Why should this even be a question? Because the left continues to prove its insanity daily.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the question of whether illegal aliens have Second Amendment rights is yet another indication of how radical the Democrat Party and the judges it appoints have become. The last thing people who intentionally entered the U.S. illegally should have is the right to keep and bear arms. 

On its face alone, it reads like satire from The Babylon Bee, does it not? 

Yet here we are. 

As reported by The Center Square on Sunday, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will rule on the case of USA v. Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, which centers around the illegal alien's arrest in Chicago for possessing a firearm. Representing the federal government, Margaret Steindorf argues that immigration status is important, an understatement.

There is the common thread here of felons not abiding by the law and those unlawfully in the country also not authorized to be in the country.

I almost have no words — with the operative word being "almost."

This is insane. ICE agents, at the direction of President Donald Trump and Border Czar Tom Homan, are ramping up efforts to arrest illegal alien criminals, many of whom have been convicted of violent crimes, including murder and rape, in their home country, some of whom have committed the same crimes here in America.

RELATED: Obama Judge Rules Illegal Aliens Have the Right to Own Guns

Attorney Jacob Briskman, representing Carbajal-Flores, argues that rights granted to “the people” aren’t relegated to only a few amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court has decided that undocumented folks have First Amendment protections, Fourth Amendment protections, Fifth Amendment protections when they have come within the United States and developed substantial ties.

Flawed comparisons, Mr. Briskman. 

Yes, First Amendment rights are granted to criminals and those charged with crimes who haven't been tried. 

But while the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, it is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures; only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. 

Meanwhile, the Fifth Amendment protects citizens from being forced to incriminate themselves and from being tried for the same crime more than once. 

Moreover, Steindorf said Carbajal-Flores’ criminal activity wasn’t just being found with the gun (emphasis, mine).

The district court erred when it found defendant was non-violent when in fact the defendant shot a firearm seven times at a passing car without provocation and tried to shoot at a second passing car shortly thereafter.

Briskman's response was ridiculous.

Stripping people of Second Amendment rights because of a criminal history or because they are not responsible are not supported by case law, as [recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent in United States v.] Rahimi has shown.

Assuming you're a legal citizen, and you shot a gun seven times at a passing car and tried to shoot at a second car, raise your hand if you don't think law enforcement officers would not only take your firearm; they'd also pack you off to jail, and you'd likely face serious legal consequences, including losing your right to legally own a firearm.

That's what I thought — no hands. 

I'm out. For now, that is.