ATF Agent Wins BIGLY! | No Gun Rights For Illegals? | "No Guns" Signs Are False Advertising

[@tenchraven]

The Constitution must apply equally to all persons, citizen or not, in America. Otherwise, none of it will apply- there are no second class rights. That he's not a citizen, that he's not here legally, doesn't remove his protections under the rest of the Constitution. The cops can't just beat him until he signs a confession to every unsolved murder they want to clear, then without a jury or council, have a judge declare guilt and sentence. If snuck over, misdemenor; over stayed a visa, civil matter. Neither of those make the Second a second class right. And once you think it does, you're saying you "support the Constitution but". Which makes you a traitor.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Incredibly based and well articulated. Edit: apparently I need to remind you folks that illegal aliens still enjoy the protections of the 1A, 4A, and 5A until they have a trial. You can't just search any person's car and claim you think they're an illegal. Their 4A rights don't just evaporate the second you claim they're illegal. So until they are proven illegal in court, their rights remain intact.

[@James-cr5mc]

Excellent point. I believe they're treated as if they had all the other rights, such as the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th. So the 2nd should apply as well. All persons in this nation have these rights, citizen or not, and the constitution should be applied to the world. We would live in a much better place if every nation recognized the rights listed in the constitution. Also, happy Thanksgiving

[@Bob-cx4ze]

Now do death row inmates

[@stormlakebobcat9058]

Non citizens have no constitutional rights. Simply human rights. They have no rights to a firearm afforded to a CITIZEN

[@divVerent]

@@James-cr5mc Also, it's been decided many times before that at least resident aliens _do_ have gun rights, even though they never swore allegiance to the US. Is this decision a reversal of that? Also, many Americans never swore that oath - you can be born in the US and never have recited the pledge of allegiance before turning 18 or even 21, after all, and this does not preclude you from gun ownership.

[@freerangejimbo]

ATF Agent James Burk was previously charged with stealing wine from a Kroger back in 2015. You know, the A in ATF. And he still has a job with the ATF.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Yeah, the same guy. Stole wine. archive.is/DlSUr

[@drewb5738]

The judge awarded 1.6 million of our taxes to the ATF agent. What a scam.

[@Bacteriophagebs]

The taxpayers are always the ones who pay for LE misconduct, whether they're federal or local. I can count the number of officers who've had to pay out themselves on one hand. When they know they'll lose, the government just settles it at no cost to the LE officer.

[@Jason_556]

I’m sure he’s getting a kickback for it.

[@jasonwilson3057]

If you live in Columbus, OH. But even then, insurance usually pays large judgements like this.

[@csforesman]

And who pays for the insurance? Insurance isn't some magical thing that produces money out of nowhere like the federal reserve. In order for the insurance provider to be profitable their customers as a whole have to pay them more than they pay out. Which means tax payers everywhere pay more. But, if I heard correctly, this settlement was actually against the individual officers, not the city or the department, so presumably the officers would be individually liable to pay it. Something that essentially never happens when normal citizens sue law enforcement, which might be the most infuriating part of this whole story.

[@5jjt]

I didn't see any violations of the agent's rights. He refused to get on the ground. If that had happened to any ordinary person, the case would've been the opposite, and everyone knows it.

[@Lot_Lizard2024]

So the AFT sued because his rights was violated while he was in the process of violating someone else's rights 🤔

[@moviesandfilms4you]

Yep sad but true i bet he is a democrap

[@JohnAdams-mu7xd]

There's no excuse for anyone to violate anyone's rights whether a law enforcement or federal agent

[@vegeta420z6]

@@Lot_Lizard2024🎶 🎵 its like raiiiiiiiin on your wedding day, its a free ride when you've already paid, its the good advice that you just can't take 🎶 🎵

[@averagelibertyenjoyer3217]

That atf agent was also previously arrested for swapping price tags off of cheap bottles of wine onto expensive bottles of wine so he could pay less at self checkout. They only caught him because the store workers suspected he had done that many times before. Real stand up guy he is.

[@bobbytrill5166]

Geee.. isn’t that the A part of ATF? 😂

[@rogueldr642smiythe9]

The agent was totally wrong and the suit should be tossed. I hope the appeal goes through.

[@BMG47911]

If they post a no gun sign, i do business elsewhere.

[@texasranger24]

But even if you went in their shop (maybe without buying anything) they should be liable for your complete protection from all illegal harm since they posted a sign that you yourself aren't supposed or able to do so yourself.

[@BMG47911]

@texasranger24 I agree with your statement. My wife and I just vote with our feet.

[@mountainman8602]

Unless they're running people through a manometer, I ignore the sign. If for some weird reason they find out I am armed, All they can do is tell me to leave.

[@that1electrician]

​@mountainman8602 or they can call the cops and make a false claim saying there's a crazy armed guy in our shop and they're scared, and then the jump out boys descend on you thinking you're a serious threat. That's why you should just stay out of "gun free" safe spaces. It's not worth the risk.

[@anthonymuma4602]

I cant read, not my fault

[@davet319]

If the "ATF agent" had just complied and followed the cop's orders, everything would have been fine. That's what they always tell us anyway. But for them, their ego is such that they can't submit to anyone else's authority, so instead he refuses to do what he's told and instead argues with the officer. When the peasants do that, we have little to no recourse. But when the enforcers do it to other enforcers, they get $1.2M?!

[@dshawgo]

He would be singing a different song, had he been in their position, and I highly suspect someone would have left in an ambulance.

[@michaelcollier3893]

My question is: If background checks are so fabulous, how did this guy PASS 170 OF THEM???

[@airbomb34]

That's the kicker... If you aren't supposed to be in the country at all, nobody know who you are, and how do you legally purchase a firearm commercially? On the 4473 form there is a question about immigration status.......

[@brandonrupp5880]

If I recall correctly Ohio doesn't require background checks on private sales.

