Leftist Judge Rules Illegal Aliens can Own Guns
In the ultimate irony, a judge for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that an illegal alien with no criminal history (besides entering the country illegally) cannot be “deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”
Judge Sharon Coleman, an Obama appointee, agreed with a lower court ruling that Heriberto Carbajal-Flores’ possession of a firearm posed no threat to others, and therefore, he could not be denied the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. In her opinion, Coleman said:
The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.
Coleman was previously involved in two rulings of significant consequence. In the first, she ruled that same-sex couples could marry immediately instead of waiting until an Illinois law that legalized same sex marriage took effect the following year. The couple filed the lawsuit (Lee v. Orr) because one of the plaintiffs was terminally ill.
In a second case, (US v. Dowd) Coleman ruled that surveillance materials obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) had to be turned over to the defense as part of discovery. Ultimately, Coleman’s ruling was overturned by the Seventh Circuit in an interlocutory appeal.
Coleman Claims Impartiality
As a nominee to the U.S. District Court, Coleman provided answers to a questionnaire submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who was the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time.
Q: Do you think it is ever proper for judges to indulge their own values in determining what the law means?
Coleman: No
Q: Please provide an example of a case in which you had to set aside your own value and rule solely based on the law.
Coleman: I can recall no case in which the law was inconsistent with my values.
Q: Do you think it is ever proper for judges to indulge their own policy preferences in determining what the law means?
Coleman: No
Q: Please provide an example of a case in which you had to set aside your own policy preferences and rule solely based on the law.
Coleman: I can recall no case in which the law was inconsistent with my policy preferences.
So, based on her answers, at that time, Coleman saw herself as entirely impartial, and she claimed her decisions as a member of the District Court would be based only on the Constitution and precedent.
Well, I guess her impartiality doesn’t apply to cases with national policy implications.
Understanding the Gun Ruling
Carbajal-Flores was charged under 18 U.S.C. 922, which explicitly prohibits certain categories of individuals, including illegal aliens, from owning firearms. The law has stood unchallenged since 1968, and its efficacy is self-evident. Illegal aliens have broken the law and are active criminals in that regard. In many cases, violation of immigration laws like 8 U.S. Code 1325 is considered a felony.
That should be the end of the story. Period.
However, Coleman, who swore she would not infuse her own beliefs into any judgement, used tortured logic and relied on cases largely unrelated to the issues presented by Carbajal-Flores. After initially siding with the government in 2022, Coleman reversed herself and cited the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen as the basis of her new decision. However, that case related to the unconstitutionality of concealed carry weapons bans in public places. In Range v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2023 that people who were convicted of non-violent crimes retained their Second amendment rights, but that ruling applied to U.S. citizens, not illegal aliens.
Essentially, Coleman concocted a clever way to use unrelated gun rights rulings as an excuse to arm people literally no one wants to have a gun.
Still, the larger question is what rights are implicitly granted to illegal aliens? Generally, it is agreed by most legal scholars that aliens have rights under the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, but those protections are designed to shield them from harsh or inhumane treatment during the apprehension, detention and deportation process. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to any of those circumstances. Allowing aliens to possess firearms simply adds to the growing caldron of societal chaos leftists have created.
The Underlying Purpose of Coleman’s Ruling
It’s important to remember that every decision by a leftist in a position of authority has only one purpose: to advance the broader goal of authoritarian rule. Thus, when common sense would dictate that putting a gun in the hand of an illegal alien has the same potential for disaster as putting a gun in the hand of a 4-year-old, leftists hide behind a strawman argument.
In many instances, these people are not vetted and have ties to the worst gangs in Mexico and Latin America. Allowing them to legally roam free with firearms is simply asking for a catastrophic outcome.
Which is exactly what anti-gun leftist radicals are hoping for.
Every time there is a human tragedy involving guns, leftists believe they wear down the resolve of patriotic Americans to retain their right to bear firearms. Certainly, Coleman’s ruling will only succeed in ratcheting up the already elevated level of street gun violence, and every new bloody shooting provides the left and their complicit media propaganda wing with an opportunity to preach their pious, moral superiority and demand a ban on guns. In essence, Coleman’s ruling solves the house fire by pouring gasoline on it.
I know that every gun-owning American grieves whenever there is another senseless mass shooting. We wish we lived in a country where we could trust our government to protect our rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, woke leftists have infected the federal government like a lethal contagion, and they will not stop until they have achieved their goal of destroying America.
As long as this reign of terror continues, we must protect our Second Amendment rights at all costs. There can be no room for compromise until the scourge of woke leftists has ended.
