Does this set a precedent for constitutional carry everywhere?

I’ve read this headline many times from different sources and I seem to think it’s a win for 2A. This case is from Chicago. So wouldn’t this mean all those unconstitutional laws anti gun states passed are now void by that judicial ruling?

Sources:

6 Likes

I personally believe the judge here is trying to sway public opinion and SCOTUS against recent pro 2A rulings by putting this argument forward. If so it could really backfire on the anti firearm crowd.

The problem is even if non citizens are ruled to have the right to carry a firearm (I personally don’t feel that the U.S. Constitution protects non U.S. citizens) this illegal immigrant has broken several other laws by either illegally acquiring this firearm or illegally importing it into the country.

So for this illegal immigrant to legally posses and carry this firearm the judge also has to be arguing that all Federal and State laws regulating the sale, purchase, transfer and possession of firearms are also unconstitutional. If that is the case I will be heading to the store to pick up some paperwork free firearms and maybe even a tax stamp and no waiting period free NFA item or two. If the government can’t require illegal immigrants to follow the law when acquiring firearms how can it justify requiring legal citizens to do so?

21 Likes

Not really sure but I think the confusion starts between carrying and owning a gun.

4 Likes

So it seems she is arguing against the registries some state governments keeps pushing. There’s no real way of proving ownership other than maybe a sales receipt.

4 Likes
5 Likes

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dying here!

3 Likes

Just my opinion, but the ruling seems correct under the Bruen decision. There was no laws restricting gun possession by non-citizens when 2A wS written.

1 Like

This is just a way to do away with the 2A! THEY CAN GIVE GUNS TO FELONS!!! Entering the US illegally, is a Felon!

6 Likes

Doesnt make a bit of sense. Turning up the heat just a little more.

6 Likes

I’m not a lawyer but suspect that those caught entering the first time illegally would not be considered felons since the penalty is usually a small fine and rarely a prison term of under a year. You have to cross the border multiple times or after committing other crimes in order for the punishment to exceed one year in jail. Though an illegal immigrant would likely have to commit at least one felony to acquire a firearm in the U.S.

With the current administration encouraging and welcoming illegal immigrants with open arms, free transportation and financial support the illegal immigrants may have an argument that they were invited in. Used to be that breaking the law resulted in penalties not rewards. But in bizarro land USA at the moment, crime pays (illegal border crossings, shop lifting, home invasion and takeovers, etc……) without the risk of punishment.

5 Likes

What, so now when they come here illegally a gun will be part of their welcome kit?
Yeah come to America illegally, free phones and free handguns. :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :woozy_face:

5 Likes

Along with instructions on how to invade people’s homes and take possession of them by falsely claiming the right to be there. Though there are plenty of homeless criminal US citizens already using this tactic without facing any criminal penalties.

The government better get its act together and start enforcing the law before fed up law abiding citizens feel they have no choice but to start imposing their own vigilante justice. That will be an incredibly bad situation for everyone involved. Though it would create a useful excuse for the kleptocrats to start confiscating firearms. Which many of them feel the need to do before everyone realizes they have bankrupted our country over the past several decades for their own profit.

4 Likes

[quote=“Shamrock, post:12, topic:101452”]
Though it would create a useful excuse for the kleptocrats to start confiscating firearms.

I think this is exactly the point. Let the illegals have firearms then when the crime rate involving guns escalates, they can use that to defend confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens.
Because we all know that by law abiding citizens having firearms it just forces criminals to do what they do best.

2 Likes

In addition from Chicago, they are suing Glock for the existence of “Glock switches”, which Glock does NOT produce. It will never make sense

3 Likes

Misdemeaner only to liberals and the biden administration! That’s why they changed their classification from illegal immigrants to non citizens!!

3 Likes

These are interesting articles on US Law…

Improper entry by alien

Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

Unlawful employment of aliens

3 Likes

The way courts have been playing hot-potato with various legal issues (example: TX SB-4) lately? My best answer is “don’t hold your breath”. This question won’t be settled until Congress takes it up…and probably not for at least a couple of decades’ worth of court challenges after that.

3 Likes

There’s a LOT of focus on him being an illegal alien. But he broke a LOT of other laws too. It was an illegal transfer of a firearm. He carried it concealed (in his pocket) without a permission slip. Brandishing a weapon. Negligent discharge of a firearm. Assault with a deadly weapon. The guy was in the middle of the street, shooting at cars as they were driving away from him.

4 Likes

The law is not being enforced from the get-go, so there is no accountability. The moment he stepped across the border illegally, he was a felon. Same applies to any other nation in the world. If you cross their borders illegally, you are arrested. You cannot enter another country without a proper passport and ID. You are searched and so are your possessions. Same for any US citizen who has been abroad and returning to this country. Better have your passport and not be bringing anything illegal into the country. Otherwise, you will not be allowed entry or arrested on the spot.

3 Likes

No, precedent is set only by appeals court rulings, and then only in the jurisdiction of that court. For a precedential ruling everywhere (that is, all of the USA), the ruling must be from the Supreme Court.

No. Rulings at trial court affect only that specific case.

1 Like