A federal judge recently denied a request by an illegal alien, who had purchased 170 guns and undergone multiple background checks, to drop illegal gun possession charges because he claimed they violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
According to a Fox News report, Carlos Serrano-Restrepo’s lawyer submitted a motion to dismiss the charge arguing that he has the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The judge denied the motion to dismiss the charge against the Ohio man, who had been in the U.S. for 15 years, writing in his opinion that “disarming unlawful immigrants like Mr. Serrano-Restrepo who have not sworn allegiance to the United States comports with the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations.”
“The swearing of an oath of allegiance occurs through the naturalization process, not through his asylum application or his years of living in the United States,” Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. wrote in the ruling.
Serrano-Restrepo had told the judge that his firearms, which included a .50-caliber Barrett multiple AR-15s— was “for self-defense” and part of “his collection,” according to court documents. And had he been a lawful citizen, those would have been very good points. The ruling that illegal immigrants don’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms isn’t the first such, as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August that illegals don’t have 2A rights.
While that question appears to be answered—at least for now—the bigger question is how Serrano-Restrepo passed so many federal background checks. Each time he filled out the 4473, he answered that he was a U.S. citizen when he wasn’t.
ATF agents recently began investigating Serrano-Restrepo after he completed a purchase of at least 22 firearms. When they searched his home, they found 170 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
While the media might make that sound like an “arsenal,” TTAG readers know it more as a “nice gun collection”—something to strive for, not to fear. Still, the fact that someone in the country illegally could pass the background check just by lying about his citizenship is concerning, especially since citizens are delayed daily over small errors without the FBI system.
Since simply lying on the background check is a serious crime, Serrano-Restrepo could have been charged with a 10-year felony for every time he underwent a background check while purchasing the 170 guns. Consequently, it takes a pretty brazen lawyer to argue before a court of law that he shouldn’t face a charge of illegal firearms possession when he could face hundreds if not thousands of years in prison for background check falsehoods.
For all we know, the accused did not lie on any of his form 4473s and truthfully indicated that he is not a U.S. citizen on any of them. It is up to the federal firearms licensee to reject his purchase if he indicated that accurately.
As for passing the background check system, I don’t see much of a mystery there: he successfully cleared background checks if the system only flags people known to have disqualifications. In other words, the system is not required to have a positive record of you being clear–it only has to have a negative record if you are disqualified.
On that last point, once again it is up to the federal firearm licensee submitting the buyer to the background check system to ensure that that buyer is presenting valid identification. Nothing stops the buyer from literally claiming to be “John Q. Public” and if the federal firearm licensee will submit the background check without identification, that name would pass. Finally, note that an illegal alien would have a valid driver’s license if a state like California will issue a driver’s license to an illegal alien. Thus, an illegal alien in that situation would actually have valid identification for the federal firearm licensee to submit the background check and the illegal alien would pass if he/she has no criminal record.
In my comment above, I stated:
“… the system is not required to have a positive record of you being clear–it only has to have a negative record if you are disqualified.”
I wonder if fedzilla wanted this illegal alien to successfully purchase all of those firearms so that they could justify passing a new law–requiring a “positive” database and a new requirement that you have to pass the “positive” database in order to purchase firearms.
If there is one thing that oppressive governments love, it is a database of their people that they can use to abuse their people.
And a LIE is an automatic DISQUALIFICATION for the purchase to be made!
edit.. I meant that if he was truthful and answered ‘NO’ to are you a US Citizen (truth) as you claim, he would automatically be disqualified.
“…answered ‘NO’…he would automatically be disqualified.”
Not quite, that’s when he produces his “Green Card” and that is run through the background check along with the driver’s licence.
The government agency issuing Green Cards is swamped. Currently an expired Green Card is still valid for three years after the expiry date. My Green Card card: Expires 04/18/26, which is why I looked it up about three weeks ago. My AZ “Concealed Weapons Permit” doesn’t expire till 2029.
A Green Card holder may do anything a citizen may do except vote or serve on a jury. And, back in ‘ye olde days’, had to register for the draft within six months of arriving in country. I was 29 when I registered, in 1970.
“For all we know, the accused did not lie on any of his form 4473s”
1) Per the article, he lied each time…
2) states that issue DLs to noncitizens should indicate their status on the license. Congress could make that law, I think.
3) I’d still like to know where the 11k of northbound ammo they popped in TX was headed…
“states that issue DLs to noncitizens should indicate their status on the license. Congress could make that law, I think.”
Yes! Why didn’t we have that decades ago? Because our elected officials want a country full of non-citizens doing certain citizen things. There’s no other reason. But we’re on to them. It took awhile, but we’re finally waking up. The smears against us for noticing things will no longer make us look the other way. They overused the putdowns until they have no meaning.
I have more than that in my closet
Or possibly they want to pass a federal law prohibiting states from issuing valid licenses to non-citizens.
WTH are you talking about?– “For all we know, the accused did not lie on any of his form 4473s and truthfully indicated that he is not a U.S. citizen on any of them.”
You are presented with the question.. You either answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. The FFL has nothing to do with how you answer.. You either answer truthfully to the questions or you LIE.. And if you LIE you committed a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison!
Ralph Humphrey,
Slow down and take a breath. All I am saying is that the accused could have truthfully answered that he is NOT a U.S. citizen on Form 4473, which he does on his own without any direction from the FFL as you stated. At that point, it is up to the FFL to stop the sale. If the FFL continued with the sale, the sale would complete if he passed the NCIS check. Of course that requires that the seller FFL breaks the rules.
Saying it another way, it is entirely possible for the buyer to answer everything truthfully on the Form 4473 and successfully purchase firearms if the seller FFL ignores his disqualifying answers. At that point the only law that the illegal alien broke was buying firearms–he did not perjure himself.
