- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge appointed by O'Bama rules illegals can legally carry firearms and ammo
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:24 am to Pecker
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:24 am to Pecker
quote:
Background checks already exis
You didnt need one for an 80% lower.
You also dont for an "antique" gun.
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 10:24 am
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:24 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
What are the laws that prevent illegals from owning them?
The 2nd. You have been shown this about 7 times now.
United States v. Jimenez-Shilon, the 11th Circuit rejected a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits firearm use or possession by any “alien” who is “illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:25 am to BCreed1
quote:
The 2nd. You have been shown this about 7 times now.
The second amendment bans ZERO firearms.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:25 am to BCreed1
quote:
The 2nd. You have been shown this about 7 times now.
Rogers a liberal dem. He loves illegals and wants to arm them up
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:26 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The second amendment bans ZERO firearms.
United States v. Jimenez-Shilon, the 11th Circuit rejected a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits firearm use or possession by any “alien” who is “illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”
8th time.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:26 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Then I guess illegals can acquire those. They can also still acquire them in private exchanges. My post was very clear
You didnt need one for an 80% lower.
You also dont for an "antique" gun.
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 10:27 am
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:26 am to BCreed1
The second amendment bans zero firearms.
It limits the governments ability to take yours.
It limits the governments ability to take yours.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:27 am to Pecker
quote:
Then I guess illegals can acquire those
Indeed.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:28 am to SDVTiger
quote:No, he just thinks the constitution is still a bulwark against tyranny. He doesn't realize that only a small minority of Americans still care about it. The new additions to our country certainly don't, and neither do our political enemies.
Rogers a liberal dem. He loves illegals and wants to arm them up
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:29 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:ok, so I guess we're in agreement that no illegal should ever be able to "pass" a background check to purchase a weapon in the retail market.
Indeed.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:29 am to Pecker
Make 80% lowers great again..
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:35 am to Night Vision
quote:
Judge appointed by O'Bama rules illegals can legally carry firearms and ammo
LINK
An illegal immigrant was wrongly banned from possessing guns, according to a recent ruling.
A federal law, Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, bars illegal immigrants from carrying guns or ammunition. Prosecutors charged Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, the illegal alien, in 2020 after he was found in Chicago carrying a semi-automatic pistol despite “knowing he was an alien illegally and unlawfully in the United States.”
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman rejected two motions to dismiss, but the third motion, based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, triggered the dismissal of the case on March 8.
“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” Judge Coleman, appointed under President Barack Obama, wrote in her 8-page ruling. “Thus, the court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”
Lawyers for Mr. Carbajal-Flores had argued in the most recent motion to dismiss that the government could not show that the law in question was “part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
In 2022, the Supreme Court determined that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment “presumptively protects” conduct that is covered by the amendment’s “plain text.”
To justify regulations, governments must show that each regulation “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the high court said at the time. “Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command,’” it said.
“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’s lawyers argued.
They pointed to several rulings interpreting the Supreme Court’s decision, including an appeals court ruling that declared stripping a man convicted of a nonviolent crime of his gun rights was unconstitutional.
The government opposed the motion, noting that neither of the cited decisions applied to illegal immigrants and that the defendant ignored other rulings that did, including a 2023 ruling that found that Second Amendment rights aren’t afforded to illegal immigrants. The government also offered examples of laws that prohibited certain categories of people from carrying guns, including “individuals who threatened the social order through their untrustworthy adherence to the rule of law.”
But Judge Coleman ruled for the defendant, finding that the laws against untrustworthy people contained exceptions for people who signed loyalty oaths and were deemed nonviolent.
“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,” she wrote.
“Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants. 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.”
An attorney representing Mr. Carbajal-Flores declined to comment. Federal prosecutors didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Advertising Info • Privacy Policy • Contact Us • Terms
© 2024 TigerDroppings.com. All Rights Reserved
Oh this makes a whole lotta' sense...
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:36 am to Sal Minio
quote:
n, 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.”
When I read this, sure seems like a win for gun owners to me. The language bolsters traditional 2a arguments.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 10:36 am to Sal Minio
quote:
Oh this makes a whole lotta' sense..
Will be struck down by higher courts.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 11:04 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
ut youre apparently wanting government to make firearms off limits to non residents.
This is an interesting conversation.
The right to bear arms is a right granted to the citizens of the United States by the US Govt. I feel this is indicated in the wordage of the constitution.
Just seems that's correct.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 11:24 am to i am dan
quote:
The right to bear arms is a right granted to the citizens of the United States by the US Govt.
The 2nd Amendment literally does not say this.
quote:
. I feel this is indicated in the wordage of the constitution.
Where is the word "citizen" used in the 2A?
This post was edited on 3/25/24 at 11:25 am
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
The preamble. That's what I was saying earlier. The Constitution is written for "We the People", meaning it's citizens.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:19 pm to i am dan
Lawyers and Marine Corps Officers (SFP & Northshore) who are “educated” apparently can’t understand what is implied.
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:20 pm to i am dan
Do tourists enjoy protections delineated in the constitution?
Posted on 3/25/24 at 12:21 pm to roadGator
quote:
Do tourists enjoy protections delineated in the constitution?
Yes because they come here LEGALLY via passport or visa. We are talking about the 30 million undocumented migrants coming from all over the world. Keep up
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News