[@battalion151R]

​@brandonrupp5880 That is true. However, since this guy is here illegally, he is already a felon. He can have a successful business, but legally, he can't own firearms in the US because he's a felon. It should be investigated where these 170 firearms came from. If someone is straw purchasing for him, they need to be indicted. I do understand why aliens want to come here, but they must go through the right channels. If they are entering illegally, they should be fingerprinted and retinal scanned, then deported for their first offense. If they are caught again, then they get to stay for a year in one of our luxurious prisons, then deported. Third offense, two years, deported. Fourth offense, 4 years, deported. Also, since they have entered illegally, they can never become a US citizen. No one, that is not a US citizen, is allowed to vote on any issue in America. This BS of allowing illegals to vote in local and state elections, will become a court case to make it legal for them to vote in a national election. Illegals should not count in the census either. That increases the representation of Demorat controlled areas.

[@MyName-tb9oz]

@@brandonrupp5880 Liberty Doll's video on this says that they were not private sales and that he had filled out background check paperwork. She goes into a lot more depth on it.

[@ultrablue2]

ATF agent James A Burk’s “professional” conduct is a disgrace. Hopefully incoming director Herrera will straighten things out.

[@GaryStafford-dz3el]

He did commit a felony by stating he was not an illegal immigrant. He lied on the 4473 form.

[@Mr._Infamous]

I'll give you that one.

[@FrankHaul]

Exactly

[@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz]

No, ignore that part 😂

[@stevene6482]

Maybe he should have spent a bit of that surplus income on pursuing citizenship instead of a few more pistols.

[@khester7397]

The unconstitutional question?

[@texasranger24]

F the AFT!

[@alansloan7784]

F agent JB, and all of his fellow traitors in that agency.

[@patriotcountry4716]

2A rights were written for Americans to be able to protect themselves against foreign invasion, not to protect the invaders right to be armed after they invaded!

[@alberto5770]

As a legal alien I support this message. Even if entering illegally is just a misdemeanor, summing up working without a permit, paying no taxes, how do you get a driving license without documents, a home to pay rent, start a business...

[@Nta_winy_lftst]

​@alberto5770 The taxes they take from your paycheck... Illegals cost taxpayers over 100 billion a year.

[@bikerbobcat]

@@alberto5770 They pay sales taxes on every transaction, they pay fees for licenses. I'm not worried.

[@patriotcountry4716]

@bikerbobcat well why don't you move some in with you

[@Nta_winy_lftst]

@patriotcountry4716 That would mean he would have to take responsibility for his stupid opinions and we know that won't happen.

[@-FIREKAT-]

Every officer knows that the man in uniform is incharge until you are verified. Also isnt this the same ATF boy arrested for stealing wine.

[@khester7397]

You grovel before costumes?

[@alblanzjr]

A CITIZEN would have been LUCKY to survive the encounter!!

[@brucecook502]

Well, since these unsecured establishments don't have you sign a liability waiver upon entry, I would think it would make sense that if a concealed carrier who refrained to carry their weapon in a establishment with a gun-free zone sign were to be seriously injured by somebody with a weapon, they should be able to sue for gross negligence.

[@WholeSomeHomie]

That doesn't even make sense Show legal precedent

[@brucecook502]

@WholeSomeHomie establishments are sued all the time when their staff/employeee/management neglect the safety of their patrons or customers when certain accidents are preventable and either precautions aren't taken or actions are taken that compromise the safety of the patrons or customers and injuries occur.

[@joeclaridy]

​​@@brucecook502in order for patrons be able to sue establishments for being gun free zones, you would have to strip the owners of these establishments of their 5th Amendment rights. The intention of the 5th Amendment when it pertains to property rights revolve around the ability to possess & control property, exclude persons from said property, and the legal transfer of property. Like it or not gun free zones for private property are an example of the 5th Amendment in which private citizens get full autonomy over there private property. The reason why this does not get brought up in court because lawyers would be opening pandoras box for 2 reasons. 1) The government can compel private citizens to do certain acts within reason as long as it does not violating their rights. Private citizens do not have the powers to force other citizens to do said things nor deprive them of their rights. I cannot force you to come on my property but then strip you of your 2nd Amendment right but if you willingly come on my property and its indicated to be a gun free zone then you have to respect my 5th Amendment right. 2) All Amendments are equally protected and any specific Amendments does not superceed any other Amendment. The Bill of Rights protects ALL rights equally even when we don't agree on certain policies. This is the part of the metaphor my rights begin were yours end but seen from the other persons perspective.

[@Pro_Triforcer]

@@joeclaridy Property owners already can't do whatever they want if they invite other people in, such as employees and customers. It's called duty of care. For example, if you have your emotional support spike pit in the middle of your establishment and someone falls into it - you're liable. If you have wet floors without the appropriate sign and it leads to injury - you're liable. If your establishment isn't compliant with any of the rest of OSHA regulations and it leads to injury - you're liable. Therefore, if you post a sign saying "defenseless victims here, please come shoot them" (which is what gun-free zone signs essentially are) - of course you should be liable for whatever happens as a result.

[@sultanofsick]

I think that woman needs to file a harassment suit for, oh I don't know, about $1.6 million in PTSD damages.

[@popuptarget7386]

Take out the decimal and change it to billion....ala Alex jones.

[@1912rider]

I'm pretty sure the window to file such an action has long since closed.

[@rustleshackleford1553]

Guns are not a crime!

[@geneticdisorder1900]

The commie government is !! Fhak the atf ! Fhak the feds !

[@sethsparky8731]

The agent wasn't fake; but he was gay.

