National Judge Rules Illegal Immigrants Can Carry Guns in the U.S.

[Capn Jack]

What else would you expect from an O'Bummer apointee.

She should be disbared for such a flagerant disreguarde of the constitution she swore to uphold.

 

[pogi]

What even is a US citizen anymore?

A taxpaying slave.

 

[Savage Jav]

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, appointed by Barack Obama, ruled that an illegal immigrant has the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This ruling came about in the case of Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, who faced charges under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), a federal statute that prohibits noncitizens without legal status in the U.S. from "possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/obama-appointed-judge-rules-illegal-immigrants-can-carry/

Kinda ok with it. Long as they aren't doing nefarious things.

 

[Yarome]

Another way to look at this ruling is them "softballing" and opening the door toward allowing illegals voting rights. It's no secret that is the ultimate goal.

If they are to be allowed "some" rights and privilege's afforded to legal U.S. citizens... broadening the definition of "we the people" (AKA: Lawful citizens of the United States) to "all people"... then it's an easy play to argue that they should be allowed ALL rights. No matter their allegiance or citizenship of a foreign nation.

 

[nammac]

Another way to look at this ruling is them "softballing" and opening the door toward allowing illegals voting rights. It's no secret that is the ultimate goal.

If they are to be allowed "some" rights and privilege's afforded to legal U.S. citizens... broadening the definition of "we the people" (AKA: Lawful citizens of the United States) to "all people"... then it's an easy play to argue that they should be allowed ALL rights. No matter their allegiance or citizenship of a foreign nation.

Is sneaking across the border and circumventing federal immigration laws considered a felony? If so they're disqualified from voting as well as being in
possession of firearms. Period.

 

[Yarome]

Is sneaking across the border and circumventing federal immigration laws considered a felony? If so they're disqualified from voting as well as being in
possession of firearms. Period.

I hear ya, but according to law.... they have to first be convicted. Don't charge em, don't prosecute em... being felons is "heresay" and they remain our "new neighbors".

I believe that's the new PC term we've been instructed to use for criminals, hostiles and terrorists invading U.S. borders.

 

[kumabear17]

Patricia Anthone made this observation in a FB post: "
On March 8th, Federal Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, an Obama-appointee, issued a ruling in which she finds that a FEDERAL LAW barring illegal immigrants from possessing firearms VIOLATES the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution.
Carbajal-Flores, an illegal immigrant, was charged under Title 18 of U.S. Criminal Code, which prohibits illegal aliens from possessing firearms. Rather than judging the ACTION against the LAW as judges are supposed to do, the Judge authorized herself with the powers of a SCOTUS judge and nullified the law.
Her ruling will no-doubt result in a great many more of our invaders arming themselves against Americans and American law enforcement.
We understand that the US Constitution does not grant ANY of our natural rights. Our Bill of Rights serves only to CONSTRAIN Gov't INFRINGEMENT of INTRINSIC human rights.
So, yes, the default position is that all people have natural, self-defense rights, SUBJECT TO their lawful exercise.
INVADERS are not LAWFULLY exercising their rights!!
Title 18 of U.S. Criminal Code recognizes that the UNLAWFUL presense of foreign nationals in the US cannot be purposedly granted the means to maintain itself by FORCE.
To rule otherwise is to INVITE AN ARMED INVASION.
Leftists leverage the GOODWILL of the American People in their bid to DECEIVE US into SELF-DESTRUCTION.
An Obama-appointee in any other context fights AGAINST the 2nd Amendment. But when an armed advantage over Americans and American law enforcement can be given to the INVADING force, they are all over it.
This is Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman's courtroom number. Give her a call and tell her what you think of her nullifying Federal Law rather than upholding it.
(312) 435-6885 "

 

[Stomper]

hey judge Coleman

View attachment 1846378

For starters it's, "Johnson-Coleman". Hyphenated last names (although not always) are a typical tell.

 

[dojiijii]

Another way to look at this ruling is them "softballing" and opening the door toward allowing illegals voting rights. It's no secret that is the ultimate goal.

If they are to be allowed "some" rights and privilege's afforded to legal U.S. citizens... broadening the definition of "we the people" (AKA: Lawful citizens of the United States) to "all people"... then it's an easy play to argue that they should be allowed ALL rights. No matter their allegiance or citizenship of a foreign nation.

The Constitution differentiates between "people" and "citizens." "People" have always been enjoyed constitutional protections; "we the people" has never meant "Lawful citizens of the United States."

 

[dojiijii]

Rather than judging the ACTION against the LAW as judges are supposed to do, the Judge authorized herself with the powers of a SCOTUS judge and nullified the law.

This is par for the course in today's government. Judge shopping to do just this has been a regular state of affairs for years; this is why folks on the left file suits in Northern California, and folks on the right file suits in Texas.

 

[Yarome]

The Constitution differentiates between "people" and "citizens." "People" have always been enjoyed constitutional protections; "we the people" has never meant "Lawful citizens of the United States."

That's what the woke would like you to believe, however, that's BS. The full text reads, "We the People of the United States" and has been defined as "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."

Not... "We the citizens of multiple nations that happen to currently reside within the U.S. borders both legally and illegally alike".

But that's all I'll say on it since that's treading wholly on the "political".... which is forbidden.

 

[Nosferatu]

For starters it's, "Johnson-Coleman". Hyphenated last names (although not always) are a typical tell.

