Online Lib Lawyers: Dumb or Lying?
South Carolina's State Senate Leader Said What Now About Why He's Against...
Bad Medicine Could Be in Store for MI's El-Sayed Over Issues Concerning His...
The Thing That Works
Those Defending the Nazi Candidate Want a Republican to Quit When Someone Else...
Keep Reality to Yourself
Networks Manufacture a Mini-Scandal Over a 'Road Trip'
The Greatest Time to Be Alive in America Is Right Now
Pass the Major Richard Star Act
The Hantavirus Cruise: A Ship of Fools
Fine Them, Jail Crooked Bosses, Revoke Their Nonprofit Status
Retirement Options for the Middle Class
Trump Is Addressing Grocery Gouging the Right Way. Democrats Aren’t.
America to DC: Stop Digging
Look Who Democrats Had To Bring Out To Help James Talarico
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