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
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
