America Is Back: Team USA Sweeps Canada to Take Home Gold in Milan
Democrats Are Obsessed With White Men
A Tale of Two Athletes
America Keeps Winning
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 308: ‘Fear Not' New Testament – Part 3
Iran Did Not Get the Memo
TSA PreCheck Still Active During Partial Government Shutdown
Arizona Advances Bill to Rename a Highway After Charlie Kirk. Will the State's...
Secret Service Kill Armed Man Who Broke Into Mar-a-Lago
An Ambitious Bible-Reading Plan
Family As Communion: Familiaris Consortio
Who Wins in the Trump Economy? American Families!
President Trump Is Running a Tight Ship and Giving the Deep State a...
New York City Cannot Afford Democratic Socialism
Feds Indict Six More in Venezuelan Gang's High-Tech ATM Heist – Total Hits...
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