Here's Why I'm Concerned
The Suspect in the J6 Pipe Bombing Incident Has Been Captured. Why the...
A Newsom Nihilist Nomination?
The Importance of Being Earnest
Media Make 'Venezuelan Fishermen' the New 'Maryland Father,' and Covering Up the Minnesota...
The Welcome Demise of Climate Change Catastrophism
Making the Judiciary Great Again
Those Lazy, Hazy, Crazy Days of Skipping 'Morning Joe'
Closing the Door on Immigration? Not Yet.
Socialism Is Antithetical to the Genuine American Dream
The War Is Not Over, and There Is No Peace
U.S. Secret Service Seized 16 Illegal Skimmers, Stopped $16M in Fraud
Two Men Charged After 1,585 Pounds of Meth Found Hidden in Blackberry Shipments...
SCOTUS Upholds New Texas Redistricting Map
Georgia CEO Gets Eight Years for Bribery Scheme Involving Honduran Police Contracts
Tipsheet

Question of Illegal Aliens Having Second Amendment Rights Goes to Appeals Court

AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear the question of whether illegal aliens have Second Amendment rights, in the case USA v. Heriberto Carbajal-Flores.

Advertisement

The case regards Flores’ arrest in Chicago for having a firearm.

Margaret Steindorf, who represents the federal government in the case, said Flores’ immigration status is important, stating that “[T]here is the common thread here of felons not abiding by the law and those unlawfully in the country also not authorized to be in the country” when arguing court precedent for certain people to not be allowed to possess a firearm.

Jacob Briskman, representing Flores, said however that the rights granted to “the people” don’t only apply to certain amendments in the Constitution, stating that “[T]he [U.S.] Supreme Court has decided that undocumented folks have First Amendment protections, Fourth Amendment protections, Fifth Amendment protections when they have come within the United States and developed substantial ties,” and added that Flores’s wife and children are citizens of the United States.

Advertisement

However, having a gun wasn’t Flores’s only crime, Steindorf argued, adding that “[T]he district court erred when it found defendant was non-violent when in fact the defendant shot a firearm seven times at a passing car without provocation and tried to shoot at a second passing car shortly thereafter.”

Briskman argued that Flores still should have Second Amendment rights regardless, saying that “[S]tripping people of Second Amendment rights because of a criminal history or because they are not responsible are not supported by case law, as [recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent in United States v.] Rahimi has shown.”

The case was taken by the appeals court under advisement.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement