In a recent ruling, a federal judge appointed during the Obama administration made a contentious decision regarding an illegal immigrant’s right to possess a firearm. Heriberto Carbajal-Flores was charged in 2020 under federal law for possessing a semi-automatic firearm despite being unlawfully present in the United States. However, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman dismissed the case on March 8, stating that the statute prohibiting noncitizens from possessing firearms violated Carbajal-Flores’ Second Amendment rights.
The judge’s ruling was based on a 2022 Supreme Court decision, which emphasized that the Second Amendment protects conduct explicitly mentioned in its text. This decision requires government regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation to be considered constitutional. Carbajal-Flores’ lawyers argued that lifetime disarmament based solely on alienage or nationality contradicted this historical tradition.
The defense pointed to various court rulings, including one that declared stripping an individual convicted of a nonviolent crime of their gun rights as unconstitutional. Despite the government’s opposition, Judge Coleman sided with the defendant, highlighting exceptions for individuals deemed nonviolent or those who signed loyalty oaths in laws against untrustworthy people.
However, this ruling has sparked debate within the Second Amendment community regarding who qualifies as “the people” protected by the Constitution. Some argue that individuals who have just entered the country illegally lack a sufficient connection to be considered part of the national community. They cite Supreme Court precedents, such as D.C. v. Heller, which defined “the people” broadly but within the context of fundamental rights.
On the other hand, proponents of the ruling point to Heller’s illustration of “the people” in the context of dismissing the argument for a collective, rather than an individual, right. They argue that historical evidence suggests that citizenship was not a prerequisite for exercising rights, including the right to bear arms. Instead, early militia acts compelled armament based on able-bodiedness, irrespective of political affiliation.
There is contention over whether Heller’s “political community” dicta was intended to overturn centuries of precedent, where all rights of “the people” were respected within the nation’s borders, regardless of voting eligibility. This ruling raises significant questions about the scope of Second Amendment protections and the rights afforded to noncitizens within the United States.