Q&A of the Day – Can Illegal Immigrants Legally Own Firearms?
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Today’s question was submitted via Talkback asking about a report he came across stating illegal immigrants could own firearms.
Bottom Line: This question brings to mind my saying about the premise. If the premise of anything is false anything built upon that false premise is as well. When discussing whether illegal immigrants can legally possess a firearm it would seem as though there would be a commonsense answer. Anything they’re doing while illegally in this country is illegal. But of course, we have sanctuary jurisdictions that choose not to enforce the law and a presidential administration more interested in attempting to legalize illegal immigrants than enforcing the laws designed to protect the interests of its citizens. That plays a direct role in answering your question. First in addressing your question let’s go directly to the book on this one.
The agency that regulates policies pertaining to firearms is of course the ATF. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has a specific section of policy dedicated to this topic. Under the heading: May a nonimmigrant alien who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa and who falls within an exception, purchase a firearm or ammunition in the United States? Here’s what the policy states:
- A nonimmigrant alien without residency in any state may not purchase and take possession of a firearm. A nonimmigrant alien may only purchase a firearm through a licensee where the licensee arranges to have the firearm directly exported. A nonimmigrant alien who falls within an exception may, however, purchase and take possession of ammunition.
- A nonimmigrant alien who has established residency in a state may purchase and take possession of a firearm from an unlicensed person, provided the buyer and seller are residents of the same state, and no other state or local law prohibits the transaction. A nonimmigrant alien with residency in a state may purchase a firearm from a licensee, provided the sale complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
Ok... So, it’s clear where the slippery slope is established. At the point in which an illegal immigrant has established residency (something that also shouldn’t be able to occur), they’re able to buy “legally” through private transactions with other “legal” residents within their state.
One might wonder why and how constitutional rights would be extended to those who don’t legally have them but nevertheless that’s where we currently stand because of a recent federal ruling.
In what’s likely the situation that the listener who submitted today’s Q&A was referencing, the ATF rule I cited was challenged and a federal judge ruled that an illegal immigrant may “legally” possess a firearm. The March ruling, from a federal judge in Illinois, involved the case of an illegal immigrant in Chicago who was arrested on June 1st of 2020 for possession of a firearm while lacking legal status in the country. The case was prosecuted under Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code which is the law under which the ATF’s rule was written. The Obama-appointed judge said in the ruling: 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. And with that federal ruling a judge didn’t just effectively enable those lacking legal status in this country to possess firearms, the judge expressly stated that it’s a protected constitutional right for a person lacking legal status in this country to legally possess a firearm for self-defense purposes.
It’s possible, perhaps even likely, that this ruling will eventually be challenged in a higher court, however given that it’s the highest federal ruling on the issue to date it’s effectively the law of the land. A law that states constitutional rights extend to those whose first act in this country was to break the law and who continue to do so every day they remain in this country.