[@tylerwilliams6022]

So what you are saying is that he was indeed fake! ;)

[@dowdwm]

To your point about liability. Several yeas ago I I had a doctors appointment at my local medical facility. It houses a variety of different types of medical offices....about 20 or more. I was shocked to for the first time see a "No Weapons" decal on the front door. It turned out that they had been bought by a bigger company and their policy was gun free zones in their facilities. I returned to my vehicle and left my pistol under the seat. I went inside, checked in, and demanded that I see the doctor immediately for my examination. That was not going very well because I was making announcements to everyone in the waiting area that we were all in danger because of their policy. Finally my doctor showed up and I explained that they had REMOVED my 2nd amendment rights at the front door. Do my exam so I can get out of this place. I told him I would not be back until this policy was changed. I also explained that the removal of my 2nd A right meant that they would be liable for any harm that may come to me or my wife in their facility and it was unfair to remove a persons constitutional right without providing visible and armed security to keep us safe. If anything happens I will OWN this company! The doctor did my quarterly exam noting the high blood pressure and I left. Upon arriving at home I drafted a letter describing the situation and explaining how they do not provide for your safety and so on. I then went on a rampage posting the contents of the letter on every social media outlet I could find. I posted on the local news TV Facebook Pages, the local papers, the Bay View Medicals Facebook and many more. To make my point, I reposted every day. About 4 weeks later I received a letter from Bay View Medical thanking me for explaining the liability issues they would face if something tragic happened. Long Story Short - They decided it would be less risky to remove the No Guns decal as it would be to costly to have armed security on site. On my next visit a few months later, I carried my EDC into the office and there was no sign and no objections.

[@joeclaridy]

You do know the 5th Amendment does exist and as much as I love the 2nd Amendment private property rights are a thing.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Incredibly based. Just because property rights exist does not mean that property owners are immune to liability for the harm they cause with their policies. Imagine if a concert venue banned water. Would people line up to say "but muh 5A" when people drop dead of dehydration?

[@thomasvakyren]

Gun rights and the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense and preservation are human rights. They don't end at an imaginary line drawn in the dirt. Should he be here? No. Does he have the right to bear arms? Absolutely.

[@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz]

That "imaginary line in the dirt" is exactly as imaginary as your property line and threshold to your front door.

[@MrPapageorgio]

Gun rights are only for people that are legally in a country. I can't just go to X country and start trying to vote or run for office so why does someone else get to do that to my country?

[@ARFCOMNews]

You can't worship as you please in some countries. And the cops can just look through your stuff any time they want in some countries. We're not those countries. Even people accused of being here illegally have 1A and 4A rights until they are found guilty and deported. Besides, do you believe that gun rights are natural, God given rights? Or do you believe they are granted by government only to certain people?

[@randomappalachian4635]

​@@ARFCOMNews Crossing a border illegally is a crime. That makes them criminals. Should we let prisoners in jail carry guns? How about terrorists in Guantanamo Bay? You don't get to break our laws and then enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Prisoners don't get to leave when they want, and can't refuse cell searches or personal searches. Illegals should NEVER be allowed to own guns, period. You're wrong on this one.

[@ianwalker3144]

​@@ARFCOMNewsProtecting yourself or someone else is an inalienable right. Our Constitution's protection of this right, and all other rights, should be limited to citizens and legal immigrants. I don't agree with guaranteed constitutional protection to criminal aliens, although we DO extend some of those protections as a courtesy to visitors.

[@adamschrader328]

@@randomappalachian4635 Exactly, Countries without Borders and Laws cease to exist as a cohesive society.

[@userJohnSmith]

Natural human rights are afforded to all within our borders. The second counts in that regard. Voting is the right of a citizen. Very different thing.

[@GarbageDeplorableBitterClinger]

Gun rights are of course human rights. Being in the country illegally is not, when you do that you forfeit your other rights.. This isn't complicated.

[@LeoBaker-ir3vo]

Exactly which rights does one forfeit upon illegal entry? Do you really believe they lose all rights? Could they be enslaved? Subjected to medical experiments? Forced to change religions? Tortured? Did you think for one second before you posted that nonsense?

[@stewart8127]

Being in the country is a right in libs mind .

[@strykerentllc]

@@LeoBaker-ir3vo yes, yes, yes, and yes. Somebody illegally enters your home, eats your food, takes your money, and dumps in your toilet then decides he's going to hang out for the rest of his life on your dime at your place and you can't do anything about it because he has rIgHts... *derp*

[@franklugo6928]

​@@strykerentllcso in your mind, if someone breaks into you house, YOU can hold them against their will for years and make them your slave and it will be OK because they no longer have any rights, not even God given/natural rights? If rights can be taken away, then they are created by the government and can be taken away from the government. That includes your rights.

[@strykerentllc]

@@franklugo6928 Gee, why are there prisons, walnut? LOL In your walnut, nobody can be held against their will while digging ditches on a chain gang because laws and punishment for breaking said laws encroach on human rights... *derp* Take that sovereign citizen nonsense out of here.

[@archaicsage4803]

Where guns are not allowed is where you need them the most. Ignore all signs.

[@DougBird-p9g]

I agree he has a human right to own guns in his home country. Since he was/is an illegal alien he should have no rights guaranteed by OUR constitution. END STORY.

[@adamschrader328]

Some Countries treat invaders quite differently.

[@LeoBaker-ir3vo]

God-given rights do not respect borders. Some countries don't respect God given rights.

[@jeffhays1968]

The bill of rights applies to almost everyone, except the 2A part. 1'st amendment, 4'th and 5'th and 8th amendment, all apply to folks here 'illegally'. Been in court and always found to be that way. Not 2A though.

[@JohnDBloch]

@@jeffhays1968 I wonder why that is. It could be the result of court rulings or something, but I cant see anything written there with an addendum that says "the right of the CITIZENS to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I know my argument kind of sounds like "aint no rule says the dog can't play basketball" but the bill of rights is a document that limits government power, not grant it.

[@Mr._Infamous]

You just completely contradicted yourself in that short little paragraph

[@John-tx1wk]

I saw the video. It was two idiots versus one idiot. The two idiots won the battle but the one idiot won the war. And do police really want to use "anyone can have a badge" and "there is no way we could know his credentials were valid" as a defense?

[@otetechie]

As a defense for them, yes. For anyone else, absolutely not.

[@billsilva1740]

Visitors and illegals have rights 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. The difference is Under 18 USC § 922(g)(5), it is a crime for undocumented migrants or nonimmigrants to be in possession of a firearm. It shall be unlawful for any person-... (5) who, being an alien- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States...or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.

