We’re going to talk about the case of us versus Carbahal Flores, which said that just because somebody is an illegal immigrant in the United States does not mean they do not have the right to self defense under the Second Amendment. Guys, my name is Jared. This is guns and gadgets. And if you believe the second amendment is for everyone, then like the video and subscribe to the channel down below this topic.

This ruling came out Friday and this topic over the weekend. I’ve been watching the different responses from some of the most trusted legal minds in our community, and there is division in the ranks. Now, there are people who say that if you’re an illegal immigrant, you are not part of the people and you’re not part of the political class, which several landmark U. S. Supreme Court cases talk about.

For instance, the people have the right to vote. The people have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. But if you’re not an american citizen, here is the question. If you’re not an american citizen, are you part of the people? Now, this question has been handled in numerous cases, and they’re all different types of rulings, and this case and the range case which is waiting for the Supreme Court could change that.

Let’s talk about this, because this is a topic that has the second Amendment community at ODs with each other, and I want to know where you stand. But first, let’s see what the judge said. Here is the case. It’s the US versus Hariberto carbajal flores. Let’s go in the beginning here it says defendant Hariberto Carbahal Flores is charged with possession of a firearm while illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 USC 922 G five.

On April 13, the court denied Flores’s first motion to dismiss the indictment. On December 19 of 22, the court denied Carbahal Flores’s second motion to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds in light of recent Supreme Court case New York state rifle and pistol association versus Bruin. Before this court is Carbahal Flores’s renewed motion to dismiss in light of the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Range v. Garland and the 7th Circuit’s decision in Atkinson v.

Garland, and then for the reasons below, this court grants the motion to dismiss some of the background. Carbahol Flores contends that he received and used the handgun for self protection and protection of property. Because of Carbahol Flores’s citizenship status, he was charged in violation of 18 USC 922 G five, which prohibits any noncitizen, who is not legally authorized to be in the United States from possessing, in or affecting commerce any firearm or ammunition, or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Now, that’s the commerce clause. Many people don’t understand what the Commerce clause is. It’s basically the federal government’s way of doing anything they want to you because of interstate commerce. How do they control guns? Because they don’t have that express consent in the constitution. Well, they use the commerce clause. Well, that gun was made here and shipped there. It went through states, the commerce clause. Parts of that ammunition came from different parts of the world or different parts of the country.

Ah, the commerce clause. And the government is trying to be your emperor. But this case goes a little deeper, and this is something that I really want to hear from you. Illegal immigrants, do they have a second amendment right in the United States? Some information on Carbahol Flores. His criminal record reflects no felony convictions. On February 26 and 24, pretrial services issued the pretrial release status update on him, and the report found that he has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release.

Pretrial services has conducted numerous employment visits at various sites, and he consistently provides the necessary documentation to verify his income when requested. A criminal record check conducted through NCIC reflects no new arrests or outstanding warrants. Here’s some of the argument. Carbohal Flores asserts that the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Range v. Garland and the 7th Circuit’s decision in Atkinson v. Garland signify a change in law warranting dismissal of the indictment.

The government argues that Carbahal Flores’s motion for consideration must fail because neither of the two cases upon which he relies adversely affects this court’s earlier decision to uphold section 922, G Five, as constitutional. While this court agrees that range is not binding on this court, the 7th Circuit’s holding in Atkinson warrants discussion. Quick background this same judge in April of 2022, upheld this law that says an illegal immigrant doesn’t have the right to have a gun.

No Second Amendment rights. But two months later, in June of 2022, the Supreme Court said in the Bruin decision that the Second Amendment, unless a government can prove that their ban is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, text history and tradition, then it was unconstitutional. And the government, the ban that the government is talking about, they said that there was a similar ban back in the colonial, early colonial, earlier country days that banned british loyalists from owning weapons.

And this judge did a great job. The judge said, actually, that ban wasn’t a blanket ban. It was based off of the individuals and things that they may have done. And other british loyalists were allowed to have their second amendment. So the judge said that the government’s attempt at saying this is a historical consistency. The judge said, no, that does not apply. The judge said that the ban on illegal immigrants second Amendment rights is unconstitutional.

Now, there are people, I’ve seen a bunch of responses on a bunch of different platforms. And one of them, I don’t remember who put this down, and I’ll surmise it was something like this. There are millions and millions of illegal immigrants coming in, and if all of a sudden we let them have guns, then we just allowed the arming of a foreign army. Well, maybe then there are people saying, hey, if somebody is in this country, all of the rights apply.

Because the Second Amendment is not granted by the Constitution. It’s recognized as a preexisting right that everybody has. Those are the ends of the spectrum. Somewhere in between is this argument. And now that we have different decisions from different circuits, it’s ripe for consideration by the Supreme Court. Check this part out. The Second Amendment. In Bruin, the Supreme Court established a framework for analyzing whether a challenged firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment.

First, Bruin instructs courts to determine whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct. If it does, this conduct is presumptively protected. And the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the challenged regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This court previously held that Carbahol Florius’conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, nothing has occurred that would cause the court to depart from its prior ruling.

Although the Second Amendment’s plain text presumptively protects firearm possession by undocumented persons, that does not end the analysis. Under Bruin, if the government can show that the felon dispossession statute is part of this country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, then the statute survives. And here’s the quick conclusion by Judge Coleman, who is a Barack Obama appointee, which, you know, has got people all tight and bothered. Is this the non citizen statute? 18 USC 922 G Five violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbahol Flores.

Thus, the court grants Carbahol Flores’s motion to dismiss. And this is Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, US District court judge of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. So there’s the groundwork, there’s the background. What say you, America, do folks who enter this country illegally have the glorious right, the glorious blessing bestowed upon all, which is the right to protect yourself? Now I want to remind you, because I don’t think I mentioned this when he had this firearm on him.

It was the spring of 2020. During the whole burning the country down to influence the election thing, the mostly peaceful protests, that was when he decided he needed to arm himself for protection. Does that help sway your decision or does it not affect your decision? I would love to hear from you guys and gals again. If you want second amendment information, you want information on court cases or laws or whatever else happens in our community, whether it’s good, bad, ugly, or indifferent, I will bring it to you on a daily basis.

Subscribe to this channel down below to stay in the loop. Double check your subscriptions because YouTube be playing games. And I appreciate your time and I look forward to your response on this issue because this is dividing some of the most trusted minds in the industry, which is good to see. It’s good to see people disagree. It’s good to see people give their argument. But I think I know what people are saying.

What about you, Jared? I think everybody has the right to self defense. Everybody has a right to defend themselves. And I don’t think a government gets to tell me how I get to defend myself if someone is trying to attack my child. No government, no government employee, whether it’s a cop or the president, nobody will tell me how I get to save my son, my daughter. In that instance.

Nobody’s. .

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.