Of course all of that is hypothetical because the story did not provide enough details.
doh! if you answer you aren’t a citizen you are an unqualified purchaser without other supporting documentation that proves you are a legal resident alien.
your guessing as to what may or may not have happened. Another article I read about this stated he never identified as a legal resident, why it’s missing here? who knows. the fact remains, they figured out he wasn’t.
“it is entirely possible for the buyer to answer everything truthfully on the Form 4473 and successfully purchase firearms if the seller FFL ignores his disqualifying answers”
NICS goes over the affidavit (4473) to verify the answers given are qualifying/disqualifying. The one thing they don’t ask is serial number(s)… If that man walked out of a store with a firearm it is because he LIED on the question about citizenship which would have otherwise been a disqualifying factor at that point in time…
Whatever fedboi
drew,
Ha ha. I have been commenting on this site for over a decade and my comments make it obvious that I am not a federal agent.
My comments also make it obvious that I abhor the myriad firearm laws which, in my opinion, violate the Second Amendment.
Lastly, my comment above is simply discussing the current state of firearm law as far as the ATF is concerned. My comments are not an endorsement of anything.
Whatever…Snowflake.
“For all we know, the accused did not lie on any of his form 4473s and truthfully indicated that he is not a U.S. citizen on any of them.”
Yeah, we do know that – he answered that he was a U.S. citizen. Its in the associated Fox news link with this article.
You know, the plain text of the second amendment is very clear.
‘People’ have the right to keep and bear arms not just ‘citizens’.
The Militia Act makes it clear that even non-citizens are members of the militia.
How could you be a member of the militia and not be granted the right to bear arms under the second amendment?
And there’s no history or tradition of barring noncitizens from carrying firearms.
Most folks on here say the right of self-defense is ‘God-granted’, why should noncitizens be stripped of their divine right of self-defense?
Illegals are engaged in a criminal act simply by being here. It is ok to take weapons out of the hands of criminals.
Maybe by 26 you will have figured out your roll in the dems disaster in November.
“Illegals are engaged in a criminal act simply by being here“
Nope, under international treaties the United States ratified and signed, any person can enter United States and ask for asylum, they’ll be granted a hearing under the law to determine their status. That doesn’t make them an ‘illegal’ or constitute a crime.
“You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status and within 1 year of your arrival to the United States.
You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:
You are not currently in removal proceedings
You file an asylum application within 1 year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.”
“The Militia Act makes it clear that even non-citizens are members of the militia.”
False
The Militia Act of 1792 (codified in 1793) defines the militia as: “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years…”
The Militia Act of 1903 defines the militia as: (the same as 1792 except the word ‘white’ is removed and slight rewording) “… the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and
forty-five…”
see the word ‘citizen’?
Bobby,Bobby, Bobby (smh) you can’t just pull out facts like that on minor.
“The Militia Act of 1792”
“The Militia Act of 1903“
Geez, another clueless Trump voter.
“you can’t just pull out facts like that on minor“
It’s clear why you folks were so easily snookered by that slick talking New York City con artist.
Quoting laws from over 100 years ago is your sad attempt at bullshit propaganda.
Really, you should get with the 21st-century and follow the laws passed by Congress:
“10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
(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.“
Please allow me to quote the relevant portion:
“or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States“
That’s every asylum-seeker, no matter where they entered the United States.
Again, the second amendment does not mention citizenship whatsoever, but rather gives the right to keep and bear arms to (lowercase) ‘people’.
That would be every human who ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul’ as defined in Genesis 2:7.
Amazing, y’all know neither the Law nor the Bible, weak-assed ‘Christian nationalists’.
But asylum has not granted. Therefore they have no standing to “make declarations”
“But asylum has not granted.”
United States Code makes no mention of ‘asylum’ as a test, only that they ‘have declared their intention to become a citizen’.
“Therefore they have no standing to “make declarations”
The law does not require a ‘standing’ test, only that ‘the non-citizen has declared their intention to become a citizen’.
Wow! Hold on a second there skittles.
This is what you posted…
“The Militia Act makes it clear that even non-citizens are members of the militia.”
Bobbyb replied and showed that was clearly false.
Now you come back with “10 U.S. Code § 246 ” which is NOT “The Militia Act” and in doing so you lie yet again trying to distance from your original lie.
Here is your lie now – Please allow me to quote the relevant portion:
“or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States“
Then you say “That’s every asylum-seeker, no matter where they entered the United States.”
Which is simply 100% false. Simply being an “asylum-seeker” does not mean “a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States“
‘asylum-seeking’ and “declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States“ are two different things you moron. And thus it is still false that neither the “The Militia Act” or “10 U.S. Code § 246” “makes it clear that even non-citizens are members of the militia.”
You been kissing the rainbow too long Miner49er.
“Now you come back with “10 U.S. Code § 246 ” which is NOT “The Militia Act” and in doing so you lie yet again trying to distance from your original lie“
Your cognitive deficit is showing…
“Not the Militia Act”?
I directly quoted the controlling United States Act regarding the Militia, the Supreme Law of the Land under the United States Constitution:
“10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes“
You are a dishonest interlocutor.
Or you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Once again you lie Miner49er.
1. You specifically said – “The Militia Act makes it clear that even non-citizens are members of the militia.”
That is 100% false, and was pointed out to you before.
2. Now you say — “I directly quoted the controlling United States Act regarding the Militia, the Supreme Law of the Land under the United States Constitution: …” – in trying to distance yourself from the first and second lies you told. And you did not even get it right for that.
But, “10 U.S. Code § 246 ” which is NOT “The Militia Act”. Simply saying it is “regarding the Militia” does not make it “The Militia Act” you originally claimed in your first lie.
Typical left wing delusional disconnect logic… “Oh look, a word here in something else therefore my other lie wasn’t a lie.”
