Mugshot of Fermin Garcia-Gutierrez, an eight-time-deported illegal alien and repeat illegal possession of firearms offender, is now facing murder charges in Ohio for allegedly shooting a man dead.

Politics, and now court rulings, it seems certainly make for strange bedfellows. In a move most conservatives and pro-gun organizations likely agree with, Biden’s Justice Department will challenge a recent court decision affirming the Second Amendment rights of undocumented immigrants. This move escalates a complex debate that to many Americans on both sides of the gun issue defies logic, while spotlighting two cases that have the potential to reshape long-standing federal firearm regulations and even other aspects of immigration law.

The Washington Times reports at the heart of the controversy is a ruling by Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, who last month dismissed charges against Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an undocumented immigrant caught firing at vehicles in Chicago’s Little Village. Citing a pivotal 2022 Supreme Court decision, Judge Coleman concluded that the federal ban on gun possession by people in the U.S. illegally could not stand, marking a significant pivot from traditional interpretations of gun control

“This Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional,” she stated, emphasizing that Carbajal-Flores’ lack of a violent criminal record rendered him undeserving of losing his Second Amendment rights.

The Justice Department’s decision to appeal this ruling underscores the case’s gravity.

“It can be a highly impactful ruling and I’m sure the government has a significant interest in wanting to get a ruling that maintains the integrity of the federal firearms regulation system,” noted Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, in the Times article. This appeal signals the government’s determination to uphold existing restrictions categorizing undocumented immigrants as “prohibited purchasers” alongside felons and drug users and even Americans dishonorably discharged from the military.

There are currently 11 automatic disqualifiers on the Federal Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record that must be completed before any firearms purchase at an FFL. Question 21.l. specifically asks, “Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States?” A “yes” answer legally precludes the buyer from completing the purchase. But the judge’s ruling could upend all of that.

The legal landscape has been notably altered by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which dismantled a state law limiting concealed-carry permits and set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions. Justice Clarence Thomas in Bruen emphasized that firearms restrictions must align with historical precedents from the time of the Second Amendment’s drafting and ratification.

The Carbajal-Flores and another case from Texas, involving Antonio Sing-Ledezma, are pioneering challenges that scrutinize gun regulation through the lens of Bruen’s methodology. They question whether noncitizens should be treated differently under the Second Amendment, potentially leading to a “two-tier constitutional system,” as Gulasekaram warns. Such a design could have far-reaching implications for immigrants’ rights and the future of the United States as well.

These cases do not stand alone but are part of a broader wave of litigation testing the limits of gun control laws post-Bruen. High-profile challenges include disputes over prohibitions for drug users and domestic violence suspects, as well as state bans on high-capacity magazines and certain semiautomatic rifles. The outcomes of these cases could significantly impact America’s legal landscape regarding who can legally possess firearms and has reshaped the legal arguments in ways even pro-gun supporters could not have imagined when Bruen effectively struck down a number of anti-Second Amendment laws on the books.

The Times article noted critics like Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, argue that undocumented immigrants do not constitute part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Conversely, scholars like Gulasekaram see no constitutional basis for excluding noncitizens from these rights, suggesting that doing so would erode the egalitarian foundations of American law.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

58 COMMENTS

  1. Of all liberal bullshit, this is the bullshitiest that I have ever hear.

    Illegals should be jailed, not allowed to carry guns. Fucking idiots

    • It’s so indicative of the state of our nation; American Citizens living in Illinois can’t even possess a firearm in their own home without a Firearms Owner ID Card (FOID). Yet somehow non-US Citizens have the constitutional right to discharge a firearm in public and face no consequences… Occam’s razor applied to this scenario tells me it’s just a rogue judge trying to keep a criminal illegal out of prison. She probably didn’t intend to touch off a legal firestorm. The more cynical conspiracy is that by citing Bruen and Heller in her decision she’s trying to open the door for the Feds to attack the decisions with support of the 2A community… that seems less likely as the people are often more ‘Veep’ than ‘House of Cards’.

  2. “Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, argue that undocumented immigrants do not constitute part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.”

    “Undocumented immigrants” aka illegal aliens are considered “the people” by judicial decisions when it comes to the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments.

      • Getting you to undermine the Constitution, and thereby getting you to provide the fertile soil to plant the seeds of of your own destruction is the game that’s afoot here.

