CHICAGO (TND) A U.S. District Court judge ruled earlier this month that completely prohibiting illegal immigrants from possessing firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment.
The ruling, issued on March 8 by Obama-appointed District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, pertains to the case of illegal migrant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. Carbajal-Flores was charged under Title 18 of U.S. Criminal Code, a measure preventing illegal migrants from possessing firearms.
Carbajal-Flores had no criminal history of improper use of a gun and therefore, according to the court, did not present a public danger when exercising his Second Amendment right in Chicago in 2020.
In her decision, Coleman cited the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen , which found New York State could not constitutionally prevent anyone from carrying a pistol in public. The case, she said, established a framework for analyzing whether a challenged firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment.
This ruling is going to trigger a lot of Republicans.
Oh boy, can't wait to see the 2A humpers tie themselves into knots over this one.
If they aren't hypocrits they should love this ruling.
If they aren't hypocrits they should love this ruling
Lmao. This country is wild.
Republicans: we are pro-gun control nowi mean when its minorities they always were
Do you not approve of upholding the 2A as it states in the constitution?I don't see the government using well regulated militias anymore.
I don't see the government using well regulated militias anymore.
I know this is a widely debated legal question, though.
Fantastic ruling IMO. Every single gun ban in the history of the country has been passed with heavy racist undertones. Regardless if you are pro/anti 2A I feel like so long as we're going to have guns we should not be racist about who gets to have them.Yep. One of the first things that happened after the failure of reconstruction was the disarming of blacks in the newly Jim Crow south. Which made them easier targets when it came time to lynch them.
Oh boy, can't wait to see the 2A humpers tie themselves into knots over this one.
That's not what the current interpretation of the 2A is. Do you not agree with upholding the values of the constitution?Not sure why you care so much about my interpretation, dude. Chill out.
Not sure why you care so much about my interpretation, dude. Chill out.
You are the one calling the country wild for upholding the values stated in the constitution. Do you not support upholding the 2A?My interpretation of "this country is wild" was a little more broad than that I guess, because I didn't assume that's exactly what he meant. I just figured more along the lines of "can't wait see what chaos is caused by this one".
I don't see the government using well regulated militias anymore.
My interpretation of "this country is wild" was a little more broad than that I guess, because I didn't assume that's exactly what he meant. I just figured more along the lines of "can't wait see what chaos is caused by this one".Yup. We already have a bunch of mass shootings and no one is doing anything about it. This certainly won't help in that regard. We are wild compared to most developed nations.
That's not what the current interpretation of the 2A is. Do you not agree with upholding the values of the constitution?
the constitution is a just 200 year old document
it's not divinely ordained
it can and should be changed when it has stuff that doesn't work anymore
if it still works fine, that's great but having the value of "uphold the constitution" just for the sake of upholding it is folly
The National Guard is considered Militia, the only one currently authorized to be one by Congress. It's in the Articles (A1 sections 8 and 10 and A2 section 2) as a way of preventing state governments from having private armies.Why do you only tell half truths?
Why do you only tell half truths?
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
i don't get it.The unorganized militia is essentially anyone eligible to be drafted into military service who isn't a member of the military or National Guard.
first they say "Militia are those who are in the National Guard"
and then they say "Militia are those who are in the National Guard, and also those militia who are not in the National Guard"
We love guns now
I don't think I've ever been a fan of 2A as a means to own a firearm. I think people should have the right to defend themselves against others within the law.
That said, I'm not sure how or why we would even need to regulate an illegal immigrate possessing a firearm? First and foremost, they are illegally here. That's the top-level issue and will likely be deported if something tips them off and the firearm will be confiscated.
That doesn't really impact what I said, though. I am not arguing whether or not 2A is applicable to non-citizens. I have never been a fan of 2A as a means to own a firearm.
I'm not sure how or why we would even need to regulate an illegal immigrate possessing a firearm?
That's fine, but it's really not relevant to what I wrote because I'm not a proponent of 2A. I understand the ruling and it's whatever. I think part of this discussions is about non-citizens own firearms within the US, which is what I'm addressing. Regardless of 2A.
I haven't said otherwise and honestly not even sure what you are referencing regarding what I posted.
I think part of this discussions is about non-citizens own firearms within the US