[@NetAgent]

That's exactly what the code says. 18 USC § 922(g)(5)

[@ARFCOMNews]

Yeah, I think that law is unconstitutional. If they have 4A rights, they have 2A rights. Until they are convicted, of course.

[@billsilva1740]

@@ARFCOMNewsI understand your point but the 2A states ...the right of the people... the question is are illegals part of the people. In Heller SCOTUS ruled "people" are part of the national community. So are illegals part of the "national community"? I think most people including the SCOTUS would say they are not. Using the plain text of the 2A I say they do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

[@robinshull6510]

I'm not sure, but I think they passed a law here in Kansas that required any business who prohibited fire arms on their property. Had provide armed security or metal detectors, and could be held liable for any one hurt or killed. At least I think they did. The only thing is, the law has no teeth. As far as I know, nobody is policing the law or holding anything business responsable. The good thing is we got campus carry and it reduced crime of being caught with a gun on you in one of these no gun places to a misdemeanor. Also companys can no longer prohibite their employees from locking their guns in their cars and firing them for it.

[@ARFCOMNews]

I'd vote for that.

[@jacka55six60]

I remember the liberals in Lawrence going ape over that. I moved out of KS a few years ago so I can't say where where the law stands today.

[@robinshull6510]

@jacka55six60 I do remember that they got a two year stay. So that they could be able to get the money or figure out how they were going to implement the system and comply with the law. Nobody did anything to become compliant. They just let it take effect. I do remember that my mother and her anti gun friends went to WSU to protest the law. It was about a week before the law was supposed to take effect. I told it was pretty pathetic for them to wait almost two years to try and do anything about it. Their protest did nothing but annoy the college and the city of Wichita.

[@chrish1585]

The "Guarantee" of Constitutionally protected Rights is only for Citizens of the United States. That's what the words "citizens of the nation and subject to the laws thereof". People who are Not citizens and subject to the laws thereof, are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights and infringement upon their rights is Not unconstitutional. That's the law like it or not. Has been for 248 years!!!

[@ARFCOMNews]

Is that why the cops didn't need a warrant to search the guy's house? Because the 4A doesn't apply to him? Because he's an illegal?

[@PrayingPanda]

Human right. Constitution says people, not citizens

[@leholen381]

In Virginia it’s not illegal to conceal carry into an establishment with a no weapons sign but if they find out and ask you to leave and you don’t, you can be charged with trespassing then.

[@Live4Gunz]

Constitution should apply only to legal citizens or visitors.

[@khester7397]

No human rights for illegals? Dumb.

[@originaljcs]

The woman now needs to sue the fed civilly and collect the million $$. She's the one who deserves it.

[@ronaldacarter8079]

I cannot help but be reminded of one of our strongest arguments early on in our fight for 2nd Amendment rights. It was and remains that he "people" in the 2nd Amendment must be the same "people" referenced in the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging , , , the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 4th Amendment states, "The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, . . ." The Amendment 9th holds, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE." The 10th Amendment also references the people, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE." Undeniably the courts have held and will continue to hold that illegal aliens ARE part of the people in the 1st and 4th Amendments, but they ARE NOT part of the people referred to in the 9th and 10th Amendments; as they ARE NOT part of the body politic. Clearly, illegal aliens have no right to travel freely or to vote because they are not part of the body politic. It is entirely nonsensical to maintain that all Mexican citizens have a right to vote in our elections even though many Democratic would love to mail them all absentee ballots. Just as an intruder into your home has no right to bear arms (in your home) or self defense; an intruder into our Country has no right to keep and bear arms. So there is in fact AND in practice different definitions for the "people" depending upon which Amendment one is referring.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Good analysis, but I disagree. And largely because the definition of "people" is moot. An illegal alien isn't legally an illegal alien until he is convicted. Just like any other crime. At that point, he should be deported. But until he is convicted, he enjoys the right to bear arms, just like anyone else in this country.

[@ronaldacarter8079]

@ as for me, I don’t want the criminal justice system and the woke Left treating someone who has broken into my home as a squatter with rights to stay in it until I can prove in court that they’re not tenets.

[@ditch9802]

The woman needs to sue the ATF agent for his crime.

[@ScorpioSin777]

The fed is an idiot and I applaud the professionalism of the police that arrested him. The agent was trespassing at the point they showed up. I am sure the lady told him to leave and didn’t want him there. Simple.

[@ARFCOMNews]

That's how I see it.

[@benc6690]

We don't ban rights for misdemeanors? Wait, don't we have a case somewhere in the supreme court shuffle for that exact issue? Gun rights gone forever for a paperwork misdemeanor. I guess that's only for 'some' misdemeanors.

[@inerlogic]

Yes, misdemeanors can be felonies when it comes to losing your rights... in MA any misdemeanor where potential jail time is over a certain amount (1.5 or 2.5 years, i forget) you become a prohibited person.... google "misdafelony"

[@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz]

A business isnt advertising that there are no guns, theyre ordering there to be no guns. You cant sue a store with a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign because you saw a man without a shirt, but the store can kick that shirtless man out.

[@joeclaridy]

The 5th Amendment has multiple uses including property rights

[@ARFCOMNews]

If they tell me I'm not allowed to wear a shirt and then ignore people not wearing shirts?

[@MIKE-c2y]

No "gun" is great grounds for suing the business pretty fucking easy.

[@kenfrutiger2471]

That ATF agent should no longer be an ATF agent! With his attitude, I wouldn't want him for security guard at the local dump!!

[@SplatteringDonkeyNuggets]

Gun rights are human rights but criminals shouldn't have guns and illegally entering a country is... Still a crime. You don't get to have it both ways.

[@khester7397]

It's not a felony. And even if it were, you still have to be convicted before being deprived of your rights.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Do we normally violate people's constitutional rights for a misdemeanor? Before they even get a trial?

