Pardon Me … and You, and Everybody
Of Course, The Washington Post Would Report This About the National Guard Shooter
This GOP Rep Absolutely Bodied CNN's Wolf Blitzer When Asked About Airstrikes on...
CNN's Scott Jennings Couldn't Wait to Rip Apart This Liberal Anti-Trump Talking Point
ICE Has Commenced the Great Somali Round-up in Minnesota
These Franklin the Turtle Memes Are Outrageous...and Patriots Should Create More of Them
Disparate Impact
Rein in the Universities or Lose It All
Matt Van Epps Clinches Victory in Tennessee’s 7th District Special Election
Journalists Can Promote 'Sedition' When It's 'ICE Resistance'
Let's Fix Our Broken Health Care System
How Many Terrorists Came From Afghanistan to America?
The App Store Freedom Act: Restoring American Values in the Digital Age
Reagan Warned Us About Media Power. We Should Listen.
The End of Migration
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