So now you tell yet a third lie…. all on a subject you know nothing about. For cripes sake, all this has been there in writing for you but you are caught in your mental illness left wing delusional ‘cherry pick’ confirmation bias mode.
Learn what context means, learn what research means, learn to read AND comprehend, stop being confirmation biased, stop trolling with what amounts to made up- confirmation biased gibberish on a subject you know nothing about, and stop kissing the rainbow so much.
You got caught in your lies once again, plain and simple. Stop trying to defend your lies and ignorance with even more lies.
refugees have not made a declaration of intent to become citizens
They are not even refugees. Simply illegals. They may sit around the camp fire and scream “citizen” at the sky, bit that is not a declaration in àny legal sense.
“refugees have not made a declaration of intent to become citizens“
Do you really believe that? You don’t think those immigrants want to become American citizens?
They have a “right to self defense” (maybe) in the country they left, not the country they illegally entered…
“not the country they illegally entered“
So the Hebrews in Egypt did not have the right of self-defense against the Pharaoh?
Ask the Pharoah. Or Moses. Your choice.
Miner says “Quoting laws from over 100 years ago is your sad attempt at bullshit propaganda.”
Then Miner pulls out “So the Hebrews in Egypt did not have the right of self-defense against the Pharaoh?”
Was that done in the last 100 years or earlier in the US?
It’s possible I suppose. Though I wouldn’t like to be the FFL who sold him the guns if he had (truthfully) checked the “NOT A CITIZEN” and “ILLEGAL ALIEN” boxes.
Any FFL I’ve ever dealt with has been meticulous about errors on the 4473. Sticklers. If I cross something out on the form they have me start a new one—especially after the Biden ATF decided it was going to take away FFLs by hook or crook. Any little error on a 4473 is an excuse for the gun-hating Obamacrats to revoke your FFL. And boy the earfuls I’ve gotten over question 21m.2–“No no no make sure you leave it blank!! Don’t check anything! Oh no, look what you did… start over.”
To be clear, I’m not saying that it is the FFL’s duty to “fail” an applicant’s background check if the applicant checks the non-citizen / illegal boxes.
I’m saying the FFL would at least have looked through the completed form for correctness and noted how the applicant answered (on the old form question 12c or) current form question 21l “Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States?”, and if (in this scenario we are considering) he checked YES—i.e. the truth—then the FFL would most likely have said, “sorry, you’re not allowed to purchase a gun, and I darn sure ain’t going to try to sell one to you. The ATF is hot to revoke FFLs on any pretext. I got 99 problems and a BATF agent banging on my door ain’t one.”
And I know that for 3 terms now the Obama admin has tried to cloud the waters on what being here “illegally” means, but in point of law, being an illegal and starting the process of asking to stay anyway still makes you an illegal. Let his lawyer argue otherwise.
My guess is that the most likely scenario is this guy lied, repeatedly, on his forms, in full knowledge that he would have been denied—and possibly deported—if he told the truth.
I support gun rights, but not of armed foreign nationals wandering around our country acting like our laws don’t apply to them. Throw the book at him—just like they would do to *citizens* who lied on the form. (Not counting Hunter Biden—though even he got nailed once scrutiny was applied.)
“starting the process of asking to stay anyway still makes you an illegal“
Nope, treaties ratified by the United States Senate have the power of Federal Law within the United States:
“As a signatory to the 1967 Protocol, and through U.S. immigration law, the United States has legal obligations to provide protection to those who qualify as refugees. The Refugee Act established two paths to obtain refugee status—either from abroad as a resettled refugee or in the United States as an asylum seeker.“
You folks really should ‘do your own research!’, perhaps you wouldn’t publicly embarrass yourselves so often.
Nope. Seeking refugee status is not same as having it, or even qualifing for it.. Economic aspirations are not grounds for gaining asylum, either.
Wow! skittles does it again.
This is about illegal entry. Learn what context means Miner49er.
“The Refugee Act established two paths to obtain refugee status”
“refugee status” has to be applied for, which means entering the country legally or being granted entry legally. Illegal entry people are criminals by entering the U.S. illegally, they have committed a crime on U.S. soil. A person committing a crime on U.S. soil by entering the country illegally can apply for “refugee status” nor are they considered ‘refugees’. People immigrating to the U.S. are not ‘refugees’ status, they are immigrants migrating.
“The Refugee Act established two paths to obtain refugee status”
Hilarious, once again you omit the pertinent point:
“The Refugee Act established two paths to obtain refugee status… or in the United States as an asylum seeker.“
The treaty is very clear, one may enter the United States at any point and request asylum, and under the law we are obligated to provide a hearing for these people ‘who have declared their intention to become a United States citizen’.
And everyone of those non-citizens ‘who has declared their intention to become a American citizen’ is indeed a member of the militia under United States law and entitled to bear arms under the second amendment.
and once again Miner49er lies again, shocker…
“refugee status” has to be applied for, which means entering the country legally or being granted entry legally. Illegal entry people are criminals by entering the U.S. illegally, they have committed a crime on U.S. soil. A person committing a crime on U.S. soil by entering the country illegally can not apply for “refugee status” nor are they considered ‘refugees’. People immigrating to the U.S. are not ‘refugees’ status, they are immigrants migrating.
declaring “intention to become a United States citizen” is not the same as seeking or requesting “asylum”. For one to declare their “intention to become a United States citizen” they must apply for citizenship, ya can’t just say it or enter the country and be here. An “asylum” seeker is just seeking “asylum” and it does not automatically mean that are declaring their “intention to become a United States citizen”, and one can be granted “asylum” without declaring their “intention to become a United States citizen”.
One does not declare their “intention to become a United States citizen” simply by setting foot on U.S. soil as you are positing.
One does not become an ‘asylum seeker’ simply by setting foot on U.S. soil as you are positing.
One does not become a ‘refugee’ simply by setting foot on U.S. soil as you are positing.
Your positing and ‘redefining use’ of words to fit a narrative, all false left wing agenda talking points they wanted to be true and tried to make it seem true, but it simply is not true.
Although the “treaty” might be “very clear” its obvious it wasn’t clear to you. You can’t simply cherry pick words and redefine them anyway you want to fit into a false narrative you want to spin. Words have meanings and like in the typical left wing mental illness delusional logic evidently you don’t understand that.
You lied once again.
Your original lie is still a lie, and now you lie again. That’s like 6 lies you have told in this comment section.
Don’t worry though ….. someones going to start to explain all this to you and the rest of your left wing delusional morons believing as you do when the actual application of the already existing law, intentionally violated for the last four years, comes back into play.
Now run along skittles, the left wing rainbow of joy is pretty beaten up but I’m sure you can find another spot to kiss and lick on.
“refugee status” has to be applied for, which means entering the country legally or being granted entry legally.”
Sorry, under international treaties and federal law those who enter the United States can petition for asylum no matter where they enter.
While refugee status does require an application, refugee status is not a requirement for asking for asylum under federal law or international treaties.
And under 10 U.S. Code 246 ‘Miltia’, there’s no requirement for refugee status, just a declaration of intention to become an American citizen’.
The article is lacking a lot of detail.
“After they began investigating him… ” what did they find to move forward with a search warrant?
Buying 22 firearms in one transaction is not a valid reason.
Investigators can investigate whenever they want to within their organization guidelines. What have we learned about the ATF? Sometimes, they show up at your house when you buy three guns in a month. Buy 22 in a short time (like this guy, per Fox article), and watch what happens next. The standard background checks are obviously a joke, but it probably took the ATF all of one minute to determine he wasn’t a citizen. Hello warrant.
Suspicious events trigger an investigation. Your tax returns might be perfectly fine, but the IRS will investigate you if your activities fit a certain profile. But we can never investigate elections, even when the results defy every single thing we have learned about elections over the past five decades. Why, you ask? Because investigating election fraud is a threat to democracy. Installing a senile puppet, who isn’t in charge of anything, is not a threat to democracy.
Same thing with banks. If you make deposits of over a certain amount (I think officially it is 10k, but report 9k anyway) or lots of cash transactions, the cops will investigate. It doesn’t matter that it may innocent and legal.
They don’t necessarily investigate. Lots of people make transactions over 10k. What happens is your transaction info is sent to the feds every time you do it. It still has to look suspicious before they pursue it. It’s still best to keep transactions under 10k, when possible, even if you aren’t doing anything wrong.
I hear what you’re saying, but it just might have been the large number of guns that made his application stand out in the pile. In theory they are supposed to be doing background checks on everyone who submits a 4473. No reason that can’t include citizenship status.
I agree with you that more detail about his 4473s would be helpful:
What did put for his country or countries of citizenship, what did he put on 21l (are you ann illegal alien?) and what did he put for a SSN / TIN, if anything?
He wouldn’t have a valid SSN. If he put a “real” SSN it would be stolen and they should be able to detect that. For anyone who gives a TIN, if I were the ATF I would automatically be checking citizenship status. If he left it blank, that might have triggered a more manual process that led to human scrutiny on his application and his history.
Buying 22 firearms in one transaction has been a notable cause for the ATF to investigate further in the past, and that excuse was used against patriots. This illegal was buying an average of ten a year – almost one a month, over and over. That’s a serious expense for the common man, much less someone who is known to be a non citizen.
NICS is supposed to flag felons, the DOD wasn’t reporting Courts Martials which was discovered to be out of line and they now do so. How were undocumented illegals not picked up thru cross checking Social Security or filing withholding on income? You and I would be.
Somebody was failing to investigate from the beginning, how many tens of thousands more are slipping thru the cracks?
“… had been in the U.S. for 15 years,”… I’ve lived here all my life and have been gainfully employed 50+ years and do not have 170 firearms. I think his tax obligations and funding sources also need a review. cc: Oscar Wallace.
Ditto!!!
He had a Barrett, he could afford to fix his status.
“I’ve lived here all my life and have been gainfully employed 50+ years and do not have 170 firearms.”
I was born in the U.S., I’ve lived in the U.S. all my life and have been gainfully employed 30 + years. I pay my taxes, I use my earned money to buy guns or I trade for them or I build them or in some cases I get them for free. I have 238 guns.
This guy owned his own legitimate business (a business that remediates fire and flooding damage, which is very expensive and lucrative especially the flooding damage part). Its entirely possible he had the money to buy the guns he has, earned the money legitimately though his business, and to have a business one has to pay taxes at some level local or state level taxes and its probably/maybe likely he did pay taxes on his income to the IRS even though not a U.S. citizen (non-citizens earning income in the country are required to pay federal taxes on it) as the IRS does not check immigration status for payment of taxes.
Other than the illegal entry thus not a U.S. citizen and lying on the 4473 indicating he was a U.S. citizen and under 18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5), (g)(5) and (y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32(a)(5) not being legally eligible to buy guns because he was not in the country legally – so far it doesn’t look like he was doing anything other than living the ‘American Dream’ type of stuff.
Who knows…. maybe the guy actually believed he was a U.S. citizen when he answered on the 4473. After all, Biden and Harris and progressive democrats all give the impression that an immigrant is automatically a U.S. citizen by simply setting foot on U.S. soil – that’s certainly what a lot of illegal entry immigrants caught have said, that they believed they became U.S. citizens by simply setting foot on U.S. soil because Biden and Harris said they were entitled to the life and rights and protections U.S. citizens have once they get into the country. That’s certainly how they have been treated in ‘sanctuary cities’, in a lot of ways like they were U.S. citizens.
Its not difficult for an illegal immigrant to get the ‘trappings’ of a citizen under the Biden-Harris regime blue areas: States will issue a drivers license to them, social security offices in some areas have ‘smoothed the way’ for them to get a social security number, they can buy/own property and start businesses, they can buy/own homes or rent apartments, they can get jobs and vote in local elections, their kids can go to school, they are entitled to constitutional rights once here, and they go about their lives as if they are U.S. citizens. So its possible some of them believe they are actually U.S. citizens basically because they have been told and treated like they are by Biden and Harris and progressive democrats.
“social security offices in some areas have ‘smoothed the way’ for them to get a social security number“
Would you be kind enough to elaborate about your claim…
Nice to know the courts recognize that illegals may be a member of a people, but are not a member of The People.
Is this argument now settled? I’ve heard conflicting views.
Much improved, in my view. The Achilles Lauro hijacker/murderer was lured on to a boat (sex and drugs, iirc) by the FBI, then brought stateside for trial. A jackass judge cut him loose, saying he had been “entrapped”.
That’s how bad it was way back when. I think he was a Lebanese citizen.
But maybe not settled, don’t know…
All this worthless chatter. Illegal alien liar is a criminal.
*correction – not the Achilles Lauro, but he participated in hijacking a Jordanian airliner. No one was killed. Fawaz Younis was his name. And he wasnt cut loose. Apparently the govt appealed he was convicted, and he served 16 years.
“illegals may be a member of a people, but are not a member of The People“
The second amendment does not grant the right to bear arms to ‘The People’, it grants the right to bear arms to the ‘people’.
I thought you people were all about the ‘black letter text’ of the constitution, now you’re getting a little bit squishy.
The Constitution of the United States of America references the right of the People to keep and bear arms. Unless you can show historical or logical evidence that the Framers really meant the people of Timbuktu, China or even Jupiter, the squish is all yours…
Especially when they are sneaking around.
I note in passing that the concept of enemies foreign and domestic is also clearly recognized in the language of the day.
The handwaving of neoMarxist subversives notwithstanding.
“The Constitution of the United States of America references the right of the People“
Nope, you are lying about the text.
It does not say the right of the ‘People’, it says the right of the ‘people’.
The constitution clearly makes a distinction between ‘citizens’ and ‘people’, a distinction recognized by the courts for 200 years.
And your bullshit about ‘enemies’ does not apply, enemies are declared by congress, not by some Rando on the Internet.
No, Randy, enemies declare themselves. If you have good ears and listen real clise.
By your nonsensical interpretations, a squad of Norko commandos hitting the beach in OR are “refugees”, are entittled to “protection”, and must be allowed to keep their weapons. All they have to do is wear a tshirt “declaring their intentions”, I suppose…
FURTHER – The irrelevant-to-illegal-aliens law you quote excludes all males over 45, and *all* females from the Militia unless they are “members of the National Guard”, and *includes* juvvie males, who are not allowed guns in most blue states anyhow.
I paste it below for reference – “(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.“
The squish is all yours.
“Entrapped” pisses me off.
The question should be “did the person do the crime?”
How they are caught and arrested should make no difference.
Any FFL person care to respond?
Nothing was said but maybe he had a green card. A non-citizen could legally use a green card to purchase could he not?
BillinTx,
A legal resident alien can purchase firearms the same as any U.S. citizen.
Saying it another way, being a legal resident alien does NOT disqualify you for purchasing firearms. The only blanket disqualification is being an illegal alien.
I purchased a lot of firearms on a J visa before gaining an HB1 visa (again more firearms) then a green card (even more firearms) and now a US citizen (lots more firearms), the key in may case is that I was in the country legally. The 4473 has a section that is for folks that are on a non-immigrant visa (anything outside of a green card) to check.
“I purchased a lot of firearms on a J visa before gaining an HB1 visa (again more firearms) then a green card (even more firearms) and now a US citizen”
Pack your bags:
“The Trump administration’s next target: naturalized US citizens
BY STEVEN LUBET, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 11/18/24 11:30 AM ET
But even “documented” immigrants will not be safe, because Miller has declared that he will pursue the seldom-used process of “denaturalization” to go after people who have been citizens for years or decades, based on suspicions about purported fraud on their naturalization applications. Individuals stripped of citizenship will then be subject to deportation along with Miller’s other targets.“
Pack your bags:
“The Trump administration’s next target: naturalized US citizens
BY STEVEN LUBET, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 11/18/24 11:30 AM ET“
Miner is either FOS, or he has no idea what he’s talking about. But what’s new? (See my comment below.)
1. the click bait headline “The Trump administration’s next target: naturalized US citizens”….is false. but leave it up to Miner49er to belive it.
2. what’s being done is looking at those who falsified their applications information. a falsified application automatically invalidates the ‘naturalized’ status thus they are not actually ‘naturalized citizens’ and are non-citizens in the country illegally and are criminal offenders by falsifying the information, and are subject to deportation.
This right here is fascinating:
“2. what’s being done is looking at those who falsified their applications information. a falsified application automatically invalidates the ‘naturalized’ status thus they are not actually ‘naturalized citizens’ and are non-citizens in the country illegally and are criminal offenders“
Does that apply to every immigrant?
“Nude photographs published this week are raising fresh questions about the accuracy of a key aspect of Melania Trump’s biography: her immigration status when she first came to the United States to work as a model.
“her own statements suggest she first came to the country on a short-term visa that would not have authorized her to work as a model. Trump has also said she came to New York in 1996, but the nude photo shoot places her in the United States in 1995, as does a biography published in February by Slovenian journalists.
The inconsistencies come on top of reports by CBS News and GQ Magazine that Trump falsely claimed to have obtained a college degree in Slovenia but could be more politically damaging because her husband has made opposition to illegal immigration the foundation of his presidential run.“
So does the occupation of adult film actress qualify an immigrant for an ‘Einstein visa’?
guilty 1 or 170, does not matter!
LOVE THIS GUY! He’s a de facto citizen and should argue as much to the appeals court, as well as argue the TRUE fact that he IN FACT FULLY ALREADY HAS his 2nd amendment rights because he’s BEEN exercising them for decades! These lying traitors who claim that illegals have no 2nd amendment rights are essentially arguing they have no 1st amendment rights, or 5th amendment rights, which is a total lie. The fascist 4473 form is a full blown WIDE OPEN violation of the right against self incrimination. You don’t have to fill it out, LET ALONE sign it, merely to exercise a fundamental right. The organized crime terrorists at ATF of course lie and claim otherwise and they illegally threaten dealers like the terrorist gestapo they are.
Illegal search as well. The organized crime feds don’t respect ANY PART of the bill of rights.
15 years and still wasn’t decided if the USA was worth being a part of.
In my books if your not a citizen you don’t get any citizens rights.
None.
That’s total garbage, total legal fiction, and you are clearly deeply unfit to be in ANY elected position. Non citizens, who you denigrate as you commit full blown treason against the bill of rights (rights that come from GOD), still have all their rights in the bill of rights and I suspect you KNOW it as you commit treason. You don’t stop your fascism at merely illegals (who you don’t even mention), you commit full blown treason against the bill of rights towards all non citizens. You are disgusting. Your “books” are clearly books of treason and sedition against not just God given liberties but against our nation. I would not burn your “books” I want everyone to see what a total traitor you are and what an avowed dangerous enemy you are to God given personal liberties. Go back to China comrade. You have clearly been perverted by “working” for government. I’ll bet you work to raise taxes as well.
They can exercise their “god given” rights in the country where they are a citizen. Seriously not our problem and this person should be deported immediately, no need to pay for his jail time.
We are a nation of laws. Whether you agree with them or not, there are consequences for violating them.
“They can exercise their “god given” rights in the country where they are a citizen“
So God’s Law doesn’t apply in the United States?
“the bill of rights (rights that come from GOD)“
Or maybe you mean God’s Law just applies to people who look like you…
“So God’s Law doesn’t apply in the United States?”
Correct. Congress writes the laws.
I find it hilarious that Miner49er, an avowed atheist, a violent left wing radical extremist, a defender of murder-by-abortion at the moment of natural birth, a person who voted for Kamala who took her ‘policy’ from the ‘Democratic Socialist of America’ and then had to copy even more from Trump’s policy to get a wiggle in her poll numbers and then told 173 documented provable lies during her campaign, a person who says there is no God — tries to invoke God’s Law to put forth a disingenuous point thinking he is doing a ‘gotcha’ argument, and still gets it wrong and doesn’t understand the subject to begin with.
I find it hilarious that Miner49er, an avowed atheist, a violent left wing radical extremist, a defender of murder-by-abortion at the moment of natural birth, a person who voted for Kamala who took her ‘policy’ from the ‘Democratic Soci — alist of America’ and then had to copy even more from Trump’s policy to get a wiggle in her poll numbers and then told 173 documented provable lies during her campaign, a person who says there is no God — tries to invoke God’s Law to put forth a disingenuous point thinking he is doing a ‘gotcha’ argument when he isn’t, and still gets it wrong and doesn’t understand the subject to begin with.
* — is for moderation escape purposes
Bal’ shoye’ spaseebah,
nie’zashta. – Comrade.
Anyone in America gets all the benefits, citizen or not. Right.
Yay!
Free gubmint cheese for everyone even the social security recipients.
Not.
Why?
Because.
If your not part of the team you don’t get to have the trophy.
So, all the aliens illegally crossing the US border, wearing Biden T-shirts, were guaranteed a 1A right to vote, too? That seems to play into the socialists’ model which tends to ignore constitutional order. Come legal, apply legal, exercise legal rights.
Go back to bed Stacy, we heard you the first time…and we laughed at you then….
Key – illegal alien, he could have been here 50 years and he would be no closer to citizenship. To further expand it took me 14 years to gain US citizenship and I entered legally on a visa.
“it took me 14 years to gain US citizenship and I entered legally on a visa“
Pack your bags:
“The Trump administration’s next target: naturalized US citizens
BY STEVEN LUBET, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 11/18/24 11:30 AM ET“
From your article:
he will pursue the seldom-used process of “de-a-t-u-r-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n*” to go after people who have been citizens for years or decades, based on suspicions about purported fraud on their n-a-t-u-r-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n* applications.
The process for invalidating n-a-t-u-r-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n* was created by statute in 1906, providing that citizenship may be canceled if it was obtained through false statements or fraudulent omissions.
In 2017, the Supreme Court limited the government’s ability to revoke citizenship, unanimously holding that n-a-t-u-r-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n* can only be canceled for “materially” false statements, meaning a lie or intentional omission that would have precluded n-a-t-u-r-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n* in the first place.
In other words, you’re spreading Democrat fearmongering propaganda. That’s about all modern Democrats are good for. Well that, open borders, inflation, tranzing* the kids, ruining women’s sports and setting the world on fire.
I told you guys the fight going forward will be about “protecting immigrant and tranz* communities.” Meanwhile, normal people want to be able to afford food, gas, and housing. Please keep it up Democrats!
*avoiding moderation
Well let’s just examine that language little closer:
“based on “suspicions about purported… “
Yeah baby, you will lose your citizenship based solely on ‘suspicions’, ‘purported’ evidence.
No findings of fact needed, they’ll just revoke your papers and you are out of here.
“Trump Administration Seeks to Strip More People of Citizenship
CASSANDRA BURKE ROBERTSON Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University
IRINA D. MANTA Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law, Hofstra University
This week, the Department of Justice announced the creation of a new section dedicated to investigating, prosecuting, and revoking the citizenship of naturalized Americans. The move follows on the heels of an earlier denaturalization task force created in 2018.“
How sad for you folks, let me be the first to offer thoughts and tariffs.
