In a controversial decision, a federal judge has ruled to dismiss gun charges for an illegal immigrant, arguing that undocumented immigrants are entitled to Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Coleman ruled to dismiss gun charges against Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal immigrant arrested in Chicago in 2020 for possession of a firearm. Carbajal-Flores, who was in the country unlawfully, was charged under Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code, which prohibits illegal aliens from possessing firearms and ammunition.
Carbajal-Flores argued that he possessed the firearm for self-defense and protection of property during what he described as a period of “documented civil unrest” in the spring of 2020, referring to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s death.
Judge Coleman’s ruling cited Carbajal-Flores’ lack of prior weapon-related offenses and the non-violent nature of his arrest as factors in her decision to dismiss the firearm charges. She emphasized that his criminal record did not suggest a threat to public safety, thus upholding his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.
“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’s ruling stated.
Judge Coleman, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, also determined that the statute in Title 18 preventing an illegal immigrant from possessing a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment.
This ruling comes after the court initially denied two motions to dismiss the charges. The second denial occurred following a landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which set a new standard that state gun laws must coincide with the “historic tradition” of firearm regulation in the country.
Coleman cited this Supreme Court ruling in her decision, explaining that it established a “framework for analyzing whether a challenged firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment.”
“Under Bruen, 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,” Coleman wrote.
This piece first appeared at TPUSA.
