If you missed the news, a Judge in Illinois decided that illegal immigrants have the right to keep and bear arms.
Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules
A judge this month dropped gun charges against an illegal migrant in Illinois, sparking further debate about the rights associated with the Second Amendment.
U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois referenced lower court rulings in dismissing firearm possession charges against Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who was illegally or unlawfully in the United States when he possessed a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago on June 1, 2020.
“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,” Coleman, who was appointed under President Barack Obama, wrote in her eight-page ruling filed March 8.
To be entirely honest, I disagree with this decision.
There are two reasons why.
First, this further dilutes the meaning of citizenship.
To be a citizen of a nation is a duty. A citizen is responsible for the functioning of their society.
As citizens, we vote, we pay taxes, we serve on juries, in times of war we may be drafted.
The benefits ot citizenship are that the rights endowed by our creator and enshrined in our Constitution are ours.
What we are learning is that illegal immigrants have all the rights but none of the responsibilities. Illegals can have guns, vote in local elections, have counsel provided for them, get in-state tuition, but don’t have to pay income tax, can drive without a license or insurance, don’t serve on juries, and don’t have to sign up for the draft.
What is the benefit of being a citizen, if you have all the duties but no additional rights?
Moreover, in Illinois, to possess a gun you must have a FOID, and to carry a gun you must have a CCL.
This person had neither, being illegal, and had their charges dismissed.
So now, illegals can possess and carry guns in Illinois without the permits required of citizens.
Gun rights and federal voting rights were the last two rights exclusive to citizens, and now one is gone.
Second, and this is a deeper point.
The Second Amendment exists as a bulwark against tyranny. It arms the people so that they may defend themselves against threats from the state. Our Founding Fathers were quite explicit about that.
That is based on the presumption that the people armed have a loyalty to this country.
When illegals are armed, where does their loyalty lie?
I, as an American citizen, have the right to keep and bear arms against my government to ensure liberty.
An illegal bearing arms against my government is a foreign invader.
There is a fundamental difference between a people resisting oppression of their own government, and someone fighting the government of a host country instead of going home.
For citizens, I believe the Second Amendment gives me the right to own belt feds and high explosives. If I could afford a Mk19 belt fed grenade launcher, I should be able to buy one.
For illegals, nothing. Go back to where you came from.
I believe that there is a third point.
The leftist bastards are thoroughly chafed by Bruen.
If they can create a hue and cry to try to gaslight and promulgate thoughts among the uninformed to ‘show how wrong’ Bruen is, IE: “See? We told ya!! It is TOO BROAD!! It even gives illegals gun rights!!” that gives additional impetus to monkey with the next USSC nomination.
If you want to discredit something, prove the absurdity of it. The American system of Government is confered upon our Citizens; not foreigners.
A problem I have with the ruling, is that anyone in the country illegally is, de facto, a felon. That is an immediate preclusion from owning or possessing a firearm under federal law.
.
I suppose it’s possible for someone to be an illegal but not to have broken immigration law – perhaps they were kidnapped and were brought over the border, in which case there’s an extenuating circumstance – but I would guess that’s not the case here, or in that of most illegal aliens.
another example of democrats eroding our country.. treason is running rampant right now.
Unless we see a reversal by a superior court of this decision by an Obama judge, it’s proof that at the federal level the constitutional boundaries have been moved or removed altogether. Illegal immigrants have been given the right to vote, serve on law enforcement, and now they are under the protection of the US Constitution and recognized as a US Citizen………….by the current presidential administration i.e. The Obama Regime.
.
Obama-Biden and Company have made it known that US Patriots, and more specifically White Patriots, are enemies of the ‘leftist america’, and the leftist have made is known to all people from other countries that anyone is considered a US Citizen IF they support the leftist movement currently in the United States, and accept their invitation to enter via an NGO supported sponsored by the regime, and then make the red carpet entrance .
.
The reasoning of this judge’s decision was that this person was a US Citizen as defined by the Obama-Biden regime, was not breaking any laws, and was by invitation of Obama, living the American Dream peaceably as a welcomed guest citizen.
.
As J.Kb. pointed out, all of the Obama Invitees living here have their allegiance to Obama-Biden and not the US Constitution and Bill or Rights and to The People who are the true citizens via these historical laws. And therefore, giving illegals the same rights will only produce political unrest and violence as the enemies of Obama fight the citizens of Obama in the streets.
.
Currently Obama is sitting back in a luxury home somewhere with his anti-American financiers laughing it up, on how easy it was to influence a percentage of the US Citizenry to help him and his backers to cause the greatest nation on earth to implode under the weight of the freedoms of the US Constitution via the national judiciary system.
From what I understand, this is ‘as applied’ only to carbajal and only pertains to the federal law due to him, outside of being an illegal, has broken no other laws. If his state level charges were dismissed, then that is the fault of the prosecutors for dropping the ball.
So I will admit I’ve mixed feelings on this one. It can be used to further erode the restrictions on firearm rights (ie the FOID etc) but will likely be misread and violent illegals will start using it as justification.
Does RKBA apply only to citizens, or also to legal residents? I think in at least some states it is applied to any legal resident, whether citizen or not. Consider also that the Bill of Rights generally speaks of rights of “the people”; those words are not limited to citizens only. And while I agree with the various arguments against illegal aliens keeping weapons, it seems to me appropriate that non-citizen legal residents should have the right of self defense.
