Judge Rules Illegal Migrants are Protected by Second Amendment

The US government simply hates its citizens at this point and deliberately wants the nation to live in fear. The same people who persistently vote to prohibit American citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms have ruled that illegal migrants may carry firearms. A US District Court judge became one of the first to rule that the US Constitution protects undocumented illegals rather than legal citizens.

District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, appointed by former President Obama in 2010, has a long history of siding with criminals over law-abiding citizens. She, like many other judges, has been installed to ensure civil unrest will continue. Americans must go through a background check process to obtain a firearm and are restricted from carrying based on individual state laws. Undocumented migrants have no paper trail or background to check.

Coleman based her decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in which an illegal migrant was charged for illegally possessing a semi-automatic pistol. His case was dismissed twice before it was presented to Coleman, who deemed his actions acceptable. Title 18 of U.S. Criminal Code strictly forbids illegal immigrants from possessing firearms on US soil.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien

(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b)Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

Judge Coleman acknowledged Title 18 but said that there were “exceptions.”

“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,” the judge wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores,[Title 18] is unconstitutional.”

Carbajal-Flores was illegally in America and, therefore, illegally in possession of a firearm based on the laws provided within the US Constitution. This would be a felony with a prison sentence for an American citizen. Instead, Judge Coleman determined that illegal migrants should have the ability to carry weapons. Her reasoning?

“[C]arbajal-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,” Coleman added. “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.”

Any man who broke national laws to enter America, with no record in general, should have the ability to carry a firearm, based on her logic. He already showed utter disrespect for our Constitution by evading legal immigration requirements. Yet, because he has not YET committed a crime, he may carry a lethal weapon? This means that it is easier for an illegal migrant to obtain a gun than an actual American citizen.

Now I found in her public Questions for the Record that Coleman declined whether she would rule biasedly:

Do you think that it is ever proper for judges to indulge their own subjective
sense of empathy in determining what the law means?
Response: No
i. If so, under what circumstances?
Response: None

Do you think that it is ever proper for judges to indulge their own subjective
sense of empathy in determining what the law means?
Response: No

Now carefully read the following response:

Please provide an example of a case in which you had to set aside your
own subjective sense of empathy and rule solely based on the law.
Response: In a case that I presided over in the trial court, a civil jury
granted a six figure award to the parents of a 7 year old girl who had
drowned in a retention pond. Despite my empathy for the family’s grief
and loss, I entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the
defendant company where the jury’s special interrogatory answer
indicated that the case for negligence had not been made

Judge Coleman testified that she would not impose her own values or ethics when ruling. She lied. Obama presented her as one of the “best and brightest” candidates for the job.

Countless politicians have presented legislation that would block Americans from self-protection. Others have written legislation to blame gun manufacturers for gun-related deaths, as no one wants to address the actual problem. We are at a point where criminals and undocumented migrants could potentially overpower actual American citizens. The government is slowly waging a civil war on their very people. Chicago fell into ruin long ago and will soon be unrecognizable. Hence, businesses are fleeing along with the higher taxpayers. It is a true shame that Americans can no longer feel safe in their own cities.