[@SplatteringDonkeyNuggets]

@@khester7397 nah you can be locked up and have your property confiscated while you wait for arraignment. Look at all those terrible red flag laws. Why should we be imposing strict laws on actual citizens while ignoring crimes committed by foreign nationals?

[@SplatteringDonkeyNuggets]

@khester7397 it is infact a felony for an illegal immigrant to own a firearm in the USA

[@SplatteringDonkeyNuggets]

@@ARFCOMNews Under federal law, it is a felony for individuals unlawfully present in the United States to possess firearms or ammunition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly prohibits firearm possession by certain categories of individuals, including those "illegally or unlawfully in the United States." This prohibition has been consistently upheld by federal courts. For instance, in August 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of this federal law, rejecting challenges that it violated Second Amendment rights. Therefore, unauthorized immigrants found in possession of firearms can face felony charges under federal law. It's important to note that while federal law sets this baseline, individual states may have additional regulations regarding firearm possession. So it's not "just a misdemeanor".

[@lordhuck2689]

Gun rights are “natural rights” However I believe the constitution only restrains the USA government from infringing on the natural rights of USA citizens.

[@ARFCOMNews]

That's a very measured and rational take. I dig it.

[@khester7397]

​@ARFCOMNews It's completely asinine. The entire constitution is predicated on "unalienable" human rights. None of it is dependent upon citizenship.

[@lordhuck2689]

@@khester7397 Criminal aliens are not part of "the people".

[@ARFCOMNews]

You mean after a person is convicted by a court, right?

[@Paladin1873]

Something similar happened to my wife shortly after we got married. I was away on Reserve duty when an ATF inspector called our home number and demanded he be allowed to inspect my inventory within the next hour. My wife explained she knew nothing about it and did not have access to the armory. He began badgering and threatening her, so she called me at CENTCOM. I called Marion Hammer (NRA president) and Marion had me to call attorney James H. Jeffries, III. He was an amazing man. He asked me the name of the ATF rep, checked a list he kept on them, then said, "Yes, I know who he is, and he's a compliance inspector, not an armed agent. If he shows up at your house, your wife should call the sheriff and have him arrested if he does not leave." That was the end of it.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Based.

[@donaldfuller5058]

About the illegal with guns he was committing a crime by staying in the United States without a visa. And he have years to get legal. Now I do think it should be easier to become legal.

[@ARFCOMNews]

At worst, he committed a misdemeanor. We don't normally violate a man's constitutional rights for misdemeanors. Mostly.

[@kevinfidler8074]

I think the cops were in the right. In my opinion, if those Columbus cops had done the same early morning, no knock the atf did to a citizen, even with the same end result towards that fed boi. I would still say they were in the right. Shouldn't gun rights and all other constitutional rights only be for US citizens? If an illegal were allowed to have a gun, it would give grounds for those on the left to say an illegal can vote in elections, or even be a politician for that matter. If that guy has been here 15 years he should become a US citizen, and then he would have the right to own a firearm.

[@PaulGriffin-ox1gp]

Anyone who crosses our borders illegally should face felony charges or the business end of a military officer and not a police officer. Our military was built on the idea of defending our borders and they should now as they did years and years ago. Our government has gotten weak about the border

[@ARFCOMNews]

Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor. And posse comitatus prevents the military being used to enforce civilian law.

[@darthhodges]

I agree that gun rights are human rights but unfortunately the guy with the collection I am jealous of screwed up. He claimed he was a citizen on at least one 4473 when he knew he wasn't. Had he not checked US citizen he could have still bought the guns (almost) legally as long as he met the documentation requirements. Lying on a 4473 is a crime which might get him deported, without his guns. It would be really cool if he argued that law (or the form itself) were unconstitutional, though and get something heading up the appeal ladder. For the record I do believe in having laws about immigration. I think some of the laws and related processes need to change but we need to be able to choose who we let in. We know there are many who would come here and do harm if they could because some already do.

[@wzhaicthtaarkyer]

Unalienable, right !!!!!

[@jeramiahshastid6041]

He lies on the firearms form claiming he was a U.S. Citizen. I believe that is a felony. SEMPER FI

[@ARFCOMNews]

4473s should be illegal. Free Hunter Biden!

[@scapegoat762]

@@ARFCOMNews The line. Did you not notice it when you were crossing it?

[@connermccaughey3911]

🅱️ased​@@ARFCOMNews

[@jasonwilson3057]

@@ARFCOMNewsshould be? Perhaps but the guy committed an actual crime.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Gun crimes are not real crimes.

[@smnkm4ehfer]

Last i checked, the 2a doesnt say anything anywhere that its okay for said right to be infringed, and i dont remember seeing anything in there about the government granting said right. I think it only limits the government from making any law restricting said right. Could be wrong, except I'm not.

[@smnkm4ehfer]

Also, in PA, our government recognizes that no gun signs carry no force of law, so we're free to disregard them all we want. Only thing they can do is kick you out(private property rights) but since I carry concealed, they never have a gun related reason to ask me to leave 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@adamschrader328]

Doe's the 2nd apply to the World?

[@toddhenson5570]

What I have learned from the media and "others", is to always howl "I can't breath" when arrested. This is the key to a multi-million dollar retirement.

[@guildig1]

If I owned a business the sign I put in the window would say, “if you are a criminal or violent person don’t come in we are all pro 2A.” That video of the ATF agent getting tased and arrested then crying like a snowflake is one of the best videos on the internet.

[@BD1234-e8x]

I love how you said the “illegal” alien busted with 170 firearms was here for 15 YEARS and had a “successful business”.! So he comes here illegally, then never attempts to file papers to become legal, but has enough $$ to buy 170 firearms! Apparently he paid for those guns picking fruit and doing jobs no Americans will do? And how did he pay taxes with no social security number or whatever number they give legal immigrants to work? Or maybe he didn’t pay taxes and just enjoyed the benefits of living here, while taking that job from a citizen? And how did he buy those guns, when whoever sold each one was also breaking the law? My heart bleeds for him. 😂

[@DefiantSix]

Anybody who'd take the ATF's shilling isn't a "human being", so we're okay.

