In a major win for the federal government—and a ruling sure to interest the Second Amendment community—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), the federal statute barring illegal aliens from possessing firearms.
Today the Seventh Circuit issued its ruling in US v. Carbajal-Flores, a case dealing with whether illegal aliens have the right to bear arms. A thread on this short ruling. pic.twitter.com/xdcgBRiyOk
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) July 16, 2025
The case, United States v. Carbajal-Flores, centered around a 2020 incident in Chicago, where Heriberto Carbajal-Flores—then unlawfully in the U.S.—was caught on surveillance video firing multiple rounds from a pistol during a night of civil unrest.
While he claimed he was firing warning shots to protect his neighborhood from looters, federal prosecutors indicted him under § 922(g)(5)(A), which makes it a felony for an illegal alien to possess a firearm.
What followed was a winding legal battle involving challenges under the Second Amendment—and a sharply divided landscape shaped by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.
Table of contents
From Bruen to Chicago: How the Second Amendment Test Was Applied
The district court initially upheld the law. But after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen overhauled how courts evaluate Second Amendment claims, Carbajal-Flores renewed his motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the law failed Bruen’s “text-and-history” test.
While the court still found the statute facially constitutional, it accepted his as-applied challenge—claiming the government failed to prove he, personally, was dangerous or untrustworthy.
Since Carbajal-Flores had no felony convictions and held a job, the lower court said he didn’t fit the historical mold of those lawfully disarmed.
The government appealed.
Seventh Circuit Reverses: Allegiance Is the Key
In a 22-page opinion by Judge Brennan, the Seventh Circuit reversed. The panel didn’t just uphold the statute—it built a sweeping historical case showing that governments have always disarmed individuals who lacked allegiance to the sovereign.
Citing English common law, colonial statutes, the Revolutionary period, and early state constitutions, the court drew a direct line from 18th-century disarmament of foreign nationals, Catholics loyal to the Pope, and others outside the political community, to today’s prohibition on illegal aliens possessing guns.
SEE ALSO: The .243 Winchester: More Than a Youth Round
“The law precludes only illegal aliens—those who have necessarily forgone the naturalization process—from possessing firearms,” Judge Brennan wrote. “But an alien who obtains citizenship by taking the oath of renunciation and allegiance… is entitled to keep and bear arms like every other law-abiding American.”
No Room for As-Applied Challenges Here
Notably, the Seventh Circuit sidestepped whether any part of § 922(g) might allow for as-applied challenges after Bruen. But it shut the door on Carbajal-Flores’s claim.
Why?
Because unlike the felon-in-possession law (§ 922(g)(1)), which might sweep too broadly, the panel held that the illegal alien ban is perfectly tailored: allegiance-based restrictions have deep historical roots, and unlawful immigrants—by definition—haven’t sworn allegiance to the U.S.
So while other circuits wrestle with felons and restraining orders, the Seventh Circuit found § 922(g)(5)(A) sits squarely within the “longstanding tradition” of disarming non-citizens who haven’t committed to the American constitutional order.
A Win for History-Based Gun Law Interpretation
For 2A supporters, the ruling is a prime example of how Bruen’s historical standard cuts both ways: the government can’t rely on interest balancing or policy arguments—but when it can produce a solid historical analogy, its laws stand.
The opinion acknowledged that illegal immigrants may fall under “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. But even assuming that’s true, Judge Brennan wrote, the government met its burden to show the regulation is “rooted in our Nation’s tradition of disarming individuals who have not sworn allegiance.”
In short: if you haven’t pledged loyalty to the U.S., the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t apply—at least not until you do.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
if the second doesn’t apply. the rest doesn’t apply. round up and deport the mouthy ones. look in catholic churches
warrantless search and seizure is on the menu. due process? nope. cruel and unusual? heh. birthright?🤣🤣🤣👋
In the: “Well…. DUH!!!!” moment of the day.
It should be an automatic felony with a 10-year prison sentence of hard labor to enter the country illegally.
All I can do today is one quote from former President HW Bush, and that is,
Quote, “Operation Desert Storm.” Unquote.
I am a 2A absolutist. That means ALL GUN LAWS ARE INFRINGEMENTS. Buying a gun should be no different from buying a pair of boots or a frying pan.
So to make my stance clear: YES, ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. If it is legal for an illegal alien to buy new shoes or a sandwich, it is 100% legal for him to buy a firearm. Just as it is legal for terrorists, robbers and rapists to buy a hamburger or a bottle of water.
