Let me first say she is an Obama appointed Federal Judge. We all know how most of the left is is rabidly anti gun, so this decision has me wondering what this judge is up to.

So I guess this means that all the military aged illegal Chinese men can legally own.

https://thereload.com/gun-ban-...nd-unconstitutional/

The Second Amendment protects people’s ability to own a gun even if they’ve entered the country illegally.

That’s the ruling handed down by US District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday. She found the federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning guns is unconstitutional, at least as applied to Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. She ruled the ban did not fit with America’s historical tradition of gun regulation as required under the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling.

“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” Judge Colman wrote in US v. Carbajal-Flores. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

The ruling is the latest fallout from the new standard for Second Amendment cases set in Bruen. Since the landmark case was decided in 2022, a wide swath of state and federal gun restrictions have come under increased scrutiny in the courts. Among the most commonly recurring questions raised by the new standard is who can be barred from owning guns, and the Carbajal-Flores case is among the first to examine whether people who entered the country illegally are among them.

Judge Coleman, a Barack Obama appointee, initially found the gun ban for illegal immigrants was constitutional back in April 2022. However, she agreed to reconsider the case in light of rulings from the federal appeals courts in the Third and Seventh Circuit that questioned whether those convicted of non-violent crimes could be permanently disarmed after the High Court handed down Bruen in June 2022. She concluded breaking misdemeanor immigration laws alone is not enough justification to strip somebody of their gun rights under the new test.

“[C]arbajal-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,” Judge Coleman 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 Department of Justice (DOJ) argued the modern ban was akin to historical bans on loyalists owning guns during the Founding Era and should stand. However, Judge Coleman found that historical ban included exceptions that imply the ban was based on the actions of individual loyalists.

“The Court also determined that based on the government’s historical analogue, where exceptions were made that allowed formerly ‘untrustworthy’ British loyalists to possess weapons, the individuals who fell within the exception were determined to be non-violent during their individual assessments, permitting them to carry firearms,” she wrote. “Thus, to the extent the exception shows that some British loyalists were permitted to carry firearms despite the general prohibition, the Court interprets this history as supporting an individualized assessment for Section 922(g)(5) as this Court previously found with Section 922(g)(1).”

She said there was no reason to think Carbajal-Flores was dangerous. So, applying the ban to him did not follow historical tradition.

“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,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”

That question has even divided some gun-rights advocates. National Shooting Sports Foundation general counsel Larry Keane questioned Judge Coleman’s holding that the Second Amendment applies to Carbajal-Flores.

“Supreme Court has said the ‘people’ are members of the political community,” he tweeted. “Illegal aliens in US are not part of the political community and thus do not have 2A rights.”

“I’ve been sitting here contemplating why you’d want to alienate people from the 2A through this tortured, backward reading,” Matthew Larosiere, a gun-rights lawyer in Florida, responded.

Kostas Moros, another gun-rights litigator who often represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association, chimed in to agree that people in the country illegally are outside “the people” referred to in the text of the Second Amendment.

“The United States has disarmed loyalists, insurrectionists, various groups for racist reasons, and native americans. The common thread allowing that to happen is these were groups outside of the political community,” he wrote. “Its not tied to merely the modern legal concept of citizenship. So such laws cant uphold restrictions on citizens today, but foreigners? Yes.”

Larosiere dismissed that argument as “stupid and wrong” because it “ignores literally everything in the context of what ‘citizenship’ is and was, and ignores the gravity of otherwise disenfranchising conduct.” He argued Founding Era bans on various groups owning guns were based either on concerns they were dangerous or a rejection of their humanity, often for racist reasons. He said it made more sense that historical gun restrictions were based on dangerousness than whether they were part of the political community.

More at link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Johnson_Coleman

Currently The 4473 asks the buyer in number 21L if you are a person illegally in the country or not.

If the person answers YES, he will be denied. If he lies, then he has committed a federal felony and if prosecuted would end up in prison.

What are they going to show for ID? What will the NICS check reveal?

What class crime is entering the country illegally? Felony? Misdemeanor? It's illegal so it must be some crime.

Man, we sure seem to worry about disenfranchising a bunch.

Nothing about illegally invading the USA should be nice & easy.

Except maybe leaving.

Well, if you think that was interesting, read this.

https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/...6a-b32c91eed864.html

Convicted felons have Second Amendment right to own guns, Louisville judge rules

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) – In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind ruling in Louisville, a judge determined that a convicted felon can't be prosecuted on a firearms charge because it violates his Second Amendment rights.

Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Melissa Logan Bellows ruled Wednesday that it is unconstitutional for prosecutors to move forward with their case against Jecory Lamont Frazier under a state law prohibiting felons from owning a gun because it doesn’t outweigh the Second Amendment right that belongs to “all Americans.”

The Jefferson Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office had argued before Bellows that the U.S. justice system has consistently disarmed people “who it deems to be unvirtuous, such as felons” and that the Kentucky Supreme Court has supported this argument.

But Bellows, who was elected in 2022, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that there is a “strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“Therefore, the Court is reluctant to accept that the limits on the right protected by the Second Amendment are defined by a person’s virtue or good character,” Bellows ruled.

In a statement on Friday, the Commonwealth's Attorney's office said the ruling "deviates from well-established precedent, norm, and case law. We disagree with the ruling, and we are initiating steps to appeal it. Judges can make their own interpretations regarding the law, but they are subject to appellate scrutiny, which provides checks and balances on the judicial system."

