Tag Archives: guns

by - 1 Comment

Daily Broadside | Texas Can Arrest Illegals But Illinois Judge Rules Illegals Can Carry Guns

Sorry I missed yesterday. Went to bed early with a headache.

Tuesday was Illinois’ primary voting day, so the missus and I carried out our civic duty. I was disappointed in the turnout … our voting precinct location was super quiet around 5:30 PM. I suppose there could have been more voters that came after work, but there was no line, no wait while we were there.

Empty.

I guess if the result is a foregone conclusion, voters aren’t motivated to show up. I vote as a matter of principle. Exercise your right to vote, just like you exercise your muscles.

Two really interesting developments concerning illegal aliens flooding our country. First, the US Supreme Court rescinded its stay on a Texas law that provides for the arrest and deportation of illegal aliens.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted its freeze of a Texas immigration law which allows state and local law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants and empowers state judges to deport them.

The Court’s six conservative justices dismissed the Biden administration’s emergency appeal, allowing the law to remain in effect while the issue is adjudicated by lower courts. The majority did not explain its reasoning, as is typical, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, issued a concurring opinion explaining that Texas should be allowed to enforce its law until a lower court definitively strikes it down.

Note that the case has not been decided yet. This ruling was about whether the Texas law can continue to operate while the case is decided. It can, which means that Texas will begin to enforce its new law against illegal immigration.

Good.

Second, an astonishing ruling from a federal judge appointed by Obammy in (*ahem*) Illinois gives illegal immigrants the right to carry guns. I repeat: foreigners who are in this country illegally, who have no business being here, are allowed to carry.

A federal judge in Illinois has found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday ruled that a federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The court found that while the federal ban is “facially constitutional,” there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation that permits the government to deprive a noncitizen who has never been convicted of a violent crime from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

“The noncitizen possession statute … violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Coleman, a President Obama appointee, cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results. 

The “new standard” referred to is that the government must show that each regulation “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This gets a little complicated, because there is federal law that prohibits noncitizens who are illegally here from possessing a firearm.

Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant who, on June 1, 2020, was found to be in possession of a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. He was subsequently charged with violating a federal law that prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 

In an April 2022 decision, Coleman denied Carbajal-Flores’ first motion to dismiss his indictment, finding that the ban was constitutional. However, Carbajal-Flores asked the court to reconsider that ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and appellate decisions in the Third and Seventh circuits that considered whether people convicted of nonviolent crimes can be prohibited from possessing firearms.

Basically, the foreigner here illegally is challenging what he and his lawyers consider a conflict between the federal law prohibiting possession of a gun, and the “new standard” that SCOTUS created to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment.

I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, so while this decision makes no sense to me on the surface, there are likely legal subtleties that are playing out under the surface.

For instance, how is someone who is violating our law with their very presence here somehow covered by the US Constitution, which was written by and for US citizens?

If illegals can carry guns, what does that mean for the 10 million illegals that have poured over our southern border over the last three years of the treacherous Brandon administration?

The article didn’t say whether Carbajal-Flores had concealed-carry license. If he didn’t, why do Illinois citizens have to have one? If he did, how did he get one if he’s an illegal alien?

From my go-to newspaper, The Epoch Times:

The ruling drew a range of reactions from people in the legal community.

“Supreme Court has said the ‘people’ are members of the political community,” Larry Keane, a lawyer for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, wrote on X. “Illegal aliens in US are not part of the political community and thus do not have 2A rights.”

Kostas Moros, a lawyer who represents the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said that he also saw the issue that way.

“Bruen asks for a historical tradition of modern regulation that justifies the modern law, and one plainly exists here,” he wrote, noting that groups that have been disarmed in the past, including loyalists, have the common thread of being “outside of the political community.”

What gobsmacks me is that the judge considers the new standard to overrule the clear language of the federal law prohibiting possession by illegals. We have a group of activist judges who are making novel rulings that violate the letter and the spirit of the law.

This ruling is particularly troubling because of news like this:

The leader of a notorious street gang that has been terrorizing business owners and residents in Colombia’s capital was arrested earlier this week in Texas, where he was seeking asylum.

Venezuelan national Aderbiss Pirela was taken into custody by federal and local agents in New Braunfels, outside San Antonio, on Tuesday, Homeland Securities Investigations confirmed Wednesday. 

Pirela, according to Colombian authorities, is the second-in-command of ‘Los Satanás,’ and was one of the seven most wanted murderers in Bogotá. 

My recommendation is that you haven’t yet, arm yourself and buy ammo—lots of ammo.

And don’t forget that the muttonhead and his cabal in the White House are the ones who have done this to us.

by

Daily Broadside | Keep Your Hands Off My Guns

Daily Verse | Job 19:4
“If it is true that I have gone astray, my error remains my concern alone.”

Tuesday’s Reading: Job 20-21

Happy Tuesday, my friends, and welcome to the last day of May. Just like that, we’re through five months of 2022.