Must have been a bad camping trip when his Johnson got stuck in a Coleman. I wonder if it was the stove or the lantern?

 

[Howard1955]

Open warfare in the continental US in 3, 2, 1……

 

[dojiijii]

That's what the woke would like you to believe, however, that's BS. The full text reads, "We the People of the United States" and has been defined as "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."

Not... "We the citizens of multiple nations that happen to currently reside within the U.S. borders both legally and illegally alike".

But that's all I'll say on it since that's treading wholly on the "political".... which is forbidden.

Let's not resort to inflammatory terms like "woke" please, lest we get this thread locked.

Your quote, "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." defines citizenship, not people. It would be circular logic to apply that definition to people, as that term is part of the definition.

 

[Yarome]

Let's not resort to inflammatory terms like "woke" please, lest we get this thread locked.

Your quote, "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." defines citizenship, not people. It would be circular logic to apply that definition to people, as that term is part of the definition.

That was the definition given for "we the people of the United States". You can play word games and they can attempt to redefine it to mean whatever fits their argument of the moment, but it doesn't change the historical definition. Historically, "the people" and "citizens" were often used interchangeably.

Here's how it works. First redefine the easiest part first. Step 1. "People" means "all people" regardless of legal status or nationality in the U.S. Step 2. Reaffirm that "citizen" and "people" were historically used near interchangeably. Therefore... if "citizen" = "people" and "people" = "all people regardless of legal status or nationality" then "all people regardless of legal status or nationality" = "citizen" of the U.S. and afforded all rights, protections and privilege's the same as any other "U.S. Citizen".

The writing is on the wall.

Just as "arms" has been previously defined and includes so called "assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines, but that doesn't stop them from trying to redefine "arms" and rule that neither fall under the text/protection of the 2A.

It's all word play to undermine the foundations on which the U.S. was founded. They can't destroy the place fast enough legislatively so they resort to "other means" toward their end goals. Simple as that.


To Note: It doesn't have to be "inflammatory" to get a thread locked. Any political discussion not directly related to firearms will do that.

 

[HiFi Magnetics]

So far.. what state is covered presently in this ruling?

 

[dojiijii]

That was the definition given for "we the people of the United States". You can play word games and they can attempt to redefine it to mean whatever fits their argument of the moment, but it doesn't change the historical definition. Historically, "the people" and "citizens" were often used interchangeably.

Just as "arms" has been previously defined and includes so called "assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines, but that doesn't stop them from trying to redefine "arms" and rule that neither fall under the text/protection of the 2A.

It's all word play to undermine the foundations on which the U.S. was founded. They can't destroy the place fast enough legislatively so they resort to "other means" toward their end goals. Simple as that.


To Note: It doesn't have to be "inflammatory" to get a thread locked. Any political discussion not directly related to firearms will do that.

There is a definite distinction between "people" and "citizens;" the founders used both terms, but not interchangeably. "Citizenship" had, prior to the 14th amendment, followed a common-law doctrine of citizenship by birth. The definition of "citizens" wasn't clarified until Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which you quoted.

However, for ~200 years after the Constitution was ratified there still wasn't any attempt to define "the people." The Supreme Court commented on the term "the people" on two occasions: Vergido-Urguidez (1990) and Heller (2008); however the two decisions are somewhat at odds with one another, and have raised hair-splitting arguments about the difference between "person," "people," and "the people," and have even suggested that the definition of "the people" varies depending upon which amendment is under discussion. Detractors of these decisions have suggested (based in part on the "all men are created equal" phrase of the Declaration of Independence) that to the founders, all human beings are self-evidently people, and to reduce or limit that definition is dehumanizing.

Regardless of which side of that argument you are on, it is clear that "citizens" and "the people" mean two different things.

And to refer to the OP, I for one view this as a victory for freedom and the second amendment. Any decision that increases or affirms rights rather than limiting them is welcome.

 

[Yarome]

So far.. what state is covered presently in this ruling?

I'm not sure how far reaching this particular order is. The text basically says that "as it applies" to the plaintiff (the illegal) and due to the fact that he has no prior weapons charges and the non violent offense he was arrested for... the charge was dismissed. (Ignoring the fact that he committed a felony by being in the US illegally from the get go...)

It does set a precedent that could be used in similar cases but also stated that their ruling has no affect on any existing state or federal laws.

Does that mean it's a one off specific only for him? Does it immediately make it legal for all illegals to own firearms anywhere within the courts jurisdiction?

How did he come into possession if he is not legally able to purchase a firearm? Smuggled it illegally over the border?

I dunno.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Xrperry]

Illegal is illegal. Illegal immigrants coming in to our country should never be allowed to have a firearm period.the only thing they should get is a good shove back across the border

 

[Dillon1000]

While I personally have reservations about where this ruling will lead and how the government may twist it to their benefit, I think it is the correct interpretation of the law.

Think of it like free speech.....I may not like what you are saying, but I will fight for your right to say it.
Likewise, I may not like who has the gun, but I will support their right to have it until they prove they don't deserve it.

I get it, they are here illegally, but they have a right to defend themselves just like I do. Absolutely find them and deport them, they broke the law, but unless they are violent and harming other people I don't see why they should be defenseless.

The bill or rights is a document limiting government and protecting the God given rights everyone is born with, not a document outlining rights given to us by the government. I doubt god only gave those rights to citizens of the US.