Connect with us

Firearms

The Meaning of the Court Ruling on Illegals and Guns

The recent ruling by United States District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman regarding the Second Amendment rights of illegal aliens has sparked controversy and raised important questions about gun control laws and immigration policies.

Judge Coleman declared that the federal statute prohibiting noncitizens from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violated the Second Amendment as applied to Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal alien who was arrested for possessing a handgun. Despite being an illegal alien, Carbajal-Flores had no prior felony convictions or violent offenses and claimed to have possessed the firearm solely for self-protection and protection of property.

The judge’s decision was based on the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, which considers Founding-era text, history, and tradition in assessing the constitutionality of disarmament laws. Judge Coleman concluded that while Section 922(g)(5) might be facially constitutional, it was unconstitutional as applied to Carbajal-Flores, who was deemed non-violent and law-abiding.

The ruling has ignited a debate within the Second Amendment community, with some arguing that illegal aliens should not have any rights, including the right to bear arms, while others assert that rights are unalienable and extend to all individuals, regardless of immigration status.

Illinois State Rep. Dan Caulkins raised concerns about the implications of the ruling, questioning why law-abiding citizens should not be afforded the same rights as an illegal alien who obtained a firearm without legal authorization.

Furthermore, the ruling has broader implications for other gun control laws at both the state and federal levels. It raises questions about the fairness and effectiveness of such laws, especially when individuals like Carbajal-Flores are able to obtain firearms illegally without undergoing background checks or obtaining the necessary permits.

The ruling also intersects with broader immigration debates, with some critics arguing that allowing illegal aliens to possess firearms undermines efforts to enforce immigration laws and maintain public safety.

Ultimately, the ruling highlights the complexities and controversies surrounding both gun control and immigration policies in the United States. It prompts important questions about the balance between protecting public safety and preserving individual rights, as well as the need for comprehensive and coherent approaches to addressing these complex issues.

What do you think of the court’s ruling on illegal aliens and guns? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

(Visited 23 times, 1 visits today)
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured

Did the ATF Just Turn You Into an Unlicensed Gun Dealer?

london-uk-march-26th-2018

Amidst the world of firearms and gun ownership, scenarios arise where individuals find themselves downsizing their collections or navigating the complexities of buying and selling firearms. For some, it may involve parting ways with budget guns to fund the acquisition of their dream firearm, while for others, it could entail managing the estate of a deceased family member who left behind a substantial gun collection.

However, recent regulatory changes by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) have introduced new considerations and challenges. With the implementation of ATF Rule 2022R-17, the definition of who qualifies as a firearm dealer has been broadened, potentially impacting individuals engaged in occasional sales or private transactions.

Under the revised regulations, the criteria for determining whether someone is “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms have been expanded. This includes factors such as the intention to “predominantly earn a profit” from firearm sales, regardless of the medium or method used for transactions. Additionally, the definition of “dealer” now encompasses individuals conducting firearm transactions through various channels, including online platforms and gun shows.

Despite these changes, the regulations provide clarity on exemptions for individuals selling firearms as part of a personal collection or hobby, as long as sales remain occasional and not primarily for profit. However, navigating these distinctions requires careful attention to detail and adherence to legal requirements to avoid unintentionally falling afoul of the law.

The implications of ATF Rule 2022R-17 extend beyond mere technicalities, potentially impacting the everyday activities of gun owners and enthusiasts. From selling off surplus firearms to acquiring new additions to their collections, individuals must now navigate a regulatory landscape that demands heightened awareness and compliance.

Moreover, the rule underscores broader concerns about government overreach and the erosion of Second Amendment rights. By redefining existing regulations without legislative scrutiny, the ATF’s actions raise questions about transparency and accountability in firearms policy-making.

In light of these developments, individuals involved in firearm transactions must stay informed and adapt to evolving regulatory frameworks. Whether buying, selling, or transferring firearms, adherence to legal requirements and diligent record-keeping is paramount to avoid unintended legal consequences.

Ultimately, as gun owners and enthusiasts navigate the changing landscape of firearms regulation, vigilance and advocacy for Second Amendment rights remain crucial. By staying informed, engaging in responsible firearm ownership practices, and advocating for sensible policy reforms, individuals can uphold their rights while ensuring compliance with legal requirements.