“…he has the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment…” and “The ruling that illegal immigrants don’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms…”
TTAG readers and authors, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make a note of the fallacy consistently perpetuated here and in the media and in the sacred courtrooms of our nation. (Natural) Rights DO NOT COME FROM THE CONSTITUTION OR AMENDMENTS OR LAW.
(Natural) rights come from nature that we humans enjoy. And “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted…”
The (initial) Amendments to the Constitution are ‘declaratory and restrictive clauses’ ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”
The Amendments are NOT GRANTS of rights, nor can they be, as rights are ‘unalienable’.
Some may argue that this is a distinction without a difference; nothing could be further from the truth. If we continue to perpeutate the lie that our right to keep and bear arms falls under Amendment II, then it follows that if you eliminate AII you also eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. That is patently false, and always will be.
The Amendment Protects Rights. We must change to speaking that Amendment II protects the (natural) right to keep and bear arms. Protects, protects, protects.
Please spread the word.
So your saying a bunch of illegal aliens can swim the river, walk into a gunshop and buy guns.
I’m puzzled.
I suppose when they all turn 68 they are entitled to a Social Security check and Medicare too. Never mind that for 15 years or 100 they never paid one cent into the federal tax system.
@franks
Natural rights can be denied/violated, and routinely are violated globally. The US govt’s historically unique recognition of the sanctity of natural rights, and the pr
otection of the same, is part of the contract between US Citizens and the US govt. Illegal aliens have no contract with the US govt. Full stop.
My comments are directed to the false statements that rights are subordinate to the law/constitution/amendments, my comments were not directed to any protections to illegals.
For the record, illegals have no claim to protections from the United States or any benefit enjoyed by legal citizens.
Sorry that was not clear in my original posting.
“ The question should be “did the person do the crime?”
How they are caught and arrested should make no difference.”
When/if the police break the law for the “greater good”, they should face punishment just like everyone else.
Qualified immunity.
It works if you work it..
“When/if the police break the law for the “greater good”, they should face punishment“
I’m sure you are overjoyed to learn Donald Trump will expand immunity protection for police officers:
“During a May 1, 2024 rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin, Trump said, “We’re going to give our police their power back, and we’re going to give them immunity from prosecution, so they’re not prosecuted for doing their job.”
Trump said something similar during a July 27, 2024 rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota: “We’re going to give immunity to police, so they can do their job. I’m giving federal immunity to police officers, so they can do their job.”
eh, what? THEY allowed him to get the gun after multiple BG Checks? He lied on the Form, is a ILLEGAL, so why not Deport him for it?
Got caught buying guns from a federally controlled gun selling place.
Well, Wow.
Surprise!Surprise!
Smith & Wesson Kicked Off Facebook.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKv7EAST1rM
Smith & Wesson Gets Zucked!
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS1jNbvgnbU
With all the globalist elite billionaires Trump is installing in the government, it will be MAGA who get ‘Zucked,.
“Mark Zuckerberg visits Trump at Mar-a-Lago, reportedly ‘wants to support the national renewal’
Stephen Miller says Zuckerberg sees Trump as ‘an agent of change’
By Andrea Margolis FOXBusiness
Stephen Miller says Zuckerberg met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago
Incoming White House deputy chief of policy Stephen Miller joins ‘The Ingraham Angle’ to discuss President-elect Trump’s transition to the White House and his meeting with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg visited Mar-a-Lago on Wednesday, just months after the tech entrepreneur publicly praised President-elect Trump following the July 13 assassination attempt.
Zuckerberg’s visit to Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida, club was confirmed by Trump adviser Stephen Miller during an episode of “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News Channel.“
DISMANTLING THE DEEP STATE: HOW BANKS DEBANK 2A SUPPORTERS AND GUN BUSINESSES.
Kicking Americans out of the banking system is a hot topic and Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains the connection between the 2nd Amendment and the banking system.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Zoc-Zfvnk
So many uninformed fools in comments here, as always. 🤡
You don’t have to be a US citizen to purchase and posses firearms in USA, you can buy guns legally even if you’re a non immigrant if you simply have a valid hunting license, so if you just come stateside as a tourist you can buy and own guns, not to mention students, permanent residents, or people on worker visas.
The only rights a US citizen has in USA over a non citizen, is the right to vote, for now at least. 😆
5
An alien (i.e. immigrant) LEGALLY in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien (i.e. immigrant) is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit.
18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5), (g)(5) and (y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32(a)(5)
“The only rights a US citizen has in USA over a non citizen, is the right to vote, for now at least. ”
not ‘accurately’ true.
Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States, not citizenship status. Thus many of the basic rights, such as the freedom of religion and speech, the right to due process and equal protection under the law apply to citizens and noncitizens.
However, how they play out and are applied for a non-citizen may be a different matter in some cases.
For example, it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles immigrants to due process of law in deportation proceedings – but depending on the status of the immigrant (i.e. immigrated legally or entered the country illegally) they may or may not be entitled to the due process of ‘appeals’ or other processes.
Those that enter the U.S. illegally are already in violation of federal law by their illegal entry, thus are criminal offenders – their offense is prima facia, then self-confessing if they knew they did not follow immigration law for entry and to remain in the country. Those that ‘harbor’ illegal entry immigrants (i.e. ‘sanctuary cities’) are also, and have been, in violation of federal law thus those responsible in those cities for that ‘harboring’ action (i.e. mayors) are also criminal offenders. Plus, these ‘sanctuary cities’ are actually depriving these illegal entry immigrants of ‘due process’ rights by harboring them.
