ObaMao judge says illegals can own GUNS
-
Is this not a good thing? More guns = more safe, right?
I wonder what's different about these people owning guns and the other people Cal wants to own guns.... Hmmm....
No not really. You're just being facetious.
More guns in the inner city among black and Latino...not safe
More guns everywhere else a different story.
I'm not sure Cal was ever against keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But he'd have to clarify that.
- Gun Violence Disproportionately and Overwhelmingly Hurts Communities of Color
- 60 percent of gun deaths among Hispanic and Latino people are gun homicides.
- \7
That means no guns for illegals.
No not really. You're just being facetious.
More guns in the inner city among black and Latino...not safe
More guns everywhere else a different story.
I'm not sure Cal was ever against keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But he'd have to clarify that.
- Gun Violence Disproportionately and Overwhelmingly Hurts Communities of Color
- 60 percent of gun deaths among Hispanic and Latino people are gun homicides.
- \7
That means no guns for illegals.
Sorry 2nd Amendment. Doesn't say anything about citizens, just people. Why are you trying to take people's guns away?
-
You absolutely are not for anything that would make it harder for anyone to get a gun.
You're just for making it harder for "certain people" to get guns
Riiiiiight
What happened to Constitutional rights?!
You absolutely are not for anything that would make it harder for anyone to get a gun.
You're just for making it harder for "certain people" to get guns
Riiiiiight
What happened to Constitutional rights?!
I wonder how the background checks are going to be done?
-
No not really. You're just being facetious.
More guns in the inner city among black and Latino...not safe
More guns everywhere else a different story.
I'm not sure Cal was ever against keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But he'd have to clarify that.
- Gun Violence Disproportionately and Overwhelmingly Hurts Communities of Color
- 60 percent of gun deaths among Hispanic and Latino people are gun homicides.
- \7
That means no guns for illegals.
Sorry 2nd Amendment. Doesn't say anything about citizens, just people. Why are you trying to take people's guns away?
-
No not really. You're just being facetious.
More guns in the inner city among black and Latino...not safe
More guns everywhere else a different story.
I'm not sure Cal was ever against keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But he'd have to clarify that.
- Gun Violence Disproportionately and Overwhelmingly Hurts Communities of Color
- 60 percent of gun deaths among Hispanic and Latino people are gun homicides.
- \7
That means no guns for illegals.
Sorry 2nd Amendment. Doesn't say anything about citizens, just people. Why are you trying to take people's guns away?
Sorry 2nd Amendment. Doesn't say anything about citizens, just people. Why are you trying to take people's guns away?
'The people' dipshit, meaning US citizens. Stop pretending you two dumbasses know anything.
Stop being stupid by trying to infer race is the only reason illegal invaders shouldn't have guns. Dumbass cult
-
No not really. You're just being facetious.
More guns in the inner city among black and Latino...not safe
More guns everywhere else a different story.
I'm not sure Cal was ever against keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But he'd have to clarify that.
- Gun Violence Disproportionately and Overwhelmingly Hurts Communities of Color
- 60 percent of gun deaths among Hispanic and Latino people are gun homicides.
- \7
That means no guns for illegals.
Sorry 2nd Amendment. Doesn't say anything about citizens, just people. Why are you trying to take people's guns away?
Sorry 2nd Amendment. Doesn't say anything about citizens, just people. Why are you trying to take people's guns away?
And I suppose yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium takes your right of freedom of speech away.
In the Gun Control Act, Congress established statutory prohibitions on firearm possession by certain persons, including certain categories of non-citizens, and the amendments in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to the GCA did not change those categories,” Michael said.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 excludes multiple categories of people from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition, including fugitives, illegal aliens, and anyone who has renounced their U.S. citizenship, among others, according to the ATF’s website.
Factcheck: People in Country Illegally Cannot Own Guns (ncja.org)
Liberal morons.
-
You absolutely are not for anything that would make it harder for anyone to get a gun.
You're just for making it harder for "certain people" to get guns
Riiiiiight
What happened to Constitutional rights?!
You absolutely are not for anything that would make it harder for anyone to get a gun.
You're just for making it harder for "certain people" to get guns
Riiiiiight
What happened to Constitutional rights?!
Illegals dummy, illegals.
Sometimes you try too hard making everything Cal puts up look absurd.
Factcheck: People in Country Illegally Cannot Own Guns (ncja.org)
-
Sorry 2nd Amendment. Doesn't say anything about citizens, just people. Why are you trying to take people's guns away?
'The people' dipshit, meaning US citizens. Stop pretending you two dumbasses know anything.
Stop being stupid by trying to infer race is the only reason illegal invaders shouldn't have guns. Dumbass cult
'The people' dipshit, meaning US citizens. Stop pretending you two dumbasses know anything.
Stop being stupid by trying to infer race is the only reason illegal invaders shouldn't have guns. Dumbass cult
Sorry, that is not what it means. Try again. Just like due process, everyone on US soil gets it. Why do you hate the Constitution so much? I see why you support a moron that wants to terminate it.
