The U.S. appeals court in Chicago ruled earlier this month that federal officials did not violate the Constitution in enforcing a gun ban against Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an immigrant from Mexico lacking legal status.
This decision came after U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman initially dismissed the indictment, arguing that the law he was charged with contravened the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
However, on July 16, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Coleman’s ruling, directing her to reconsider the case.
Carbajal-Flores, 33, found himself in legal trouble after Chicago police arrested him for allegedly firing seven shots at a vehicle during looting related to the protests following George Floyd’s death on June 1, 2020, in Little Village.
The incident, captured on police surveillance, fortunately did not injure anyone.
Although Carbajal-Flores claimed he acted as a protector of his neighborhood by firing warning shots at purported looters, federal prosecutors contended that he discharged his firearm recklessly and provocatively.
Initially hesitant to dismiss the charges against Carbajal-Flores, Coleman ultimately did so, citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in a gun rights case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Coleman interpreted the ruling to suggest that Congress could disarm only “untrustworthy or dangerous illegal aliens,” determining that Carbajal-Flores was trustworthy, given his employment status and lack of felony convictions.
The Bruen decision established that gun regulations must adhere to the historical traditions of firearm laws in the United States.
This ruling has led to a surge of constitutional challenges by defense attorneys against federal gun charges.
Despite numerous attempts, many of these challenges have not been successful.
Judges have wrestled with the implications of the Bruen ruling, with some expressing concerns that it could result in increased gun violence and devastated communities.
In the case of Carbajal-Flores, the 7th Circuit’s panel elaborated on a variety of historical perspectives, referencing aspects like English history, the Revolutionary War, and the loyalty of Irish Catholics to the Pope.
It concluded that historically, governments reserved the right to disarm “illegal aliens” unless they pledged allegiance to the ruling sovereign.
As Carbajal-Flores never became a naturalized U.S. citizen, the court emphasized that he never swore any such allegiance.
In their opinion, the appeals court stated, “The Second Amendment secures for the people a fundamental right.
The government thus bears the substantial burden of proving that a law limiting the right fits within our nation’s regulatory tradition.
That burden has been carried here.”
Jacob S. Briskman, Carbajal-Flores’ attorney, expressed disappointment in the court’s decision.
He argued that, although not strictly necessary, Carbajal-Flores consistently pledged allegiance to the American flag throughout his school years in Chicago and should be viewed as having a patriotic loyalty to the United States.
In a legal submission, Briskman stated, “There is therefore every reason to believe this is a constitutionally-acceptable substitute for the colonial-era loyalty pledge.”
Briskman further noted, “We’re looking at our next steps right now.”
Legal experts, such as Duke University law professor Andrew Willinger, describe Carbajal-Flores’ situation as a prime illustration of the complexities triggered by the Bruen ruling.
Willinger noted that the historical method employed by the courts often leads to examining extensive historical details.
This raises concerns that appellate courts may find factual details more suitable for trial courts, which are traditionally more engaged in adversarial processes.
Looking ahead, Willinger does not foresee the Supreme Court addressing Carbajal-Flores’ challenge, given that appeals court verdicts have already ruled the law as constitutional.
He pointed out that amidst the intersection of gun rights and immigration, there appears to be a consensus among judges.
This consensus often consists of judges who otherwise may disagree on issues related to the Second Amendment.
image source from：chicago