Bellows also ruled the prosecutors did not present evidence of a historical tradition of disarming felons after the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

Prosecutors, she said, failed to prove that state law “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Frazier was arrested on November 6, 2021, after Louisville Metro Police were called to the 3900 block of Taylor Blvd., after a driver hit a pole.

Police claim Frazier attempted to hide something in his vehicle when police arrived and then pulled out a handgun and handed it to a co-defendant “to conceal from officers that he is a felon in possession of a handgun,” according to the arrest citation.

His previous convictions include drug trafficking, fraud, tampering which physical evidence and being a felon in possession of a handgun.

In October, his attorney, Rob Eggert, asked to dismiss the gun charge and cited a 2019 case in front of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is now a Supreme Court Justice, where she ruled that “founding-era legislators did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.”

Eggert wrote that other appeals courts across the nation, including in Mississippi, are ruling that laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms are unconstitutional.

And he pointed out that in 2006, Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott wrote in a dissenting opinion that, historically, Kentucky did not prohibit anyone from owning a firearm, including convicted felons.

Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Jackson Rice argued in a motion in the case that the U.S. high court rulings cited by Eggert and Bellows did not state that felons should be allowed to own guns.

“While the defendant’s conduct – possessing a firearm – might be covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, the historical tradition of firearm regulation plainly supports a ban on convicted felons being in possession of a firearm,” he wrote in a motion.

As far as the historical argument, Rice wrote that in colonial times, convicted felons could not own “property or chattels and, thereby, implicitly, could not possess a firearm.”

The statement from the Commonwealth's Attorney's office noted the the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that felon in possession of a firearm prohibitions did not violate the state constitution.

Brian Butler, who used to be a prosecutor and is now a defense attorney, said he believes the ruling "is an earth shattering opinion" that will prompt similar motions in other gun cases until the state Supreme Court rules on the issue.

Would a platoon of enemy soldiers in uniform within the USA also have a 2A rkba?

"The People" shouldn't automatically include any human, just those here legally. I would expect there were laws in the founding era regarding lawful entry.

Honestly, I’m ok with this ruling. I don’t really like the idea of giving anything to those in the US illegally, BUT I’m willing to accept that trade off if it weakens the gun laws in the US. I’m tired of compromise after compromise after compromise of our human rights. Perhaps it really is best to scale back all the restrictions until we have a blank slate and see how that works for a while before we make changes.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Would a platoon of enemy soldiers in uniform within the USA also have a 2A rkba?

I wouldn't put it past the Left to say this is fine. As long as it furthers the destruction of the US faster, they will find a way to allow it.

What does one really need to buy a gun? If background checks are no longer necessary (since felons maintain their 2A rights), what's really necessary? Why isn't it just anonymous, like buying ammo (well, everywhere but CA).

If it's anonymous, then residency status doesn't matter. 2A is universal (or should be).

If it's not anonymous, then how are illegals checked for whatever the criteria is? Is all of this just a claim that they have the right but have no practical means here to actually buy? Except for perhaps private party in free states?

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
What class crime is entering the country illegally? Felony? Misdemeanor? It's illegal so it must be some crime.

As I understand it, initial entry is considered a misdemeanor, however, re-entry after a deportation is a Felony.

Can full voting ability be far behind?

Quote-

"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,” Judge Coleman wrote"



Mark and Patricia McCloskey have entered the chat!

Where did he get the gun? Obviously it seems, according to the info. at hand, it couldn't have been through a gun store/ffl dealer. So if he got it from a private seller, it's ok for him to own it now with this judge? The laws seem to be clear that an illegal cannot buy a firearm from a dealer or a private party according to the ATF website.

No different than free speech. It’s a fundamental human right.

Now they can arm all the illegals like LAPD’s alien recruit class. I wonder where their priorities lie.
I’m all for letting CITIZENS have unfettered rights. Jose taco truck and Chin Wag, not so much.

California’s bill, SB 960, which was introduced in February 2022 and signed into law in September 2022, removed a provision in state law that said a person had to be a citizen to be a peace officer and replaced it with a requirement that peace officers be legally authorized to work in the U.S. It took effect on Jan. 1.

DACA recruit article

When I tried to apply for LAPD back in late 90s, they sent me home just because I did not graduate HS in the US. I am a US Citizen, foreign HS graduate, 45 college credits in Criminology from University of Manila, 25 Admin. Of Justice college credits from Irvine Valley College in California. they sent me home and did not even let me take the Academy Test. And now this? California is disgusting. That is why we left Cali 16 years ago and never looked back.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
Now they can arm all the illegals like LAPD’s alien recruit class. I wonder where their priorities lie.
I’m all for letting CITIZENS have unfettered rights. Jose taco truck and Chin Wag, not so much.

California’s bill, SB 960, which was introduced in February 2022 and signed into law in September 2022, removed a provision in state law that said a person had to be a citizen to be a peace officer and replaced it with a requirement that peace officers be legally authorized to work in the U.S. It took effect on Jan. 1.

DACA recruit article

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
Can full voting ability be far behind?

So is it your view that voting is a Constitutional Right?

We are living in strange times for sure. You're "actively, currently, at that very moment.. engaged in a criminal act". That should be enough you'd think. But if no one is charging them, enforcing those laws, then it's okay. (?) Strange times indeed.