The right to keep and bear arms is a human right. It's a right enshrined in the United States Constitution under the Second Amendment. All of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are basic human rights.

But what about when an illegal immigrant is found to have violated gun laws? I've taken issue with the fact that gun rights are treated as second-class rights, so is treating an illegal immigrant with guns just more of the same?

That's really a subject for the courts to figure out, and according to one court, it's not.

A federal judge denied a request to dismiss a gun charge against an illegal immigrant in Ohio who had been in the US for more than 15 years, rejecting the man’s argument that he has a right to bear arms.

Carlos Serrano-Restrepo was charged earlier this year and was subsequently indicted for possession of a firearm by an alien unlawfully in the US, according to WSYX.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives began investigating and watching Serrano-Restrepo after he purchased at least 22 firearms, and claimed to be a US citizen on the firearms forms.

Agents conducted a search of his home and seized roughly 170 firearms, tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition and smoke/marine markers.

...

The suspect’s lawyer submitted a motion to dismiss the charge on the argument that he has the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The judge denied his motion to dismiss the charge on Thursday, writing in his opinion that “disarming unlawful immigrants like Mr. Serrano-Restrepo who have not sworn allegiance to the United States comports with the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations.”

Serrano-Restrepo applied for asylum, but he's still not in this country legally, and that's a big problem in and of itself.

Because he's not, though, constitutional protections don't necessarily apply. He was essentially a criminal who has been on the lam for 15 years. Sure, he established a life for himself and was living the American dream, but he's still here illegally. That changes a lot of dynamics, at least legally speaking.

Of course, I suspect there will be an appeal and it'll go up the judicial food chain.

I can't tell you where it'll stop, but following Rahimi, one of the things I'm pretty sure of is that this Supreme Court isn't so pro-Second Amendment that they're going to support armed illegal immigrants. I honestly just can't see it happening.

So it's probable that Serrano-Restrepo will lose at that level, and it'll set the stage for keeping guns out of the hands of illegal immigrants.

How do I feel about it? Well, if they want the benefits of citizenship, they should come here legally. Having your right to keep and bear arms is a right protected by the Constitution, but it primarily applies to the rights of citizens. So it won't break my heart one bit.

But if I'm wrong and they uphold it as a basic human right, then that's something that can be used to benefit gun rights across the nation, so I'm not going to lose any sleep on that front, either.

This is a case where I can see an upside no matter what happens. I'd probably prefer a ruling that solidifies the right to keep and bear arms as a human right, but I won't blink either way.