        I suggest being quite wary of playing it.

        “Your real action is your enemies reaction” is not just some catchphrase on the Left. Nor is ““If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive”.

        The entire point of both is that they’re trying to provoke you into doing something. In this regard, they want you to argue against your own pro-2A/pro-Constitution positions that you’ve previously espoused.

        That’s not an accident. They’re setting you up.

    • ““Undocumented immigrants” aka illegal aliens are considered “the people” by judicial decisions when it comes to the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments.”

      Is this your view of the situation?

      Just asking before I reply.

      • it’s very consistent with Bruen
        “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”

        Historically citizenship was not a requirement for firearms ownership, that may not be a palatable thought but it is true. The next test of Bruen will probably be the Lautenberg Amendment and quite possibly the felon in possession of a firearm (18 USC 922)

  3. illegals are not entitled to squat includes the squandered taxpayer money used to feed, house, cloth and transport them…the goal is nothing more than votes for marxist democRats. fjb.

  4. We want our illegals to live legally! Yea that makes sense.

    Of all the times a court goes all pro gun and its this one?!? Geez

    • Illegals have the right to defend themselves in their ciountry of origin and here in America. I have the right to kill you if you threaten my family with grievous harm illegal or not.

      • Dude wasn’t defending himself he was shooting at random passing vehicles. Also a nation has the right to limit foreign nationals’ access to weaponry on the basis of national security. Everyone has the natural right to self defense, but that’s not at all applicable to what happened in this case.

        • I haven’t read this case, but I suspect the charges being scrutinized here have to do only with possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. Presumably, this person will still face consequences for firing at passing traffic, even if the courts decide that he was, indeed, entitled to possess a firearm under the 2A.

        • Also a nation has the right to limit foreign nationals’ conservative’s access to weaponry on the basis of national security.

          FTFY (Slippery slopes.)

          The correct answer is; there should be no illegal aliens in the USA. Illegal entry into the USA = immediate deportation. “Foreign nationals” that remain law abiding guests of our country are welcome to the same protections of US citizens.

  5. Illegal aliens have no right to the Second Amendment. Illegal aliens have no right to vote in the United States. And illegal aliens should never be hired as police officers in the United States.

    But libertarians liberals on the left are very comfortable allowing all of that happen.

    • Actually that’s more complicated.

      The Constitution defines who may or may not vote in the 14A

      “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

      and expressly reserves that right to such people in the 15A

      “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged…”

      the 24th

      “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged”

      and the 26th

      “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older…”

      There is no text in the 2A that indicates that “the people” refers only to the legally defined term “citizens”. That is an assumption that relies on supposition or at least facts not in evidence.

      • A reasonable and well researched comment from S9 is met with comments about anal sex…

        Honestly, it is just creepy the way some of you folks are always thinking about same sex erotic activities… Get a room.

        • This is miner49er using a different name.

          “T Rextum”
          “butt sex”

          btw
          The butt sex crowd does not need a hotel room. That is why they invented the “glory hole.”

          Consenting adults correct???

        • “This is miner49er using a different name”

          False.

          You are the one posting about same sex activities:

          “Chris T in KY
          April 8, 2024 At 17:06
          That’s legal butt sex.“

          “That is why they invented the “glory hole.”

          So what is a “glory hole”?

      • to strych9
        I know this history. And having 150 years of literacy test requirements for voting. Never seem to disturb the smartest people room.

        Also The smartest people in the room were very comfortable.Telling christians to not attend easter services in 2020. But is ok to attend BLM, Antifa, and gay pride parades.

        It’s interesting how so many people like to use black people, as a reason to expand civil rights for other folks.

        And at the same time deny civil rights to black people and everyone else.

  6. It’s an interesting philosophical question, actually.

    Given that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it contains the BOR we can safely say that all other laws flow from the Constitution because without it there’s no authority to create those “lower” laws.

    This being the case, the Constitution applies to all people within US jurisdiction (and US citizens abroad). No one seriously argues that someone here visiting from, say, France or Belgium isn’t protected by the 1A or the 5A. No one would seriously argue we can torture them for funzies either. The same is generally applied to those here illegally. We’re not just rounding up people and deporting them without due process, for example.

    A serious Constitutionalist might say that this is because the BOR doesn’t grant rights but merely recognizes human rights that existed before the BOR was written. This isn’t an uncommon argument.