The law on this has been largely been ignored when it comes to those those responsible in those ‘sanctuary cities’ for that illegal entry immigrant ‘harboring’ action (i.e. mayors). They may have a ‘claimed’ certain level of ‘qualified immunity’ at the city or state level they can get away with in some aspect, but under federal law they have zero ‘qualified immunity’ for this. However, they would receive full due process afforded as a U.S. citizen where the illegal entry immigrant may not receive the full due process like that afforded to a U.S. citizen.
The already existing federal laws for immigration, and illegal immigrants, is going to be enforced once Trump is in office. That much has been made clear. These laws were intentionally ignored by Biden and Harris who ordered others in the immigration system to ignore them as well, and by city mayors and state governors. Although there will might/probably be ‘sanctuary city’ mayors and governors called to account for their wilful and knowing violation of federal law in harboring illegal immigrants.
In the case of the ‘illegal immigrant’ to be deported they have due process as allowed by the deportation process (including a deportation system court) but do not (normally) have access to the due process of the main court system.
In addition, depending on the state a non-citizen (i.e. immigrant) may of may not have certain ‘legal’ rights (not constitutional or civil, but rather certain ‘rights’ defined only in a state law).
At last you are seeing the light, hallelujah!
“Thus many of the basic rights, such as the freedom of religion and speech, the right to due process and equal protection under the law apply to citizens and noncitizens.“
Correct, and those basic rights are enumerated in the bill of rights, including the second amendment which grants the right to keep and bear arms to just plain ol’ people, no need for citizenship, as you correctly point out above.
Thank you!
I remember when the 4473 was a single page.
Now, it’s Seven Pages, although, to be fair, four of those pages are instructions & boilerplate.
Has anyone actually read the whole thing ? I’m too lazy.
Non US citizens are allowed to legally purchase firearms in the United States. There’s a provision in the law that allows people that have a legitimate Visa and a hunting license to purchase a firearm. The judge making the claim that civil rights are not applicable to all within the borders of the United States if they haven’t taken an oath to the United States is ridiculous. Could the judge have denied this man effective representation of counsel or due process because he isn’t a citizen? I think we all know the answer to that.
“Non US citizens are allowed to legally purchase firearms in the United States. ”
IF legally in the country. This guy was not in the country legally.
An alien (i.e. immigrant) LEGALLY in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien (i.e. immigrant) is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit.
18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5), (g)(5) and (y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32(a)(5)
Even if he has a 2A right to firearms, legally he does not because he is in the country illegally.
“The judge making the claim that civil rights are not applicable to all within the borders of the United States if they haven’t taken an oath to the United States is ridiculous“
Correct, and I predict we’ll see an appeal of that ruling.
“IF legally in the country.“
Nope, the second amendment makes no statements about immigration status, furthermore, ‘shall not be infringed’ I am told means no infringement whatsoever.
Now, if he had been taken to court and successfully prosecuted and adjudicated guilty of a particular law, then he might be prohibited from owning a weapon. But that hasn’t happened yet, so up until he was arrested, he still had the right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment.
If illegals don have 2nd Amendment rights, they probably don’t have any rights under the Constitution that can prevent their immediate deportation.
Constitutional rights aside… illegals are eligible for deportation because they are criminal offenders by entering the country or staying in the country illegally, they violated federal law thus becoming criminal offenders. They have no constitutional right to not be deported, they do have a right to due process though and it is due process of law to deport them unless during that procedure they can justify their stay in the country and in the deportation process they will have that chance thus receive due process their too.
Protecting “immigrant and tranz* communities” will be the fight going forward for Dems. It will be that and protecting unnecessary, wasteful, expensive, and even harmful government employees. Please keep fighting for those things. That will win the working class back! Trust me.
*avoiding moderation
If Serrano-Restrepo had a better lawyer, he’d have found the precedent that would get him off all 170 counts of lying on a 4473: Haynes vs US, 1968.
While Serrano-Restrepo does not have rights protected under the 2A because, as an illegal alien, he is not part of “The People” whose rights are protected, he does still retain the right to not self-incriminate under the 5th Amendment, which applies to “any person”.
Here’s where the entire 4473 process goes underwear-on-head stupid: Prohibited persons, including illegal aliens, cannot be prosecuted for lying on the 4473 because they cannot be compelled to self-incriminate, nor punished for lying to avoid self-incrimination. In states with “universal background checks”, they also can’t be prosecuted for skipping the background checks, for the same reason of self-incrimination. The only people that can be prosecuted for lying on a 4473 are the non-prohibited people, and they have no need to lie.
You can still get the prohibited person for the crime of possessing the firearm, but you have to do it without the aid of self-incrimination tools like the 4473 nor a background check system that apparently never bothers to check citizenship/naturalization/visa status. Basically, you have to catch the criminals in possession without those tools, just like you would have to if there was no background check system in the first place. So, other than burdening the American people with more make-work bureaucracy and laying the groundwork for other infringements, what’s the positive utility?
They might as well strip all the YES/NO questions off the form, just keep the identity and firearm details (although I see no positive utility to keeping the firearm info) and change it to a simple statement next to their signature: “I confirm that I am the identified person above, and attempting to purchase this firearm.” The utility of the signature is for matching the identity, more specifically when the person buying is not the identified person, which would be a separate charge of identity fraud.
“he is not part of “The People” whose rights are protected“
Really, you should be more familiar with the second amendment before quoting it.
The second amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms to ‘The People’, it specifically granted that right to ‘the people’.
And in the past few years, the Supreme Court has recognized that right not as a ‘collective’ right but rather the right to keep bear arms is an ‘individual’ right directly applying to individual ‘people’.
Disturbing
If the 2nd Amendment protects the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, then everyone, regardless of citizenship status, also has the right to keep and bear arms. If they don’t, then the right isn’t unalienable.
“If they don’t, then the right isn’t unalienable“
Now wait just a gol-darned minute, you mean them there rights apply to people who don’t look like me?