VaporTrail Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 Man, people are hung up on the headline, but no one's bothering to look at the legal reasoning to arrive at this federal judge's conclusion, which is absolutely the correct decision for 2A supporters. The illegal who was charged for the crime got the pistol for personal protection during the 2020 BLM riots. Should the guy even be in the country in the first place? No, but that's not what this case is about. It's about if your status as an illegal precludes you from rights guaranteed in the constitution, particularly gun ownership. Anyways, her legal reasoning Permit requirements are illegal Public carry restrictions are illegal Banning non-violent criminals from gun ownership is illegal This reasoning could be used in the future for increasing gun rights on a national level. Hello? National open carry, maybe? Fuck yeah. Here is her concluding paragraph in the case Quote The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country. The Court notes, however, that Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020. Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants. 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. Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional. The whole case is here and worth a read. Honestly, I am pleasantly surprised this is coming from an Obama appointee. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2 Huge win for pro 2A. I really can't state that enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 6 minutes ago, VaporTrail said: The whole case is here and worth a read. Honestly, I am pleasantly surprised this is coming from an Obama appointee. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2 Huge win for pro 2A. I really can't state that enough. Your sarcasm is duly noted. I'm not surprised at all she was an obaMao appointee. Her rationalizations are nonsense, ignoring the point I made earlier - My opinion - "We the People" are CITIZENS of the United States. Not invaders. They broke the law to even get here. They are NOT welcomed individuals, with green cards, visas, etc. Now, I'm no legal beagle, and illegals have certain protections to be treated fairly. It's FAIR to prosecute them for entering our country ILLEGALLY, especially after committing felonies, (which a repeated illegal entry should be a felony), ... Somebody high up should appoint me to a federal judgeship. I don't know much about the law, but that doesn't stop Justice Jackson, da willis, and the nasty ho in NY etc. so there's that...... Back to my point: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. --Preamble to the United States Constitution" Illegals are not "of the United States", therefore our Constitution does not apply to them. So our Bill of Rights only applies to people OF THE UNITED STATES. Not illegals. Why is that so tough for lawyers and judges to understand ? dammit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 so, OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to US, NOT the people of other countries who illegally come here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 6 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: so, OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to US, NOT the people of other countries who illegally come here. Two centuries of legal precedent disagrees with your feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 11 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: Your sarcasm is duly noted. I'm not surprised at all she was an obaMao appointee. Her rationalizations are nonsense, ignoring the point I made earlier - My opinion - "We the People" are CITIZENS of the United States. Not invaders. They broke the law to even get here. They are NOT welcomed individuals, with green cards, visas, etc. Now, I'm no legal beagle, and illegals have certain protections to be treated fairly. It's FAIR to prosecute them for entering our country ILLEGALLY, especially after committing felonies, (which a repeated illegal entry should be a felony), ... Somebody high up should appoint me to a federal judgeship. I don't know much about the law, but that doesn't stop Justice Jackson, da willis, and the nasty ho in NY etc. so there's that...... Back to my point: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. --Preamble to the United States Constitution" Illegals are not "of the United States", therefore our Constitution does not apply to them. So our Bill of Rights only applies to people OF THE UNITED STATES. Not illegals. Why is that so tough for lawyers and judges to understand ? dammit. There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 No, it's not... Illegals are exactly that, Illegals.. Not citizens of the United States therefore they should have zero rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan1 Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 Vapor is losing it. How the hell can an Illegal alien have the same rights as an American citizen? There is absolutely no justification for this liberal pos judge to say that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 Non-Cheetos Jesus did any of you losers take a civic class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, VaporTrail said: There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FY56 Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 2 hours ago, VaporTrail said: Man, people are hung up on the headline, but no one's bothering to look at the legal reasoning to arrive at this federal judge's conclusion, which is absolutely the correct decision for 2A supporters. The illegal who was charged for the crime got the pistol for personal protection during the 2020 BLM riots. Should the guy even be in the country in the first place? No, but that's not what this case is about. It's about if your status as an illegal precludes you from rights guaranteed in the constitution, particularly gun ownership. Anyways, her legal reasoning Permit requirements are illegal Public carry restrictions are illegal Banning non-violent criminals from gun ownership is illegal This reasoning could be used in the future for increasing gun rights on a national level. Hello? National open carry, maybe? Fuck yeah. Here is her concluding paragraph in the case The whole case is here and worth a read. Honestly, I am pleasantly surprised this is coming from an Obama appointee. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2 Huge win for pro 2A. I really can't state that enough. How many times must I post this stuff. PolitiFact | Migrants living in the U.S. unlawfully can not legally purchase firearms PolitiFact previously found that although an Illinois law enacted in 2024 makes it legal for noncitizens to become police officers, that law applies only to those who are both legally allowed to work in the U.S. and own a firearm. Because federal law says only immigrants who are in the U.S. legally may own a firearm, immigrants who are unlawfully in the country are ineligible to become police officers. Federal laws expressly prohibit immigrants in US illegally from purchasing or possessing guns The bulk of federal law governing who can legally possess firearms in the U.S. is spelled out in 18 U.S.C. 922, established by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and amended by subsequent legislation. It lists groups of people who are not allowed to possess firearms, and the prohibitions still on the books today include several categories of non-citizens, according to Johnny Michael, an ATF spokesperson. Those prohibited include anyone who is an “illegal alien” along with anyone who has renounced U.S. citizenship, according to the law. Federal firearm regulations must be based on that law, Michael explained. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 41 minutes ago, cccjwh said: Non-Cheetos Jesus did any of you losers take a civic class? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FY56 Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 11 minutes ago, Vambo said: Holy cow. I don't weather to laugh or be disgusted. Part of me would have liked to have seen that ape waste one of those sub-humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 22 minutes ago, FY56 said: Holy cow. I don't weather to laugh or be disgusted. Part of me would have liked to have seen that ape waste one of those sub-humans. Those are the type of people Biden has been letting come in and roam free across the country, noww wants to let them vote and give guns to UNVETTED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 21 Author Report Share Posted March 21 3 hours ago, VaporTrail said: There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out. no, that surely had to be sarcasm. It is no win for our 2nd Amendment, it is a devious manipulation against it, a violation of the criteria for those who qualify as "We the People". This dangerously corrupt, leftist socialist gov is seeking total power, and enabling illegals to have the same rights as WE THE PEOPLE, not only is a farce, but a step towards giving them the vote in November. If you can't see that, you just don't want to. My point stands, and the judge is just dishonestly leftist. Which fits exactly what obaMao wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 get over the headline, ffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 21 Author Report Share Posted March 21 9 minutes ago, VaporTrail said: get over the headline, ffs which explains nothing. My point still stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Honestly the responses here couldn't be any less surprising Another example of any shred of principle being thrown out in favor of anger, fear, and reactionary BS (and a few ism's) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: Honestly the responses here couldn't be any less surprising Another example of any shred of principle being thrown out in favor of anger, fear, and reactionary BS (and a few ism's) Clutch your pearls Woodrow. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said: Clutch your pearls Woodrow. Read the OP, dumbass. And then talk about clutching your pearls. Read the front page of the fourm, nothing but righty clutching their pearls over and over again. DHS’ failure to file paperwork led to 200K immigration court cases tossed November may come too late - WWIII possibilities growing Biden to ink move meant to try to force Americans to drive electric cars this week Will this happen - even worse, with our 2024 National election? Sounds like "martial law" and a "national security emgergency takeover of our gov" ? eh? Righty has been scared for 20 years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 3 hours ago, MLD Woody said: Honestly the responses here couldn't be any less surprising Another example of any shred of principle being thrown out in favor of anger, fear, and reactionary BS (and a few ism's) Kind of like being scared of man made global warming...? White supremacy...? Oppression...? Scary statues...? Trump...? Oil...? Police...? Cal...? Guns...? Free speech...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Dumbasses want to blame American citizens that don't want illegals invading their country and there's dipshits out there that haven't got a clue why but blame it on fear and bigotry. It's not just conservatives against the illegal invasion, it's not left vs right, dem vs repub, it's American citizens against dumbasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 2 hours ago, cccjwh said: Read the OP, dumbass. And then talk about clutching your pearls. Read the front page of the fourm, nothing but righty clutching their pearls over and over again. DHS’ failure to file paperwork led to 200K immigration court cases tossed November may come too late - WWIII possibilities growing Biden to ink move meant to try to force Americans to drive electric cars this week Will this happen - even worse, with our 2024 National election? Sounds like "martial law" and a "national security emgergency takeover of our gov" ? eh? Righty has been scared for 20 years now. One of my favorite ironies on this board is cal and other right wingers saying "liberals" are too emotional and then turning around and having all of their political views driven by fear (not even anger, just fear) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, MLD Woody said: One of my favorite ironies on this board is cal and other right wingers saying "liberals" are too emotional and then turning around and having all of their political views driven by fear (not even anger, just fear) How will you do background checks on them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 6 hours ago, cccjwh said: Read the OP, dumbass. And then talk about clutching your pearls. Read the front page of the fourm, nothing but righty clutching their pearls over and over again. DHS’ failure to file paperwork led to 200K immigration court cases tossed November may come too late - WWIII possibilities growing Biden to ink move meant to try to force Americans to drive electric cars this week Will this happen - even worse, with our 2024 National election? Sounds like "martial law" and a "national security emgergency takeover of our gov" ? eh? Righty has been scared for 20 years now. Did I hurt your feelings dipshit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said: Did I hurt your feelings dipshit? You hurt my funny bone from laughing at how much of a little whiny bitch you are. 😄 Cry some more, little bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 4 hours ago, Vambo said: How will you do background checks on them? You won't. FFLs still won't sell to them. They can't buy them legally. They'll just bring them in from Mexico or buy them from the black market here. This law literally changes nothing for illegals except that they won't be detained for simply having a firearm (which the Biden admin wasn't really doing anyways). There are laws against illegals being in the country, but the Biden admin doesn't enforce them. The Biden admin EO'd away all of the EOs that Trump used to effectively deport them. So if 2024 rolls around and Trump wins, guess which EOs are coming right back into play. It doesn't matter if they're allowed to own guns, they'll be deported for crossing the border illegally. With a hypothetical Trump presidency, these people are being deported AND you now have the legal precedent that you can't restrict guns in the three ways I've mentioned. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.