I hope that in addition to taking a moment to reflect with a grateful heart on those who fought, bled and died to secure our freedoms and strengthen our country, you enjoyed time with family and friends. I slept in, spent the day working in the yard, and enjoyed some juicy, grilled steaks for dinner followed by a homemade strawberry-rhubarb pie with vanilla ice cream.

Very American!

And we gave thanks for the freedoms we enjoy and for those who gave their lives to make it possible. The older I get and the more aware I am of how fragile (and rare) true freedom is, the more grateful and humbled I am to live in this great nation.

If we could only get our leaders to think the same instead of going through the motions and mouthing empty platitudes that sound right but ring hollow. Brandon laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington National Cemetery where he said, “Today, we renew our sacred vow. It’s a simple vow. To remember. To remember. Memorial Day is always a day where pain and pride are mixed together.”

I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that he was sincere in his comments. I have my doubts but maybe in that moment, he meant it. Where it gets sticky for me is that the Resident visited the site of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas over the weekend. On Monday, he said some things about the right to bear arms that these multitudes of men and women he so honored died to protect.

President Biden on Monday took aim at 9mm handguns, appearing to suggest that the “high-caliber weapons” ought to be banned.

Let’s just stop there a second, shall we? “High caliber weapons”? Caliber is the nominal bore diameter of a firearm. Think of the gun barrel as a pipe. The inner diameter of the pipe is the nominal bore diameter.

Nominal bore diameter also applies to the diameter of a bullet. So when we talk about 9mm handguns, we’re talking about barrels that accommodate a 9mm bullet.

But where is Brandon getting the notion of a “high-caliber weapon”?

You might have a “large caliber” weapon or a “high-powered weapon” but, technically, there isn’t a “high-caliber” weapon unless you’re referring to wider diameters. But that doesn’t necessarily mean more powerful cartridges.

It’s like calling an AR-15 an “assault rifle.” There is no such thing except in the fevered ignorance of a progressive.

“High-caliber weapon” is a misnomer, perhaps to create the perception of something more dangerous—or maybe it’s evidence of “I don’t know what I’m talking about and neither do the people talking in my earpiece so I’m making $#!+ up.”

It’s hard to know since these people are both ignorant and lie with great enthusiasm, but I’m betting it’s the latter with Brandon.

Either way, it’s inaccurate.

Also, why the 9mm handgun? There are .22 caliber handguns, .45 caliber handguns, .357 caliber handguns, .38 caliber handguns and more. Why is Brandon picking on the 9mm handgun? Is it more dangerous than any of the others? It’s smaller than the .45 caliber. It’s nearly the same diameter as the .357 caliber.

Why the 9mm?

Recounting a visit to a New York trauma hospital, Biden said doctors showed him X-rays of gunshot wounds.

“They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” Biden said.

Ah. He’s comparing the damage done by a .22-caliber bullet and the damage done by a 9mm bullet. One lodges in the lung, the other “blows the lung out of the body.” With one, the person is still alive and might make it home with both lungs intact. With the other, the person has lost a lung and presumably died.

My question is, Why would that person end up in the hospital with a bullet in their lung or missing a lung?

Maybe Brandon is thinking of gangbangers who shoot indiscriminately at each other in Democrat-run cities?

Oops, no, he makes clear that he’s thinking of personal defense.

“So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting,” Biden added.

Ah, so the guy he’s thinking of is in the hospital with a .22 bullet in his lung because he was shot in self-defense. But according to Brandon, there is “simply” no “rational” basis for these “high-caliber weapons” when it comes to “self-protection” or “hunting.”

Huh.

You don’t say.

Then why does the U.S. Secret Service equip all of their agents—the very same agents that provide around-the-clock security for the Resident—with a 9mm Glock handgun instead of a .22 handgun?

I’ll tell you why. Brandon is singling out the 9mm because it is the most popular caliber among law enforcement, the military, and the general population. It is as powerful, more accurate, and easier to shoot than the larger .45 or slightly larger .357 calibers, which often have more recoil than a 9mm.

In other words, citizens with 9mm handguns have (mostly) equal fire power with what the authorities carry.

Can’t have that.

Most egregious were Brandon’s comments on the Second Amendment.

“Remember, the constitution was never absolute.”

What in the actual blazing bullocks does he mean? “The constitution was never absolute“?! I mean, first of all, is he really referring to the entire document? That would be par for the course with progressives, who see the constitution as a “living document” which is another way of saying, “it can change when it suits our agenda.”

Then the Waffle Cone-in-Chief narrowed his focus with the ridiculous argument he’s used before.

“You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed,” Biden said. “You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.”

Ackshully, Joe, you could.

This is a slightly revised talking point that he used in an interview with Wired magazine in 2020, which Politifact ruled “False.” In another article about Brandon’s statement, the authors write, “Indeed, as pointed out by Politifact, personally-owned ship’s cannons were used on American privateers in the War of 1812, with more than 500 letters of marque issued by President James Madison’s administration authorizing such legal piracy. Should we mention here that Madison was a Framer of the Second Amendment?”

In other words, Brandon is lying. You could own a cannon, the U.S. Constitution is absolute, and the only reason he wants to ban 9mm handguns is that they are the most popular handgun in America.

Do not trust this man.

Period.