A firearm is an OBJECT. That’s IT. No difference from any other item or tool.
First of all, to the brit who stupidly posted here; GO BACK. Have fun with a musket in your backyard when you get there.
Secondly, I agree 1000% with the others on here- why is/was this issue such a long drawn out process?? ILLEGALS GET NOTHING. PERIOD.
(And to all the illegals here in the USA- Go to england-you’ll love it there!)
By the same token, then, illegal aliens should not count a part of the residents in the Census.
Absolutely! Our Representatives are supposed to represent American citizens. Illegal immigrants should not be counted for representation.
2nd amendment applies to citizens. I think that’s sort of clear in the constitution, which applies to citizens. Many other protections which Dem wits want to extend to illegals also apply to citizens.
This is ridiculous. One has to be a legal citizen of the US or a state to be able to legally own a gun. There is no reason that this issue should have even gone to court. This was a waste of Taxpayer money. The Illegal who was already a criminal for being in the US Illegally. He should have been immediately arrested and thrown in prison, for violating our laws.
I don’t know why this should’ve ever been in question. Common sense alone tells you that illegals are not citizens and the second amendment encompasses citizens.
Now it’s time to flush his butt out of the country when his time in prison is done. Send any family he has with him.
Of course illegal immigrants have basic human rights—we’re not devoid of compassion. But the idea that they’re magically entitled to every last protection in the U.S. Constitution the moment they illegally cross the border? That’s legal schizophrenia. If the Constitution applies to everyone indiscriminately—citizen, non-citizen, tourist, cartel mule, or intergalactic hitchhiker—then congratulations: citizenship now means absolutely nothing. It’s a bureaucratic participation trophy.
And yet somehow, this steaming pile of legal fantasy keeps landing in our courts, wasting time, money, and brain cells. Why? Because activist judges and NGO lawyers have turned the justice system into a sanctuary circus. This isn’t about fairness or law—it’s about erasing national identity under the banner of moral posturing.
The legal system isn’t just broken—it’s been hijacked by people who treat border enforcement like hate speech and think the Constitution is a vibe, not a framework. Spoiler: it’s not. And if we keep indulging this insanity, there won’t be a country left to argue over.
The Constitution applies to citizens of the United States, not illegal invaders.
The 14 th Amendment. “Any person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof”
That pretty much sums it up. No illegal especially is entitled to our enumerated rights. In fact, they are still subject to the laws of the Govt. where they were born, not ours.
This is why I do not believe they are entitled to “due process’, they ignored “due process” in our laws by entering illegally.
Now, we are obligated to treat them humanely, both by the Declaration and international treaties, as well as just being humane.
But other than that, and especially if they have committed crimes against our citizens, we owe them nothing.
Get them out if they are illegal
So, what happens to those who are here completely legally, but the “naturalization” process is halted, because they refuse to accept the obviously-harmful “vaccines” even when they are from friendly places like Canada?
According to the “courts,” they are “illegals,” which places them into the same category as convicted criminals and gang members…
Where did you get that convoluted idea? Halting of the Naturalization process is NOT grounds for criminalization, or deportation. They still have the right of appeal too
Sorry, it is.
The only rights illegal aliens have are the right to be arrested and returned to their nation of origin ASAP.
Thanks for article. I have a issue with it.. Im British. Have lived here in USA many years. I have a Resident Alien Card, better known as a Green card. Been married to an American girl for over 32 years. Im a gun owner, range oficer at local club been doing tactical training for nearly 20 years. Work Armed Security at a National Park. Issue is I’m STILL A BRITISH CITIZEN, AND HAVE NOT PLEGED ALLEGIANCE TO THE USA. I follow and enforce the laws, pay my taxes, even donate to charitys and political party fund raiser’s.. But according to your article, if I DONT BOW DOWN TO YOUR FLAG I’m not to have weapons. Well look at the form i fill out for ALL of what i have purchased and you will see it has a section where it requires my Green card number… so why is it there. AND ID DOES NOT…NOT REQUIRE ME TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO YOUR FLAG..