    However, that kind of creates a sticky wicket in some regards for the 2A because it strongly suggests that the court’s ruling vis a vis Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, that illegals can possess firearms legally, is correct. It’s a human right, recognized and codified by the BOR and the BOR applies within US jurisdiction which the illegal is in. The person in question therefore has the right and is in a jurisdiction which recognizes that right. Only due process of law could strip them of the legal ability to exercise that right.

    Further, if this is not the case, then logically speaking, the person is not an illegal because the Constitution doesn’t matter and therefore doesn’t grant the authority to generate “lower” laws. Ergo, the law that makes such a person illegal is null anyway.

    The middle ground seems to be the abhorrent position of “We can pick and choose which rights apply to whom and do so without due process of law”, which itself would seem to abrogate the Constitution itself, or at least the BOR.

    This would seem to lead to a question for many people of whether or not their fidelity to the Constitution will allow them to tolerate things they strongly disapprove of.

    Realistically, the it would seem that the answer here to pass a law that says that upon conviction of being here illegally, one becomes a “prohibited person” for some period of time and is also subject to deportation (that is, attach a removal of previous gun access to the conviction for this particular charge, which means they’re stripped of rights after due process).

    This allows the firearm to be confiscated and the person to be deposited outside the US where the issue is moot.

    This would seem to jive with the reality that 1. criminals gonna criminal and you can’t prevent all crime anyway, only punish what you catch and hope it suppresses crime at the margin and 2. the person is here illegally and needs to be removed from US society, preferably with minimal cost to the taxpayer (that is, not prison).

    But, IRL, that’s a stopgap solution that doesn’t plug the ever-growing philosophical hole that mass illegal migration creates.

    Interesting times.

    • NO the Dec of Independence AND the Constitution are the supreme law. The Dec is a statement that applies to all people. In particular those in US territory, The Constitution applies ONLY to citizens. Activist/wacko courts may have improperly applied their interpretation to immorally expand on this. As the nonsense of “birthright citizenship” And need to be overturned. As in many other issues.

      Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman – why am I not surprised. Affirmative action of Chiraq. The progs couldn’t manufacture her a Trump case?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Johnson_Coleman

      • Please point to the clause in the Constitution where it says that it only applies to citizens.

        Then explain how the recognition of pre-existing human rights by the BOR is logically nullified by real world outcomes you don’t prefer.

        Following that explain how, if the Consitution is what grants law-making authority, and that subsumed legal codes would apply to those whom the Constitution does not.

        I’m sorry, but wanting something doesn’t make it consistant with other claims.

        This is why I constantly bang on about how Conservatives have no philosophical core but rather are just like the Left. both sides are emotionally driven and want their desires to be enforced by government. The only difference is policy preferences.

        • I’ll have to agree with your analysis of people vs citizen in the constitution. I don’t believe the judge had constitutional correctness in mind when she made the ruling, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

        • @Mr. Eyerly:

          “I don’t believe the judge had constitutional correctness in mind when she made the ruling…”

          Probably not.

          More likely she was focused on Alinsky’s Rule #4 (Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules), Rule 8 (Keep the pressure on. Never let up) and Rule 10 (If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive).

          If she wasn’t focused on them, she sure managed to nail they by accident.

      • “NO the Dec of Independence AND the Constitution are the supreme law“

        Nope, only the constitution, which makes no mention of the declaration of independence.

        The declaration of independence was an aspirational document, written before there was even a United States of America, and it holds no sway over people on this continent.

        Question for the Christians:
        If the right of self-defense with a firearm is God-given, how can Man decree upon which ground God’s Law is invalid?

        • Not a Christian. But I’m reading your comment to mean that we have the right to carry firearms anywhere, anytime.

  7. Don’t be fooled. This “judge” has not suddenly become a fan of the Second Amendment.

    This is literally nothing more than one more attack on Bruen. Dozens of lower court rulings that seem to favor and support the Second Amendment, citing what they consider to be the “excuse of Bruen” are designed for only one purpose: To paint Bruen in a light that is so “ridiculous” from their anti-gun point of view that there will be no choice but to overturn it in the future.

    Don’t fall for the trap. This case should be ONLY about illegal immigration, NOT the Second Amendment.

