Posted on 03/25/2024 11:34:05 AM PDT by Nevernikki
– Illinois House Republicans are both condemning and praising a recent federal judge ruling about illegal immigrants being able to carry firearms for protection.
Earlier this month, Northern District of Illinois federal Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled in favor of Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, a foreign national in the u.S. illegally who was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. She said the law violates the Second Amendment as applied in this one case.
“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,” the judge wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecentersquare.com ...
There should be no FOID card and since illegals can legally own and carry in “woke” states then so should I!!!!
Just blows the mind to know an illegal invader can become a police officer.
....re: BATF Form 4473, Section 21, Part m - “Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States?”
so what’s the future for this entire form 4473...? if illegal aliens can now purchase guns, then scrap the whole damned form because it is now irrelevant.....
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
Johnson, a Cook county slave. Black. Minority pass in law school.
” State Rep John Cabello is of Mexican decent “
And it’s always the same with them: everything for their Raza, nothing for everyone else.
And they will be relentless about that. They know the gringos are weak and easily browbeaten by screaming “raciss!” and then demanding more and more carveouts for themselves and their co-nationals.
I voted for Cabello….I don’t know WHO to trust anymore.
Damn.
Yeah, totally agree.
And letting an illegal alien become a LEO? Are they crazy?
There you have it.
They ARE letting their “ARMY” in through our southern border.
There you have it.
They ARE letting their “ARMY” in through our southern border.
BUY AMMO!
Ok, I notice the theme among Republican elected officials, let’s not talk about the past, when all of these Illinois REPUBLICAN lawmakers voted in MEGA-Benefits for Border Jumps.
Drivers License, Lower cost to go to college, while the stupid Americans pay for it and Illinois Reps voted in that Illegal aliens can obtain Professional licenses, that may allow them to access Private/ Confidential information on American citizens. What could go wrong?
Not only that but citizens from one state should now be allowed to buy handguns in other states, something forbidden by the 1968 gun control law.
Wonder why American Indians on the Reservations don’t start selling guns in states with tough gun control laws.
“Republicans say FOID should be void if illegal immigrants can possess guns”
Can?
wy69
“Republicans say FOID should be void if illegal immigrants can possess guns”
Can?
wy69
A Supreme Court ruling a few years ago guaranteed everyone residing in the U.S. regardless of his or her nationality or citizenship status, all Constitutional rights—the same as U.S. citizens have—before the law. Right then and there a dagger thrust into the heart of America. Right there. Is where it all starts and ends. Where do we get these incredibly enlightened and superior intellects, esteemed and elevated to such high positions of power and authority? Just where?
Some of these case are being driven by our own philosophy and beliefs that “human rights” preexist government laws, and that “human rights” are therefore universal in application.
If the right to bear arms is a human right, it applies to everyone.
That’s a problem.
"Republicans say FOID should be void if illegal immigrants can possess guns"
Republicans unsurprisingly don't seem understand (blatantly ignore?) the history of Bill of Rights protections any more than the Obama-nominated activist (imo) judge who wrongly (imo) thinks that illegal aliens have constitutional protections does.
From related thread ...
Consider the following excerpt from an article referenced by a related thread.
“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores [??? emphasis added]. Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss,”
The HUGE constitutional problem with the misguided (politically correct?) Obama judge's interpretation of the scope of the 2nd Amendment (2A) protections is this imo. The interpretation disturbingly overlooks that 14th Amendment (14A) changed the original scope of constitutionally enumerated protections and therefore that of 2A.
More specifically, when the Bill of Rights (BoR) was ratified, it's drafters had decided that the states did not have to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR. The states obligated only the federal government to respect the BoR, 2A protections in this example.
So since BoR protections originally did not protect citizens from state infringement of BoR protections, such protections therefore not extended to all people like the activist (imo) judge seems to be interpreting 2A, the judge is therefore wrong (imo) about 2A protections for illegal aliens imo.
It wasn't until the states ratified 14A that BoR protections for citizens were extended to include protection from state abridgment.
In fact, let's take a look at key wording in 14A and other examples for a better idea about who the BoR protects.
Excerpted from 14A:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Again, before 14A existed, although states recognized the right and necessity for citizens to protect themselves, the states could legally prohibit people from owning a gun, minimum age limit for owing a gun, also no guns for illegal aliens as examples.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 above, had stated citizen protections while explaining that section.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added], as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe (See bottom half of 2nd column.)
Also, the Supreme Court later emphasized the constitutionally enumerated rights in the context of citizens in post-14A ratification in the case of Minor v. Happersett.
Excerpted from Minor v. Happersett:
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphases added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
And by unconstitutionally extending 2A protections to illegal aliens, the misguided judge is increasing the risk that gun-carrying citizens will have to use their guns for protection from such people.
In fact, since the judge is increasing the risk of citizens needing to protect themselves from armed illegals, the judge is effectively weaponizing 2A protections against citizens and should probably face charges for violating the following federal law.
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law:"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." --18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.