[@bthemedia]

Beyond comprehension how that ATF agent harass a person, fail to follow orders and potentially resist arrest and still get a $1.6m settlement for a temporary false arrest like the police do to everyone else every day.

[@BeersYourFriend]

The reason as to why a No Gun sign will not work for any shop who decides to post such signs, is due to the fact that not only are most shops typically covered in welcome signs, advertisements, and licensing signs, it is that many of these signs are far too small to read, that makes it next to impossible for any law abiding gun owner to see the particular sign in question. Shops today are covered in signs and most people only see the large welcomes signs and neon signs, since they tend to be the largest and that catch the eye. Nobody is going to read every stupid sign before they enter a building to do some simple shopping. I can't remember the last time I stopped outside of a store and read every single sign before entering an establishment. It just doesn't happen. Nobody reads all of these signs. Americans got places to be and stuff to do. I think most gun owners today who are properly trained know the places where it's blatantly obvious that their firearm is staying in the car. Most gun owners follow who know the rules of gun ownership follow the rules. But no one is perfect, and there are bound to be mistakes. We want to go to work, stop inside a new shop, go to our favorite restaurants for a bite to eat, and we all do this as quickly as possible. We want to leave with a new product in our hand or a belly full of food. The only times I read signs if when they say Budweiser on them. Haha! Although, if you as a shop owner post a larger more massive signs out front with neon lights that says NO GUNS ALLOWED, making it impossible for anyone to miss, then maybe there is a case to be had here. I think a very small handful of folks, like myself, would respect your request and leave our firearm in our glovebox. But the fact of the matter is that 95% of people carrying are not going to agree to your terms of entry, come in anyways, and you didn't even know they had anything on them. It would also be a bit odd to potentially turn someone away, who could have been a great returning customer, doesn't make much sense to me. You don't want to ever not do business with someone, just because people have differences of opinions and beliefs. Heck, if I owned a shop in a state where concealed carry is legal, I'm going to know as a shop owner that there is a pretty high probability that many people who have been in and out of my shop are people walking around with a firearm, who have every right to carry said firearm. If it's concealed well enough, then I'd be more than happy to do business with anyone entering my shop. My shop is to provide a service for everyone. I want to do business with anyone, put a smile on someone's face, and make a buck. Many who conceal carry went through the courses to learn, obtaining that permit, and know how to conceal carry very well. The point of concealed carry is to not inform anyone, or talk to anyone about how tricked out your Glock 19 is. LOL! When an individual is concealing his or her firearm properly, then there is no cause for alarm. It means the shop owner, and everyone else shopping have no idea an individual has a firearm. What is it about someone concealing a firearm or open carrying a firearm, that shop owners are so afraid of? Who is putting up No Gun signs outside of their shops? I've never once met a responsible gun owner with a permit to carry that I didn't like. The vast majority of responsible gun owners are some of the nicest human beings I've ever met. I'd be more comfortable in a setting where everyone open carries, but unfortunately here in Florida, that open carry vote didn't pass this year. So, if we want to dig deeper as to what shop owners are going to have to do, well the only thing I can possibly think of for gun owners to comply to a shops request over their NO GUNS sign, means there would have to be a a missive change. If a shop owner really wants to ensure that a firearm will not cross their premisses, a new law would have to be passed. There would HAVE to be a highly specific NO GUNS sign made, throughout the U.S., that every gun owner could not possibly not recognize. It's got to be a good sign to make it near impossible for a law-abiding gun owner that can't miss before entering a shop with a firearm. A law must be passed for this particular No Guns sign debate, and because there are too many factors and variables at play here, people are still going to accidentally enter a store with a firearm, even with a sign. We are only human, and accidents happen. What if the person concealing their firearm so happens to be cleaning his or her glasses while walking up to a shop, and for that split second misses the sign? Where does such sign in question need to be located exactly? Should there be 2 signs? One on the exterior of the shop's window, and maybe a painted sign on the ground as well? What if people still refuse, since the odds of getting caught with a firearm is 0% due to the fact that the firearm is 100% concealed? This noe leads us into charges. The RULES we all hate. What kind of of charges are we talking here? What if someone thinks a No GUNS sign simply does not align with what they were taught, nor believe in, who aren't breaking the law. Do shop owners want misdemeanors? Are we talking a felony? Or, would this hypothetical No GUNs sign simply give the shop owner the right to deny service? So, if for some reason a shop owner detects a poorly concealed firearm, breaking their terms, then the shop owner has the right to deny anyone service, who also has every right to tell any individual to leave their premisses. We all know if you don't leave, that is trespassing, a trip to jail, and a $1,000 dollar bail. As of right now, I'd say the best bet is to leave responsible gun owners alone, because as I stated earlier, there is nothing to be afraid of. I'll say it again, gun owners are some of the nicestest people on planet earth and that is a fact. More people need to understand this, and not be afraid. You are safer in an open carry state than a concealed carry state. I don't know why I wrote out such a long comment that I wouldn't blame anyone for not reading this. It's too long, over a very odd hypothetical. This is lawyer territory, but I think some point made here would make sense. A small sign ain't gunna cut it. This would have to be a statewide initiative where people don't mistakenly break the law, just because someone decided one day that posting a No Guns sign would be a great idea. This would not fly with many people, unless of course everyone was well informed. TLDR: A No Guns sign is never going to happen. It's a recipe for disaster. We don't need more rules and regulations right now in the country. Most people just want to be left alone, and enjoy life. Leave people be. Guns aren't scary, it's crazy people who make guns scary. There is nothing to be afraid of. As long as you keep your finger off the trigger, and it'll never go bang. The probably that you are going to be in a situation where you need to pull that trigger on someone, is like a billion to one. Driving down the road tomorrow going 80mph is more of a threat than a firearm. You are never going to use that firearm on someone. It doesn't happen. But, it feels damn good to know that I have a tool, that if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, and someone attacks, I've got the means to protect myself, my friends, and family. It's also a tool that is just a total blast to shoot. If it's been a bit since you've last been to the range, go visit your local range more often. I think many times the vast majority forget how much fun it is to shoot. Having fun is what gun ownership is all about. Get some ammo and targets and go shoot for a change. Great video ARFCOM News,! I really like your content dude, - Cheers!