-
-
'The people' dipshit, meaning US citizens. Stop pretending you two dumbasses know anything.
Stop being stupid by trying to infer race is the only reason illegal invaders shouldn't have guns. Dumbass cult
Sorry, that is not what it means. Try again. Just like due process, everyone on US soil gets it. Why do you hate the Constitution so much? I see why you support a moron that wants to terminate it.
Sorry, that is not what it means. Try again. Just like due process, everyone on US soil gets it. Why do you hate the Constitution so much? I see why you support a moron that wants to terminate it.
Pssst....
Factcheck: People in Country Illegally Cannot Own Guns (ncja.org)
-
Sorry, that is not what it means. Try again. Just like due process, everyone on US soil gets it. Why do you hate the Constitution so much? I see why you support a moron that wants to terminate it.
Pssst....
Factcheck: People in Country Illegally Cannot Own Guns (ncja.org)
Pssst....
Factcheck: People in Country Illegally Cannot Own Guns (ncja.org)
Sorry the Constitution trumps federal laws. We do you want to take everyone guns? More guns = more safety. Been hearing it for years.
-
Pssst....
Factcheck: People in Country Illegally Cannot Own Guns (ncja.org)
Sorry the Constitution trumps federal laws. We do you want to take everyone guns? More guns = more safety. Been hearing it for years.
Sorry the Constitution trumps federal laws. We do you want to take everyone guns? More guns = more safety. Been hearing it for years.
Sorry but it does not idiot. You cant yell fire in a crowded auditorium under freedom of speech you troll.
Why do you want to kill black babies?
-
You absolutely are not for anything that would make it harder for anyone to get a gun.
You're just for making it harder for "certain people" to get guns
Riiiiiight
What happened to Constitutional rights?!
You absolutely are not for anything that would make it harder for anyone to get a gun.
You're just for making it harder for "certain people" to get guns
Riiiiiight
What happened to Constitutional rights?!
well, that isn't all that dishonest a question. My opinion - "We the People" are CITIZENS of the United States.
Not invaders. They broke the law to even get here. They are NOT welcomed individuals, with green cards, visas, etc.
Now, I'm no legal beagle, and illegals have certain protections to be treated fairly. It's FAIR to prosecute them for entering our country ILLEGALLY, especially after committing felonies, (which a repeated illegal entry should be a felony), ...
Somebody high up should appoint me to a federal judgeship. I don't know much about the law, but that doesn't stop Justice Jackson, da willis, and the nasty ho in NY etc. so there's that......
Back to my point:
"
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution"
Illegals are not "of the United States", therefore our Constitution does not apply to them. So our Bill of Rights only applies to people OF THE UNITED STATES.
Not illegals. Why is that so tough for lawyers and judges to understand ?
dammit.
-
You absolutely are not for anything that would make it harder for anyone to get a gun.
You're just for making it harder for "certain people" to get guns
Riiiiiight
What happened to Constitutional rights?!
well, that isn't all that dishonest a question. My opinion - "We the People" are CITIZENS of the United States.
Not invaders. They broke the law to even get here. They are NOT welcomed individuals, with green cards, visas, etc.
Now, I'm no legal beagle, and illegals have certain protections to be treated fairly. It's FAIR to prosecute them for entering our country ILLEGALLY, especially after committing felonies, (which a repeated illegal entry should be a felony), ...
Somebody high up should appoint me to a federal judgeship. I don't know much about the law, but that doesn't stop Justice Jackson, da willis, and the nasty ho in NY etc. so there's that......
Back to my point:
"
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution"
Illegals are not "of the United States", therefore our Constitution does not apply to them. So our Bill of Rights only applies to people OF THE UNITED STATES.
Not illegals. Why is that so tough for lawyers and judges to understand ?
dammit.
well, that isn't all that dishonest a question. My opinion - "We the People" are CITIZENS of the United States.
Not invaders. They broke the law to even get here. They are NOT welcomed individuals, with green cards, visas, etc.
Now, I'm no legal beagle, and illegals have certain protections to be treated fairly. It's FAIR to prosecute them for entering our country ILLEGALLY, especially after committing felonies, (which a repeated illegal entry should be a felony), ...
Somebody high up should appoint me to a federal judgeship. I don't know much about the law, but that doesn't stop Justice Jackson, da willis, and the nasty ho in NY etc. so there's that......
Back to my point:
"
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution"
Illegals are not "of the United States", therefore our Constitution does not apply to them. So our Bill of Rights only applies to people OF THE UNITED STATES.
Not illegals. Why is that so tough for lawyers and judges to understand ?
dammit.
"Nasty ho"
You couldn't blow that whistle any louder
Better than you calling every female you disagree with a "slut" I guess
You really were born to early and missed your calling as an internet alt right incel
-
well, that isn't all that dishonest a question. My opinion - "We the People" are CITIZENS of the United States.
Not invaders. They broke the law to even get here. They are NOT welcomed individuals, with green cards, visas, etc.