Paul please provide the credible source which proves that “The People” doesn’t just apply strictly to US Citizenry. Several constitutional lawyers I have read and listened to assert that The People is the Citizenry and that the original context of the framers in their day used, “The People” same as we today use “Citizens” i.e. they are interchangeable and mean the same exact thing.
I’ve always been torn about this.
.
Basically, our Bill of Rights encodes rights that *all* humans have. As noted in the Declaration of Independence, out rights are not given to us by the Constitution or the State, but by God. And as natural rights, they belong to all people, whether they are citizens or not. To say that only citizens have a right to speech, faith, self defense, etc., is saying that God did not give those natural rights to all men, but only to citizens.
.
On the other hand, I can see why one would not want foreign agents running armed and dangerous in the streets, and illegal aliens are often foreign agents.
I hear you hh465, but the context of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was the same when it was written as it remains today, a body of law ‘not’ for the world of human beings God created, but to just one national group of people, the people legally designated as, “Citizens” commonly referred to back in that day as “We The People”. Therefore “The People” every time it was written into sections of the constitution and bill of rights referred only to legal citizens.
.
Keeping the original context is absolutely essential in determining the meaning of phrases and words meant to be understood by The People of the USA, not anyone else on the planet.
It is my understanding the right applies to legal residents as well as Citizens. A green card holder is allowed to purchase and carry a firearm. I am not sure about someone here on vacation carrying (FFL regs would not allow them to purchase a gun), but I do not see any reason why they cannot carry one.
In fact, if a competitive shooter is here for a competition, I think the laws of the city/state they are in apply. (IANAL is in full effect.)
.
As to non-citizens/non-residents having the fundamental human right to defend themselves against threats, both political and personal, on that front I totally agree. What tools they can be allowed to use are, of course, dependent on the laws in the area they are in.
LEGAL residents, sure.
Invaders, not so much.
Two thoughts.
1. Good. A court has decided the right to defend oneself from threats is a fundamental human right. That right is not geographically restricted.
2. Bad. If you are in the country illegally, you are a criminal. You are not responsible and mature enough to follow the laws. Which means your access to firearms should not be equivalent to those that have not violated the law. If you get arrested multiple times for drunk driving, you get your license removed. If you continue, you get your freedom removed.
.
I disagree with jkb. This is not about diluting citizenship. He is not wrong on that front, but the decision is wrong for other reasons.
.
Why is the decision wrong? Because it ignores “law abiding and responsible.” One of the reasons why the 2A advocates win as much as we do is because the overwhelming majority of gun owners are exactly that. A CCW permit holder is carrying a “good guy” card as much as a permit to carry in public.
An illegal alien is not responsible, nor law abiding.
.
The question is really, why did an 0bama appointed judge make this ruling? If anything, you would assume they would rule against anyone having a gun regardless of citizenship status. Yet, here is a judgement that says criminals are allowed to carry guns? I can only assume there is a political reason for the decision.
First off, if they are endowed by our creator then being a citizen is irrelevant. You can’t have it both ways on this one. Either it is endowed by the creator and you have it by virtue of existence and no state grants the right or the state grants the right.
.
Second, we’ve seen the constitution applies to those who are not citizens in various ways before. That in mind, this makes sense. Doesn’t make it right, wrong, purple or whatever, it just follows the same logic.
.
Third, there is no responsibility or requirement to be a citizen in this country; you just need to be born here.
The invaders aren’t citizens.
FFS would you argue that a POW taken from an army invading the US is entitled to retain his weapons?
IDK man, God given is pretty absolute…
.
What game are we playing now, the goal posts moved so far I can’t tell anymore?
.
To give a less trolly answer, there is a qualitative difference between a POW, a captured combatant from an enemy force that we are engaged in active hostilities with and someone who is here illegally but otherwise doing nothing else wrong. Incarcerated persons have also always had innumerable rights suspended while incarcerated, a POW is such a person.
Not to be a jerk, but re your point about an illegal having done nothing else wrong…
.
“Other than mugging a guy that one time, he’s a great guy.”
.
“Yeah, he killed someone in a hit-and-run but hasn’t broken any other laws.”
.
Sorry, no. That one act is enough.
Citizens is not relevant here. Legal residents (green card holders) can purchase, keep, and bear arms.
Criminal vs. law abiding is relevant.
.
If you have broken the law to enter the country. you have demonstrated that you are not responsible, and should not be allowed to carry a weapon in public.
I anticipated this, and we are speaking about generalities, a platonic ideal, not this specific guy. Or at least I was. If this specific guy did something else disqualifying like a violent crime, then he is disqualified.
.
Over staying a visa or entering the country illegally is much different than committing a crime of violence against someone else. We ought be careful with how broad a brush we paint lest we include ourselves; as the saying goes we all commit 3 felonies a day.
What was that bit in the Declaration about arming savages to wage war against us?
IMO, this is Obama, Biden, and their handlers continuing to prep the space to allow illegals to be used in a police/LE role to serve as foot soldiers for the state.
.
Cops are walking away in droves, agencies can’t fill spaces, and 3 months ago California was looking to make it so that illegals servings as police can carry guns 24/7.
The phrase, “We The People” had one and only one straight forward meaning, which did not need explanation nor interpretation, because it was a commonly used everyday reference to, “the persons who are the essential part of the national community, that is to say the law-making national body by which laws were created”. The Collective Will of The People make the law and not a monarch or ruling class i.e. the Citizenry.