[@MolonFrikenLabe]

The question as to whether or not gun rights are human rights is a silly question. I really don't understand why you're asking it. Of course gun rights are human rights. The Constitution just doesn't protect the rights of every human. It only protects the rights of the people of the United states. Of which illegal immigrants are not a part. Simple.

[@calebsone1630]

Really well said

[@sanguinembwun6475]

Now the woman that that atf agent harassed needs to sue him for the 1.6 million for defamation of character, libel, mental anguish, and pain and suffering!

[@durwoodrobison7800]

I can only hit like once! I agree fully with the abject stupidity of no gun signs. I have said for years now that the concept of pretending that your "private property" when it is a storefront, restaurant, or other place where the public can freely access and visit is ridiculous. The thought process that you can exclude people from your place of business just because they choose to exercise a right lawfully is every bit as bad as excluding groups of people for the color of their skin, their gender, or their religious beliefs. The ONLY "private property" where I feel people have any right to exclude anything is in their place of residence, period. And yes, we should very much be able to sue for damages if a shooter decides to shoot up a "no gun" zone.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Imagine if they posted a "no EpiPens" sign.

[@z3ntropy]

I got an idea: Make gun free business liable for robberies Go to gun free business Get "robbed" by "someone you don't know" nor "can't remember their face, height, race" or "what car they drive" Collect on damages

[@Z09SS]

It's not a citizen vs non-citizen thing. It's a law-abiding vs fugitive from justice thing. Even though it's a misdemeanor, they're still fugitives until arrested, convicted and sentenced. There's also the side question of morality about what rights does one forfeit when one is here illegally. It wasn't controversial that long ago that said that rights were for law abiding, upstanding citizens. But there's been a lot of "lets change the meaning of the words" around upstanding citizen in the past 20 years or so and that leads to the doubt that someone here illegally has claim to the rights they forfeited until they've successfully paid for their crime. Even if it's "just" a misdemeanor.

[@joeclaridy]

This is only an issue because one party believes this can be the key to securing unchecked power for many decades in Washington.

[@839photo]

has a medical condition, soooo what’s the physical standards for this or any LEO, especially this one tasked to do field work?!

[@artwebb6939]

If I recall correctly Luby's was sued over such policies back in the nineties after a Woman by the last name of Hupp saw her parents killed in a mass shooting at a Luby's after leaving her handgun in her vehicle as per Luby's then policy

[@RedHuntsman]

I should have the right to defend myself with a firearm in another country and I would want the same for foreigners in my country. We talk about national reciprocity; we should have universal reciprocity.

[@expo2000000]

Private businesses should be allowed to ban firearms, as long as they take security liabilities of their patrons.

[@MrLeoAtrox]

9:31 We don't usually deny civil rights for misdemeanors? So, they keep their right to bear arms in prison? (You do know that one can go to jail for a misdemeanor, don't you?) So, you're wrong about that; people lose their constitutional rights for misdemeanor crimes all the time. They just aren't lost forever ... But I'd argue that you shouldn't lose your rights forever for a felony either. Once time is served, all rights should be restored. One is either free or not. A person who is knowingly committing a crime has, by their voluntary actions, suspended their own rights. That's why it's legal to bear arms, but not to bear arms during the commission of a crime. If a person is committing a crime by his continued presence in the United States, then he has no constitutional protections for his otherwise inalienable rights. The issue of whether all of this SHOULD be as they are notwithstanding, the question remains: Was this illegal alien committing a crime?

[@joeclaridy]

Very well said. I think the ideas of rights being suspended but reinstated once justice was served should be a 2A priority.

[@herbertfawcett7213]

If that ATF agent is typical, the department has been using DEI too long!

[@JuiceJive]

I've always suspected the ATF agent was using the illegal shotgun excuse to harass the woman for some kind of personal reason.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Wouldn't surprise me. He's obviously a scumbag. Same dude was arrested for stealing wine from a Kroger.

[@jamesbromstead4949]

An ATF field agent with a medical condition? I don't think so.

[@adamschrader328]

Did he lie on some Form?

[@Mr._Infamous]

I think it's hilarious he spouted off the same bulshit everybody does when they get locked up. Oh oh I got a medical condition😂😂😂 Fkn pansy

[@Daytonaman675]

Human rights. If we can’t deny an illegal due process, the right to worship, or to peacefully assemble. We cannot deny them firearms. But atf is hunting a reason to exist right now.

[@MrJeronlewis]

This is absurd that he was awarded a settlement. It was their jurisdiction and he was non compliant. End of story.

[@Mikolt1911]

Not granted by the government but is for citizens only. Don’t really want illegal people or visiting guests carrying guns around this country

[@thestumaji656]

I agree whole heartedly, I'm pretty sure the guy lied on the 4473 about being a US citizen hence the arrest.

[@Mr._Infamous]

Go ahead and try to find the word citizen in the Constitution. I'll wait...

[@Mr._Infamous]

Classic hypocrites. Probably call yourself a "Christian" too.

[@thestumaji656]

@@Mr._Infamous wait all you want it's on the 4473 don't be a dick. I fully understand the constitution, but he lied on a federal document about his citizenship hence his arrest it's called a law, but I'll wait.

[@spinny2593]

@@Mr._Infamous Go ahead and let me know who would hand a firearm to a burglar. I'll wait...

[@MavHunter20XX]

Need that ruling reversed and those Police officers to be protected; the ones that arrested the ATF agent who refused to leave, show ID or follow orders.

