Judge Rules Illegal Immigrants Can Carry Firearms

A federal judge ruled this week that illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms in a case that could have large effects on immigration policy and the Second Amendment. The ruling comes amid the largest wave of migrants entering the country illegally in the country’s history.

U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois ruled that an illegal immigrant had the right to carry a firearm, which dismissed charges against him. Heriberto Carbajal-Flores was arrested for possessing a firearm in Chicago in 2020.

Carbajal-Flores is in the country illegally.

The judge wrote that there was no “improper use of the weapon” and cited the “non-violent circumstances of his arrest.”

Coleman wrote that considering those factors, she found that the arrest did 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.”

The judge that ruled in favor of illegal immigrants having firearms is an Obama appointee. pic.twitter.com/WHBqQ6qB1h

— Veterans for Liberty (@Vets4AP) March 16, 2024

The defendant was arrested under federal law, which prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving “any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

Carbajal-Flores has not been convicted of a crime involving the use of a weapon and argued that he needed the firearm for self-defense during the 2020 George Floyd riots. The judge wrote that the defendant “has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release.”

The case took place about a year and a half after the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that overturned a New York law that required “proper cause” to get a carry permit.

A 2022 ruling on the Carbajal-Flores case ruled that “the government identifies historical limitations on noncitizens’ right to bear arms, justifying its regulation. Because the government meets its burden under the second prong of the Bruen test, Carbajal-Flores’ indictment under § 922(g)(5) is not in violation of the Second Amendment. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment is denied.”