Just five months after a federal judge ruled that a ban on gun possession by those in the country illegally was unconstitutional, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court has ruled just the opposite.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case against Jose Paz Medina-Cantu that Second Amendment rights do not apply to those who have entered the country illegally. Medina-Cantu was arrested in 2022 by Border Patrol agents and charged with illegally possessing a handgun and unlawfully re-entering the country after being deported.

Medina-Cantu’s attorneys used the Second Amendment defense based on the second standard of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. They argued that there was no historical tradition dating back to around when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 of disarming people based solely on their immigration status.

However, the circuit court never considered the second Bruen standard because it determined that Medina-Cantu didn’t have a Second Amendment right that could be infringed, noting that the Bruen ruling “did not unequivocally abrogate our precedent that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not encompass illegal aliens.”   

“Under Bruen’s standard, our precedent dictates that Medina-Cantu’s Second Amendment challenge fails at this first step,” the ruling stated. “We held in Portillo-Munoz that the Second Amendment’s plain text does not cover the conduct of aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States. Consistent with Bruen’s mandate, we reached our decision in Portillo-Munoz by interpreting the text of the Second Amendment—i.e., the meaning of the phrase ‘the people’—and we did not engage in the ‘means-end scrutiny’ practice that the Supreme Court prohibited in Bruen.”

The court next viewed the case through the June 2024 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Rahimi and again determined nothing had changed from its earlier decision.

“To summarize, this court held in Portillo-Munoz that illegal aliens are not ‘members of the political community’ covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” the ruling concluded. “The majority opinions in Bruen and Rahimi did not address this issue, nor did they unequivocally abrogate our holding in Portillo-Munoz. Accordingly, following the rule of orderliness, we are bound to follow Portillo-Munoz and uphold the constitutionality of [the statute] under the Second Amendment.”

In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge James Ho, a Donald Trump appointee, took the matter a little further.

“To begin with, no Supreme Court precedent compels the application of the Second Amendment to illegal aliens—and certainly not New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen or United States v. Rahimi,” Judge Ho wrote. “That should be the end of the matter. We should not extend rights to illegal aliens any further than what the law requires.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

55 COMMENTS

  1. The Pro gre$$ ives want illegals to have 2A rights so they can argue that they should have the right to vote since they have 2A rights.

  2. So perhaps the Supreme Court needs to clarify what “the people” means. If illegals get first, fourth, fifth, and more amendment rights, why is the second so different? Does the Declaration of Independence not say that all men are created equal? Is there a caveat in there excluding non-citizens that I missed?

    • Persons illegally residing in the US should have NO Rights.
      They should be expelled as soon as they are identified.

      • Bill of Rights just for Americans then? Forget about all men created equal? Maybe we should have to earn our rights!

        • If those people want their rights protected, they can work for it in their own country like we did. The US government exists to protect and serve US citizens. It owes no obligation or respect to foreigners in this country illegally.

        • The Framers had a lick of sense – it never crossed their minds that the electorate would be so suicidal as to try to enforce the Bill of Rights globally and unilaterally. If they had, they would have been more explicit.

          Also – illegal immigration is a racket. Illegal immigrants are in cahoots with the criminals they pay big money…

          So yeah, their rights on US soil are sharply restricted.

          • The Founders had the sense to be quite explicit (in the other direction). “We the people of the United States of America . . . to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity” A staff planning course could use the Preamble as a textbook example of clear and concise Commander’s Intent. That passage in particular is devoid of ambiguity, with zero scope for interpretation. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply projecting the values of Founder-hating sixties leftists, i.e. lying.

            If an individual decides to treat a burglar in his home as an “equal”, he deserves all the consequences thereof. It is unfortunate (or is it?) if those consequences harm his own family; he has no right to make that choice for anyone else.

            • “to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity”

              Securing the blessings of liberty requires making sure that foreign invaders don’t take over the place. Pretending said invaders are of the body of the people of the United States of America is decisively counter- productive.

              Illegal immigration is a racket, a very large, complex and lucrative racket. It is way past time to start holding those who participate accountable.

              • Agreed. A lot of people on our side are [rightly] suspicious of solutions involving drastic government action. All the government really needs to do is get out of the way (recognize that the Founders did not intend any protection – criminal or civil – for invaders of our country; and that their definition of treason – while narrow and precise – was quite clear about “giving aid and comfort to enemies”).

        • Created equal but living equally with inalienable rights depends on which country you live as a CITIZEN. Go to Grand Turk and see how far the argument flies.

    • The DOI carries NO force of law. At the time it was wishful thinking. IE NO USA just a rebellion🙄

    • Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal applies to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. The Constitution and BOR applies to We the People of the United States meaning citizens and to a limited extent legal or resident alens. Simplified and distilled to it’s bare essence.

    • CarlMc: Read the BoR and you’ll see that some rights are more absolute in their restriction of the government than others, while others refer specifically to “the people” (i.e. all citizens).