[@blshouse]

He is undeniably a criminal invader. This guy was denied legal entry then he illegally crossed the next night; by his own admission. He applied for, and was denied asylum because he waited longer than a year after his last illegal entry to make the application. He lied and cheated to get the documentation he needed to start and run a successful business. He even got a TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number) for himself and his business and subsequently paid his taxes. Every single weapon he owned was purchased through the system. He lied on the forms, of course. But he filled out a form for every purchase and passed a background check every single time. The judge's reasoning for denying dismissal on 2A grounds was that laws disarming aliens who were not loyal to the government go back through the founding and are legal under Bruin.

[@rayhull5051]

Gun rights are human rights... That said, illegally crossing the boarder of the Unted States should constitute a Felony and that would answer a lot of questions regarding gun possession as well as voting by undocumented individuals.

[@noonespecific9463]

The ATF thing is gold, pure gold.

[@stephenarmstrong7354]

The lady he was harassing sues the ATF agent for 10 million.

[@ShellShock794]

Ahhhhhhh, the ATF agent got PTSD from being harassed by a police force????? Ohhhhhh nooooooo 😢

[@jayjuggrnaut]

If dude was an illegal alien, how did he buy 100+ guns legally?

[@ARFCOMNews]

He probably lied on the 4473. But since I believe the 4473 shouldn't exist...

[@lilguilty]

My opinion is that the people who hang up the signs to businesses that are open to the public are violating the public’s right to travel and right to bear arms. If your a business open to the public you need to accept the public for who they are. Imagine the sign said “no gay people allowed” it would be a huge difference.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Or a sign prohibiting asthma inhalers or epinephrine pens.

[@svbarryduckworth628]

I pay attention to who doesn't respect my rights and never ever spend any money at such a business.

[@5jjt]

Burk having credentials is the same as saying the police should have, instead, checked for a citizen's ID if Burk was a citizen, or if any citizen was in Burk's place. His credentials have nothing to do with the case because Burk wasn’t complying from the very start by refusing to get on the ground. The defense should have hired expert witnesses to explain why Burk was treated in such a way.

[@grumpygeorge]

Gun rights ARE human rights.

[@ARFCOMNews]

Based.

[@that1electrician]

Brandon Herrera for AFT director!

[@44hawk28]

Here's how you fix the problem of the no firearms allowed sign. When such a sign is posted by the owners of a business. It will be a legal standard that they have absolutely taken upon themselves The Authority that no harm will come to them from any assault of attack of any kind. That no person will violate that sign will any effect attempt to rob the store using any type of deadly weapon no one will ever present deadly force against them, either through Weaponry or disparity of force. And that anybody who does so opens them up for massive lawsuit. The mechanism should be not that I own this place and I can dictate any criteria by which somebody answers. A private property business that allows the public to come in, is a public access business. And is not a normal private property interest. Because in order for your business to operate you must allow members of the public to enter therein. Kind of a two-sided attempt to show that that sign is ineffective and stupid for the continued Financial efforts of the ownership of the establishment can you imagine the lawsuit if you're inside there and somebody comes in there and threatens virtually everybody in there by engaging in an armed robbery?

[@bryang2724]

The lady should sue that aft agent for harassment.

[@-Jeff222-]

fed epps fed epps fed epps

[@KendrasEdge757]

The right to defense of self is a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. NONE of our rights are given by government. Therefore EVERYONE has the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

[@clinodev]

Human rights are human rights. Nice how simple things can be. Love you too, Andrew!

[@Lanzerath1244]

If he is here illegally, how did he pass a NICS check?

[@airbomb34]

He lied.......170+ times, more than likely.

[@aether6500]

0:32 I would never set foot anywhere that it's illegal to conceal carry in a "no guns allowed business" (CA, NY, etc). In free states (ID, AK, etc), any business can ask you to leave for carrying, but they have to see it AND ask you to leave. Without both of those things happening, then no law is broken when carrying concealed into a "gun free business."

[@jimcombs6760]

I propose the following: 1) Any government, business, or property owner prohibiting the lawful possession/carrying of a self defense weapon, must provide adequate protective measures to provide the same or higher level of protection that the individual would/could/should have been able to provide for them selves. 2) Any politician that proposes, sponsors/cosponsors, votes for, or enacts an unconstitutional ordinance, mandate, bill, rule, regulation, or law will be guilty of treasonous activity, punishable by removal from office, banned from ever holding elected/appointed office for life, fines totaling their salary during their elected/appointed term +5 years, and prisoned for not less than 5 years. 3) Any group, civil or political in nature that, by their actions or charter prohibit, or attempt to prohibit lawful/constitutional activities or that violate any part or parts of the Bill of Rights will be subject to the terms laid out in section 2. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, politician, or judge. I’m just a person sick and tired of this.

[@Bob-cx4ze]

I love how it goes from belligerence to "please stop, sir" once the talking ends and the action starts.

[@soulstaken1185]

I always break their laws, when I see those signs I smile and wonder how many other people besides me are purposefully ignoring their laws. By attempting to remove my rights in their establishment, they assume responsibility for my safety. Even if they hire security or police to protect patrons (which they don’t because they don’t care about you), I do not approve them as being qualified to protect me. It is no one’s responsibility to protect me, but myself. I will protect myself and my rights no matter any law made by man. I only concern myself with the laws of God.

[@johnschofield9496]

Why was the ATF agent rewarded for breaking several laws,....... Oh,....... I answered my own question !

[@RileyMcgregor21]

To be clear the 2a certifies that the right to bear arms with the context of the declaration of independence are one of the rights granted by our creator. It doesn't say the government shall grant these rights. It says these rights shall not be infringed, and that would lead me to believe that anyone in the states should have these very same rights.

[@mishasumi6827]

It is absolutely stupid to fight this in court. Invaders are invaders and have zero human rights when invading. Our society had become so stupid that you actually have to explain this.

[@AlSayre]

I make it a point not to patronize businesses with no gun signs.

[@25centsapop]

The 180 turn to say free ninety nine was subtle and sweet

[@GR3YD3ATH]

judge was telling the police that the qualified immunity doesn't apply if they "interfere" with f-troop...

[@ARFCOMNews]

The message they hear may have been "Use more force, and file charges."