Ohio Court’s Unusual Stance on Undocumented Immigrant and Gun Ownership Rights

Carlos Serrano-Restrepo, an illegal immigrant, is denied Second Amendment protection in his gun possession case.

At a Glance

  • A federal judge denied the dismissal of gun charges against undocumented immigrant Carlos Serrano-Restrepo.
  • The judge ruled the Second Amendment rights do not extend to non-citizens.
  • Investigations revealed Serrano-Restrepo possessed approximately 170 firearms and lied about U.S. citizenship.
  • His trial is slated for January 2025.

Federal Ruling Upholds Gun Charge

An illegal immigrant from Colombia is facing serious legal consequences after a federal judge refused to dismiss his gun possession charge. Authorities in Ohio discovered approximately 170 firearms in Carlos Serrano-Restrepo’s possession, leading federal agents to investigate further.

In January, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) arrested Serrano-Restrepo, revealing he had not only possessed a large cache of firearms but had acquired them through false claims of U.S. citizenship. His actions have triggered significant legal and political debate as he argued he had a right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment, which his legal team maintained should protect non-citizens.

Second Amendment Limited to Citizens

The court ruling by Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. was unequivocal in its clarity that constitutional rights such as the Second Amendment do not extend to those unlawfully present in the United States. “Mr. Serrano-Restrepo’s as-applied challenge lacks merit,” he stated. The judge also emphasized that the oath of allegiance migrants take during the naturalization process, rather than long-term residence or asylum processes, dictates Second Amendment rights.

Upcoming Trial Set for 2025

Serrano-Restrepo’s trial is scheduled for January 21, 2025 and his additional claims of possessing weapons for self-defense will likely be pivotal. An Ohio business owner who has been in the US illegally since 2008, the migrant’s legal arguments are contentious and experts say the case could shed light on immigration and Constitutional interpretations as related to immigrants.