Posted on 12/19/2011 1:37:20 PM PST by neverdem
Illegal immigrants do not have a right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, based in Missouri, rejected an appeal brought by Joaquin Bravo Flores, who was charged with possessing a firearm. Agreeing with the 5th Circuit, the court concluded that the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to undocumented immigrants.
Executing a search warrant in 2010, police uncovered a semi-automatic handgun in Bravo Flores' Minneapolis apartment. A grand jury indicted him for being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. He was sentenced to three years in prison.
Bravo Flores tried to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the criminal law barring illegal immigrants from possessing guns is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 recognized an individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment. Bravo Flores argued that the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" also applied to him and other illegal immigrants.
His lawyer argued in a court filing that Bravo Flores is a member of "the people," having come to the country as a teenager and now living with his American citizen partner and their two citizen children.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights in criminal cases, including a Sixth Amendment right to trial and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 8th Circuit declined to extend the right to bear arms to illegal immigrants. The appeals court has previously upheld other criminal laws that prohibit convicted felons and narcotics addicts from possessing firearms.
Federal defender Andrea George, who represents Bravo Flores, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The U.S. Attorney was not immediately available for comment.
In June, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge brought by a Mexican citizen arrested in Texas for carrying a firearm, which he said he used to kill coyotes. The appeals court quoted language from the Supreme Court's 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, finding that the phrase "the people" referred to "law-abiding citizens" and "members of the political community."
One judge dissented, finding that the 5th Circuit decision in that case meant that "millions of similarly situated residents of the United States are non-persons who have no rights to be free from unjustified searches of their homes and bodies and other abuses, nor to peaceably assemble or petition the government."
The 8th Circuit case is U.S. v. Joaquin Bravo Flores, No. 11-1550.
For the government: Michael Dees, formerly with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
For Bravo Flores: Andrea George of the Federal Public Defender's Office.
If Illegal Aliens have the right to bear arms, wouldn’t that mean that the US Judiciary branch would say that any armed invasion had a right to bear arms too?
Glad to see it explicitly called out in court precedent - now let's go after the voter ID opponents, since most if not all of their objections actually fit non-citizens rather than citizens.
That would be a duh....
Correct. Constitution protections should only apply to citizens and those here legally. Anyone else is a potential or actual enemy combatant.
Illegal immigrants do not have a right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
Therefore illegals have no constitutional rights period!
Armed Illegal Immigrant = Invading Soldier.
Do illegal aliens have a right to freedon of speech? What about assembly? It should be the same way with firearms! Guns are a HUMAN right, not a political privledge.
Don’t worry the Supremes will overturn it.
If this guy gets amnesty under Newt’s amnesty plan, would the amnesty cover also this crime?
So which is it? Does Nature’s God bestow inalienable rights to life, liberty and property or are these constructs of the almighty state? Those of us who thought these questions answered in antiquity are clearly deluded.
Great news indeed.
Common sense, so precious because it’s so rare these days.
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t they understand” begs the question “What is the scope of the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms?’”.
If the scope of the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ does not cover an illegal alien, constraining the illegal alien from keeping and bearing arms is not an infringement. That begs the question “What else is not within the scope of the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ and therefore not covered?”.
You’re absolutely right. However, we as a country have the right to decide whether lawbreakers may persist in enjoying certain rights while in commission of a crime. You don’t have the right to possession of a firearm while holding up a bank. Once you make a conscious choice to commit a crime, you have effectively waived your rights on a gamble that you won’t get caught.
None? Can they be executed without a trial? Gang-raped?
The rewriting of the Second Amendment begins. Now the “right of the People” has magically become “the right of citizens”... Look for further changes in the near future.
Brilliant move by the Left... Put the 2A and the anti-illegals groups on the Right against each other.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Illegals should be treated as invaders. Period.
Amazing, foreigners here illegally aren’t entitled to all the Constitutional rights of citizens. Amazing that it is considered controversial anyways.
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.