To answer your question, why is the section for a green card number on a 4473 if non residents don’t have the right to keep and bear arms in the US? I’d say because prior to this ruling it was legal for you to have firearms. Technically it’s now illegal, however, I think the ruling was meant to block illegal aliens, not resident aliens but it doesn’t seem to differentiate between the two. My best guess is it will have to be challenged and a decision made as to whether resident aliens should be exempt the ruling. The only other option might be filing for dual citizenship but I don’t know the status of dual citizenship between the US and England.
So you’ve been here many years and don’t care to get citizenship to the country that welcomed your ass here, to avail yourself to all the FREEDOMS your own pathetic country forbids you? WHY, because you don’t want to pledge allegiance to the Country you’re living in? Pretty pathetic if you ask me. Yeah, look at a 4473, see line L? l. Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States? m.1. Are you an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa?
Lie about that and you open yourself to a federal felony, and hopefully deport your silly ass straight away (in your your parlance)!
Red coat go home!
Yep…I agree with Snug. Pack up and go back to your own POS country. Bye!! Enjoy all that gun free sharia law you all have working so well.
Wow. The other commenters are clearly keyboard warriors. I cannot believe how mean we can be to our own community.
Like you, my dad always had a green card. Purely for traveling purposes. Danish citizens are accepted in more places than US citizens.
And he always had guns.
What everyone here is overlooking is the fact that the defendant in this case was ILLEGAL.
People who are here illegally don’t pay taxes.
At the end of the day, although wasn’t written that way, I believe they meant alliegance in $$$$.
Besides, even without a criminal history otherwise, someone who is not here legally has already broken the law which means that they will likely commit more crimes and endanger people who are here legally.
It also could mean that they have probably commited other offenses. They just haven’t been caught yet.
Anyone who is here Illegally and buys gas or something at a store pays taxes if they charge sales tax at the store. They do not pay taxes on anything else, unless they pay an electric bill, gas bill or water bill.
Hey, Limey. Sounds like you have far more than “AN” issue. I second the other opinions below. If you want to live here, married to an American citizen, and take advantage of the most free nation on earth… you should feel some allegiance to said nation. Even as a half-witted Brit, you owe EVERYTHING to the USA. After having to soundly beat your Redcoated asses TWICE, we were still magnanimous enough to cross an ocean and SAVE your asses, TWICE. Considering as much, plus the huge chip on your shoulder, you can always take your ass back across the pond. You won’t be missed!
I believe this ruling only applies to aliens that are here illegally, not resident aliens who for whatever reason have not become citizens, however they do have a “green card”. Those here illegally have already commited a crime which would make them ineligible to buy, own and possess firearms. Having worked in a gun store for several years in the highly restrictive state of Kalifornia, I have in fact sold firearms to individuals who not only possess a “green card” but also a state issued Real ID. Perhaps this issue will have to be revisited by the court to create an exception for individuals such as yourself, who have followed the rules and not snuck in to the country illegally.
The simple adult answer is… You are here legally, those without a green card or not.
My ancestors were Fenians and never bowed down to the Union Jack.
póg mo thóin
Dear Steve, My comment is to clarify something you pointed out. You have a GREEN CARD. You are not an illegal alien. the Resident Alien Card is your passport to most American Rights as long as you obey the laws of the US. The issue is with ILLEGAL aliens. Those who committed the original sin of breaking into our country as if they broke into our homes in the middle of the night.
My big question is this, if you have been married to a US citizen for 32 years, worked in a position that required you to be armed, work and teach at a gun range for “nearly” 20 years, why haven’t you applied for citizenship? Clearly it seems you prefer to live in the US where you can own and handle firearms. You only had to be in possession of the green card for 5 years to apply, since you are married to a US citizen your wait would have been 3 years.
Also, is your green card up for renewal? Remember it can take up to 14 months for the process to go through. OH, is your card one of those that isn’t valid anymore? The last ones that didn’t expire were issued in 1988.
i agree with that decision 100%, otherwise any country could then legally move in a standing army fully armed and the US couldn’t do anything to stop it!
True statement. Unfortunately, the previous administration let untold illegal millions into our country. As such, they, as criminals, won’t have to worry about legally acquiring firearms. Since the individual in the court case was able to acquire a firearm illegally, there’s nothing to stop the rest of the illegals from doing the same.
But it’s harder, and we will deal with them as it arrives ( and then there’s additional FEDERAL felony charges to speed deportation after incarceration). Quit being so damn pessimistic, they’ll get them anyway so do NOTHING???
Good question. Doing nothing means the dims will win and we cannot allow that.