Are you concerned about being on the wrong side of the ATF? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

Featured

What’s the Difference Between 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington

assault-rifle-ammo-5-nato-use

For novice gun owners and seasoned enthusiasts alike, understanding the nuances between various ammunition types is crucial for ensuring optimal performance and safety of firearms. One common area of confusion arises when comparing the 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington cartridges, as their differences, though seemingly small, can have a significant impact on weapon function and safety.

The primary difference between the two cartridges lies in their pressure levels. The 5.56 NATO cartridge operates at approximately 58,000 pounds per square inch (psi), whereas the .223 Remington is loaded to around 55,000 psi. While this disparity may appear minor, it plays a critical role in the overall performance of the ammunition.

However, the most important distinction between the two cartridges lies in the chamber dimensions. A 5.56 NATO chamber features a .125-inch longer throat compared to a .223 Remington chamber. This additional space allows for the loading of approximately one more grain of powder in the 5.56 NATO cartridge, resulting in higher performance levels compared to its .223 Remington counterpart.

The potential danger arises when firing a 5.56 NATO cartridge in a rifle chambered for .223 Remington. Due to the longer throat of the NATO chamber, this combination can lead to significantly increased pressure levels, reaching upwards of 65,000 psi or more. Such high pressures pose a severe risk to both the operator and the firearm, potentially causing primers to back out or even resulting in catastrophic failure.

Conversely, firing a .223 Remington cartridge in a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle may lead to suboptimal performance. The lower pressure generated by the .223 Remington cartridge, coupled with the dimensions of the NATO chamber, can result in improper cycling of the firearm, particularly in rifles with barrels shorter than 14.5 inches. While rifles with longer barrels may mitigate some of these issues, it is essential for gun owners to exercise caution when selecting ammunition for their firearms.

In conclusion, while the differences between the 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington cartridges may seem subtle, they can have profound implications for weapon function, safety, and performance. Gun owners must educate themselves on these distinctions to make informed decisions when selecting ammunition and avoid potentially dangerous situations.

Do you want to weigh in on this debate? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

Featured

Biden Using Red Flag Laws to Go After Legal Firearms

des-moines-iausaaug-8-2019-presidential

In June of 2022, the NRA sounded the alarm against the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), warning of its potential to trample on the rights of law-abiding Americans and funnel federal funds into the coffers of anti-gun politicians. Sadly, our fears have materialized as the Biden administration wastes no time in weaponizing the BSCA to dismantle Second Amendment rights.

The latest assault on our freedoms comes in the form of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, a partnership between the Biden Justice Department and the Bloomberg School of Public Health at John Hopkins University. This taxpayer-funded initiative aims to promote “red flag” firearm seizure laws, enabling the suspension of individuals’ Second Amendment rights based on vague concerns without due process.

Under these draconian laws, anyone from law enforcement to teachers can petition courts to confiscate firearms from individuals without any criminal charges being laid. This overreach has led to countless confiscations, including one tragic incident where a gun owner lost his life during a seizure attempt.

What’s more concerning is that these laws offer no solutions for addressing the underlying issues of individuals deemed “dangerous,” leaving them free to potentially harm themselves or others with alternative means. It’s clear that the real aim is to disarm law-abiding citizens, stripping them of their constitutional rights.

The Biden administration’s collusion with Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda is evident in the $2 million grant awarded to the Bloomberg School of Public Health. This funding fuels a propaganda machine that promotes red flag laws and facilitates their implementation through online resources and training seminars.

While some members of Congress have raised objections to this overreach, the Biden administration remains undeterred, pushing for the adoption of red flag laws in every state and dangling federal grants as incentives. This blatant disregard for due process and constitutional rights is a chilling reminder of the dangers posed by the BSCA and its ilk.

The push for “universal” background checks looms on the horizon, another weapon in the arsenal of anti-gun activists emboldened by the passage of the BSCA. It’s a stark reminder that even the most seemingly innocuous legislation can be exploited to undermine our fundamental freedoms.

The BSCA serves as a cautionary tale for those who believe that compromising on gun rights will appease anti-gun extremists. The truth is, giving them an inch only emboldens them to take a mile, leaving law-abiding Americans at the mercy of an ever-expanding web of government overreach.

What do you think of Biden’s use of red flag laws to go after legal firearms owners?

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Guncountry. All Rights Reserved