    • Meh. Dim judges pick & chose the “law”. Thank GOD DJT appointed SCOTUS justices. I guarantee FFL’s will NOT sell a gat to pedro or Akbar as a result of this gal judge🙄

      • No, but the ATF will yank their FFLs for ” Prejuducial Denials ” when they suddenly are able to get cleared on their 4473s, courtesy of DHS and DOJ

        • Unfortunately I can’t disagree that such a thing is a real possibility under the concept of “equity”.

          IRL, most of them probably buy stolen guns though just because of the ease of access.

    • Illegal immigration and the fact that the man in question was firing shots at random vehicles in the middle of the street. Nobody has that right in this country.

  8. What total BS. In this case I too agree with the Justice Dept. The Constitution and the laws of the land are for Citizens. That we are a compassionate society we extend much of our legal safeguards even to non-citizens. Mr. Gulasekaram and maybe that judge can’t seem to distinguish between non-citizen and Citizen. Typical One Worlder socialist garbage that disrespects us Citizens.

    I’m all for Mexicans, along with Central and South Americans to have firearms; in their own countries!

  9. Any non mental disabled adult should have the right to buy and carry any small arms (no point of repeating art) and carry them anywhere open ore concealed in the world in any public space !!

    Most felons are an concept ore construct from goverment thats wants controll you complete as in china and keep you low in the fiatmoney scam.

  10. If a person wants to benifit from the United States of America’s Constitutional Rights then they need to become a citizen.

  11. Well, what were the gun rights of illegals in the past? I’m guessing no one legally challenged them.

    Bruen giveth, Bruen taketh away.

  12. “…Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an undocumented immigrant…”

    Really? I think you spelled ILLEGAL incorrectly.

    • “Non citizens do not and should not have rights here, especially at our expense”
      Geronimo, 1850

    • So, if a Polish guy here on vacation is accused of a sex crime we don’t need to bother with a trial and can move right along to execution by torture?

      Or perhaps we can have a trial but ignore all the usual rules and then move along to an intentionally cruel punishment?

      Ooo, how about this: J6ers engaged in insurrection and can be stripped of their citizenship (an argument that has actually been made, see Review Journal) and then we can do terrible things to them without a trial, right?!

      Well, they were denaturalized and are not citizens so this is what you advocated for!

      I mean, like it or not, that’s what you’ve said here and that’s what the Left will say if they start denaturalizing people like you. I can almost hear the “Oh, that would never happen” claims that come right before “WTF, they can’t do that TO ME!” protestations.

      Tell it to the wall, Comrade. Don’t worry, it’s a one-way conversation but it will be short.

      Jesus, the Left puts a bear trap on the floor and the Right just falls all over themselves to jump right into it.

      • I’m not bothering to read all that garbage. Non citizens do not and should not enjoy our rights, period.

        If that statement offends you, I invite you to eat tide pods over it.

        • Miner, I suppose you feel very superior assuming half the country doesn’t read, which is probably a comforting thought for you. If all Trump voters can be assigned to the “illiterate yokel” category, you’ll never have to question whether you’re actually the problem here.

          Hint: you are.

        • “I’m not bothering to read all that garbage.”

          A lesser man might suggest your trisomy is showing. I, however, would never say such a thing.

          “Non citizens do not and should not enjoy our rights, period.”

          Maybe they shouldn’t but they do. Don’t like it? Amend the Constitution.

          “If that statement offends you, I invite you to eat tide pods over it.”

          If anything this is slightly amusing because you think it might be offensive. IRL, 2018 called and wants its insult back.

          Try to keep up, gramps.

  14. I’ll say it again. The guy in question was not simply carrying a firearm. He was shooting at traffic in public. The second amendment does not give him immunity from prosecution for that conduct, citizen or not. The Obama judge dismissed all charges against him, citing the recent scotus rulings and the defendant’s “second amendment rights”. I assert adamantly that a sovereign nation has the right to restrict criminal foreigners from shooting at random cars… how is this even a debate?

  15. Constitutional law is NOT EGALITARIAN (Marxist) but equal rights for We the People, NOT we the illegal aliens. This is a set up for arming the illegals to eliminate us which is the original purpose of the invasion anyway.

  16. goo fee bits ch. ignore anomaly not precedent.
    violent ones locked up/ sent away, everybody else carries.

Comments are closed.