Now, I'm no legal beagle, and illegals have certain protections to be treated fairly. It's FAIR to prosecute them for entering our country ILLEGALLY, especially after committing felonies, (which a repeated illegal entry should be a felony), ...
Somebody high up should appoint me to a federal judgeship. I don't know much about the law, but that doesn't stop Justice Jackson, da willis, and the nasty ho in NY etc. so there's that......
Back to my point:
"
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution"
Illegals are not "of the United States", therefore our Constitution does not apply to them. So our Bill of Rights only applies to people OF THE UNITED STATES.
Not illegals. Why is that so tough for lawyers and judges to understand ?
dammit.
"Nasty ho"
You couldn't blow that whistle any louder
Better than you calling every female you disagree with a "slut" I guess
You really were born to early and missed your calling as an internet alt right incel
"Nasty ho"You couldn't blow that whistle any louderBetter than you calling every female you disagree with a "slut" I guessYou really were born to early and missed your calling as an internet alt right incel
Whats her name? - I have zero respect for her as a human being. and the judge is worse.
Say her name, Woody. Your leftwing political love for illegals demands an admission of guilt.
-
-
"Nasty ho"You couldn't blow that whistle any louderBetter than you calling every female you disagree with a "slut" I guessYou really were born to early and missed your calling as an internet alt right incel
Whats her name? - I have zero respect for her as a human being. and the judge is worse.
Say her name, Woody. Your leftwing political love for illegals demands an admission of guilt.
Whats her name? - I have zero respect for her as a human being. and the judge is worse.
Say her name, Woody. Your leftwing political love for illegals demands an admission of guilt.
Nothing more respectful than ranting and screeching "say her name" so you can use her death as some transparent political tool to "own the libs"
Seriously, go fuck yourself you sad old man. You're pathetic
-
Man, people are hung up on the headline, but no one's bothering to look at the legal reasoning to arrive at this federal judge's conclusion, which is absolutely the correct decision for 2A supporters. The illegal who was charged for the crime got the pistol for personal protection during the 2020 BLM riots. Should the guy even be in the country in the first place? No, but that's not what this case is about. It's about if your status as an illegal precludes you from rights guaranteed in the constitution, particularly gun ownership.
Anyways, her legal reasoning
- Permit requirements are illegal
- Public carry restrictions are illegal
- Banning non-violent criminals from gun ownership is illegal
This reasoning could be used in the future for increasing gun rights on a national level. Hello? National open carry, maybe? Fuck yeah.
Here is her concluding paragraph in the case
The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country. The Court notes, however, that Carbajal-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. 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. The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores' criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do 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. Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.
The whole case is here and worth a read. Honestly, I am pleasantly surprised this is coming from an Obama appointee.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2Huge win for pro 2A. I really can't state that enough.
-
Man, people are hung up on the headline, but no one's bothering to look at the legal reasoning to arrive at this federal judge's conclusion, which is absolutely the correct decision for 2A supporters. The illegal who was charged for the crime got the pistol for personal protection during the 2020 BLM riots. Should the guy even be in the country in the first place? No, but that's not what this case is about. It's about if your status as an illegal precludes you from rights guaranteed in the constitution, particularly gun ownership.
Anyways, her legal reasoning
- Permit requirements are illegal
- Public carry restrictions are illegal
- Banning non-violent criminals from gun ownership is illegal
This reasoning could be used in the future for increasing gun rights on a national level. Hello? National open carry, maybe? Fuck yeah.
Here is her concluding paragraph in the case
The government argues that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen who is unlawfully present in this country. The Court notes, however, that Carbajal-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. 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. The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores' criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do 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. Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.
The whole case is here and worth a read. Honestly, I am pleasantly surprised this is coming from an Obama appointee.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2Huge win for pro 2A. I really can't state that enough.
The whole case is here and worth a read. Honestly, I am pleasantly surprised this is coming from an Obama appointee.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2Huge win for pro 2A. I really can't state that enough.
Your sarcasm is duly noted. I'm not surprised at all she was an obaMao appointee. Her rationalizations are nonsense, ignoring the point I made earlier -
My opinion - "We the People" are CITIZENS of the United States.
Not invaders. They broke the law to even get here. They are NOT welcomed individuals, with green cards, visas, etc.
Now, I'm no legal beagle, and illegals have certain protections to be treated fairly. It's FAIR to prosecute them for entering our country ILLEGALLY, especially after committing felonies, (which a repeated illegal entry should be a felony), ...
Somebody high up should appoint me to a federal judgeship. I don't know much about the law, but that doesn't stop Justice Jackson, da willis, and the nasty ho in NY etc. so there's that......
Back to my point:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution"
Illegals are not "of the United States", therefore our Constitution does not apply to them. So our Bill of Rights only applies to people OF THE UNITED STATES.
Not illegals. Why is that so tough for lawyers and judges to understand ?
dammit.
-
so, OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to US, NOT the people of other countries who illegally come here.
-
so, OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to US, NOT the people of other countries who illegally come here.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login