ObaMao judge says illegals can own GUNS
-
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.
-
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.
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.
There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out.
-
Vapor is losing it. How the hell can an Illegal alien have the same rights as an American citizen? There is absolutely no justification for this liberal pos judge to say that.
-
-
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.
There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out.
There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out.
-
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 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.
How many times must I post this stuff.
PolitiFact | Migrants living in the U.S. unlawfully can not legally purchase firearms
PolitiFact previously found that although an Illinois law enacted in 2024 makes it legal for noncitizens to become police officers, that law applies only to those who are both legally allowed to work in the U.S. and own a firearm. Because federal law says only immigrants who are in the U.S. legally may own a firearm, immigrants who are unlawfully in the country are ineligible to become police officers.
Federal laws expressly prohibit immigrants in US illegally from purchasing or possessing guns
The bulk of federal law governing who can legally possess firearms in the U.S. is spelled out in 18 U.S.C. 922, established by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and amended by subsequent legislation. It lists groups of people who are not allowed to possess firearms, and the prohibitions still on the books today include several categories of non-citizens, according to Johnny Michael, an ATF spokesperson.
Those prohibited include anyone who is an “illegal alien” along with anyone who has renounced U.S. citizenship, according to the law. Federal firearm regulations must be based on that law, Michael explained.
-
There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out.
-
-
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.
There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out.
There is literally zero sarcasm in my answer. This is a huge 2A win. If this opinion would have been written by Clarence Thomas, gun grabbers would be freaking out.
no, that surely had to be sarcasm. It is no win for our 2nd Amendment, it is a devious manipulation against it, a violation of the criteria for those who qualify as "We the People".
This dangerously corrupt, leftist socialist gov is seeking total power, and enabling illegals to have the same rights as WE THE PEOPLE, not only is a farce, but a step towards giving them the vote in November.
If you can't see that, you just don't want to.
My point stands, and the judge is just dishonestly leftist. Which fits exactly what obaMao wants.
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