearly unanimously agree that this case was a blemish on the history of the High Court. Robert Burt, writing in Washington and Lee Law Review, states that "[n]o Supreme Court decision has been more consistently reviled than Dred Scott v. Sandford," and that "of all the repudiated decisions [by the Supreme Court], Dred Scott carries the deepest stigma." He points out that Taney's opinion is the most "explicit racist dogma" in the history of the Supreme Court, and was not even accurate in interpreting the founders' inconsistent views on how African Americans fit into the new national framework. Another contemporary and widely shared criticism is the amount that Chief Justice Taney inserts his personal opinion—i.e. racism—into the holding opinion. Sanford Levinson, writing in Harvard Law Review Forum, states that Dred Scott has become synonymous with the general public with . . . 'judges on a rampage.'"

After the Civil War, however, the Fourteenth Amendment rendered Chief Justice Taney's entire opinion obsolete, in declaring that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States." Thus, while hastening the coming of the Civil War and serving as an example of the blatant infusion of racism in 19th century jurisprudence, its effect was largely superseded by the Fourteenth Amendment.

See the text here.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Redemptionman]

The constitution calls for a naturalization process, those coming into our borders today have no interest in America or becoming an American. They are coming for the freebies.

 

[adjusterjack]

"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."

Which literally excluded women on a federal level until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Before that women's suffrage occurred a little at a time, state by state.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The constitution calls for a naturalization process,

The Constitution simply says in Art. I, § 8, ¶4 that Congress has the power to "stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." It doesn't require Congress to exercise that power. Naturalization is the process of an alien obtaining U.S. citizenship.

Interestingly, the Constitution says nothing explicit about immigration itself. For those who claim to be strict constructionists, that should mean that the federal government has no power to regulate immigration at all; that would be a power left solely to the states. In other words, the Supreme Court opinions that expand Congress' power over naturalization to cover all manner of immigration laws would be wrong, from the view of a strict constructionist.

Each state would instead have the power to admit or deny any alien as it sees fit and only the states could enforce their laws. The Congress would only be able to enact the laws specifying which aliens may be citizens and what process is used for that.

That interpretation of the Constitution would appeal to some on the far right wing, I'm sure, but it would make the immigration problems we have in the U.S. even worse, as there would be a patchwork of laws from state to state regarding who is allowed to enter the U.S., from the very liberal, barely restrictive standards a state like California would set, to the much more conservative and restrictive laws that a state like Texas would set.