Court upholds gun ban for migrants in US unlawfully
By Nate Raymond
Aug 28 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court upheld a federal law that bars migrants who are in the United States illegally from possessing guns, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man convicted of unlawfully having a handgun that the ban was unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Tuesday that the ban was still valid even after recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have expanded gun rights by requiring firearms restrictions to be in keeping with the nation's history and tradition.
The panel said those Supreme Court rulings did not unequivocally undermine an earlier decision by the 5th Circuit holding that the plain text of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not encompass immigrants in the county illegally.
"We should not extend rights to illegal aliens any further than what the law requires," U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a conservative appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, wrote in a concurring opinion.
The ruling came in an appeal by Jose Paz Medina-Cantu, who had been arrested by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Texas in 2022 and charged with illegally possessing a handgun and unlawfully re-entering the country after being previously deported.
Medina-Cantu pleaded guilty and was sentenced last year to 15 months in prison, but he preserved the right to argue on appeal that the gun charge violated his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
His lawyers based their argument on a landmark 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority that established a new test for assessing whether modern firearm restrictions comply with the Second Amendment.
The court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required gun regulations to be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Many laws have been declared invalid following that decision.
Medina-Cantu's lawyers argued the ruling likewise undermined a 2011 decision by the 5th Circuit upholding the immigration-related ban as there was no historical tradition dating back to around when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 of disarming people based solely on their immigration status.
But the three-judge panel said the Supreme Court's recent rulings on gun rights "did not unequivocally abrogate our precedent that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not encompass illegal aliens."
Medina-Cantu's lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
