Trump’s Texas Deal Dilemma
Trump Declares Victory in Iran War
You're Going to Laugh at This Reuters Piece About Operation Epic Fury
The Negotiations to Reopen the Department of Homeland Security Are NOT Going Well
Kid Whose Family Was Nearly Wiped Out by Unhinged Trans Shooter Just Had...
Here's What an Israeli Pilot Said to His American Counterpart Before a Bombing...
Mother of the Virginia Woman Murdered by a Violent Criminal Illegal Alien Speaks...
Chicago Teachers' Union Is All About Activism, Not Education
CNN Actually Made Abby Phillip Apologize On-Air for Lying About the Attempted ISIS-Inspire...
Allegheny County Ends Cooperation With ICE, but One Councilman Wanted to Go Further
What If Those Iranian Bombs Had Nuclear Warheads
Between a Mullah and a Hard Place
Obama's Race-Hustling Eulogy at a Race Hustler's Funeral
Democrats’ Latest Sacrificial Pawns
If Virginia Is for Lovers, There Is No Place for Tyrants
Tipsheet

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

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