In a serious win for the federal authorities—and a ruling certain to curiosity the Second Modification neighborhood—the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), the federal statute barring unlawful aliens from possessing firearms.
At the moment the Seventh Circuit issued its ruling in US v. Carbajal-Flores, a case coping with whether or not unlawful aliens have the proper to bear arms. A thread on this quick ruling. pic.twitter.com/xdcgBRiyOk
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) July 16, 2025
The case, United States v. Carbajal-Flores, centered round a 2020 incident in Chicago, the place Heriberto Carbajal-Flores—then unlawfully within the U.S.—was caught on surveillance video firing a number of rounds from a pistol throughout an evening of civil unrest.
Whereas he claimed he was firing warning pictures to guard his neighborhood from looters, federal prosecutors indicted him underneath § 922(g)(5)(A), which makes it a felony for an unlawful alien to own a firearm.
What adopted was a winding authorized battle involving challenges underneath the Second Modification—and a sharply divided panorama formed by the Supreme Court docket’s Bruen choice.
From Bruen to Chicago: How the Second Modification Check Was Utilized
The district court docket initially upheld the legislation. However after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen overhauled how courts consider Second Modification claims, Carbajal-Flores renewed his movement to dismiss the indictment, arguing the legislation failed Bruen’s “text-and-history” check.
Whereas the court docket nonetheless discovered the statute facially constitutional, it accepted his as-applied problem—claiming the federal government did not show he, personally, was harmful or untrustworthy.
Since Carbajal-Flores had no felony convictions and held a job, the decrease court docket mentioned he didn’t match the historic mould of these lawfully disarmed.
The federal government appealed.
Seventh Circuit Reverses: Allegiance Is the Key
In a 22-page opinion by Choose Brennan, the Seventh Circuit reversed. The panel didn’t simply uphold the statute—it constructed a sweeping historic case displaying that governments have all the time disarmed people who lacked allegiance to the sovereign.
Citing English frequent legislation, colonial statutes, the Revolutionary interval, and early state constitutions, the court docket drew a direct line from 18th-century disarmament of overseas nationals, Catholics loyal to the Pope, and others exterior the political neighborhood, to at this time’s prohibition on unlawful aliens possessing weapons.
SEE ALSO: The .243 Winchester: Extra Than a Youth Spherical
“The legislation precludes solely unlawful aliens—those that have essentially forgone the naturalization course of—from possessing firearms,” Choose Brennan wrote. “However an alien who obtains citizenship by taking the oath of renunciation and allegiance… is entitled to maintain and bear arms like each different law-abiding American.”
No Room for As-Utilized Challenges Right here
Notably, the Seventh Circuit sidestepped whether or not any a part of § 922(g) may enable for as-applied challenges after Bruen. But it surely shut the door on Carbajal-Flores’s declare.
Why?
As a result of not like the felon-in-possession legislation (§ 922(g)(1)), which could sweep too broadly, the panel held that the unlawful alien ban is completely tailor-made: allegiance-based restrictions have deep historic roots, and illegal immigrants—by definition—haven’t sworn allegiance to the U.S.
So whereas different circuits wrestle with felons and restraining orders, the Seventh Circuit discovered § 922(g)(5)(A) sits squarely throughout the “longstanding custom” of disarming non-citizens who haven’t dedicated to the American constitutional order.
A Win for Historical past-Primarily based Gun Regulation Interpretation
For 2A supporters, the ruling is a chief instance of how Bruen’s historic normal cuts each methods: the federal government can’t depend on curiosity balancing or coverage arguments—however when it may possibly produce a strong historic analogy, its legal guidelines stand.
The opinion acknowledged that unlawful immigrants could fall underneath “the folks” protected by the Second Modification. However even assuming that’s true, Choose Brennan wrote, the federal government met its burden to indicate the regulation is “rooted in our Nation’s custom of disarming people who haven’t sworn allegiance.”
In brief: in the event you haven’t pledged loyalty to the U.S., the proper to maintain and bear arms doesn’t apply—at the very least not till you do.
*** Purchase and Promote on GunsAmerica! ***