      1A speech/press/religion bars the government outright no matter who is involved. (“Congress shall make no law…”; it doesn’t specify that those apply only to “the people”.) It’s similar with 6A, which doesn’t specify anything about who the accused is–only that the accused has the right to a speedy and public trial etc. So in that sense “illegal aliens get those rights” (rights are not granted by the government, so that phraseology isn’t very good).

      Others, such as 2A, 4A, and 9A, specifically refer to “the people” (i.e., all citizens).

    • CarlMc,

      Wow, did you sit next to MajorLiar in school? That would explain your questionable “understanding” of history and the Constitution. First of all, “all men are created equal” is from the DoI, which (however brilliant I find it to be as a political statement) is an ENTIRELY aspirational statement. We didn’t have a country until after eight years of bloody fighting . . . and THEN we got a Constitution almost ten years after that. The Constitution is a statement of “we, the people”, who “ordained and established” that Constitution “of the United States of America” (note: NOT the world) (it’s RIGHT THERE in the Preamble, son!).

      Now take a look at Article I, Section 8, where it states that Congress has the power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (i.e., admission to citizenship). Those laws have been adopted (certainly not FOLLOWED, at least not by the criminal Biden-Harris cabal). LEGAL aliens and lawful residents and visitors, have certain LIMITED rights under the Constitution (because they are here legally). Now scan on down to Article IV, Section 2, where it says “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” That makes it pretty clear that the intention of the Constitution is to govern “We, the people of the United States”, dunnit?? Like, the CITIZENS of the United States?? Seems pretty clear to me.

      Illegal aliens want the same rights as US citizens? They have two options: (i) LEGALLY and properly become citizens, as provided in legislation adopted pursuant to Article I, Section 8 (see above, and those laws are ALREADY IN PLACE, and have been for years), or (ii) fight for those rights in THEIR OWN country (you know, like WE had to do??). And, YES, that means that they have to “earn” their rights by either legally becoming a citizen, or successfully adopting a constitution for their own country that provides them.

      Not really understanding why you find this so confusing; it ain’t exactly rocket surgery.
      Please note that

  3. Well, unlawful entry is a felony and possession of a firearm by a felon is a no-no so….

    Doesn’t seem so complicated.

      • The 1st time is a felony. There is no charge of illegal entry if a person hasn’t been previously deported and unlawful aliens are specifically listed as prohibited persons in the 1968 Gun Control Act. If you want to talk about repealing that in its entirety I’m all for it.

          • All for strong borders and for following the process to become a citizen before you get any of the benefits (voting, any service provided by the gov funded through taxes) that entails. Against the idea that somehow a person has to earn the inalienable rights listed in the BOR.

            • Jack,

              Well, our FOUNDERS sure as hell had to earn them, didn’t they? Eight years of bloody war, and another ten after that to get a Constitution established. As many political philosophers have noted, while many rights may be “inalienable”, in the real world, NO rights are any more ‘inalienable’ than your willingness to protect them and, if necessary, fight for them.

              Don’t recall King George and the redcoats lining up to acknowledge or respect our ‘inalienable rights’. Maybe I missed that part of history. They (our Founders) established our Constitution to secure those rights for us, ” and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

              Did you REALLY think that our Founding was all about securing those rights (that they had fought a bloody war to secure) for everyone in the world?? Even illegal invaders?

              • Well, the founders wrote nothing in the Constitution about “illegals” being excluded.

                Maybe they weren’t all that smart. Of course the founders new there would come a day, when the whole world, by any means necessary would crowd onto our shores, and deliver to us rampant crime and deadly drugs.

                Says so in that Emma Lazarus poem “Give me your tired, your poor….” placed inside Liberty in 1903.

                The founders foresaw the statue and the poem. The statue and plaque beckon illegals (no caution about that was writtenj).

                See what happens when one tries to do good?

  4. The US Constitution is ONLY for US citizens.

    The Dec of Independence would apply to al humans anywhere – Take it and fix YOUR cesspool and your homegrown halfa_ssed system of government. DON’T come here. If you’re smart you will copy/adopt the US Constitution. Certainly not some worthless UK/EU parliamentary system.

    • Police response is fantastic:

      “Isolated incident.”
      “We’re investigating and collecting evidence.”
      “We have formed a task force.”

      I wonder how long it’ll take the police in this country to figure out the typical gang task force and RICO nonsense they’ve been using against the local gangs won’t mean jack shit to this new generation.

      We can see from south of the border exactly what does and does not work and I’d bet my life savings we will wholeheartedly embrace what does not work because America always has to be nice, kind, helpful and liked even as the rest of the world uses us as a doormat.

      • … I got your beaconof hope hangin’ – now get the fuck back were you came from

  6. This ruling has other implications. It in effect invalidates any of the “slave code” regulations on arms that some left wing places cite in validation of restrictions on the 2A.

  7. Make it a felony to harbor or employ illegal aliens and take the co-conspirator’s voting rights with mandatory jail time. Then most of the illegals will leave as they came, unasked for and without immigration lawyers. Say leave before we catch you and you keep your ill gotten gains, but otherwise we seize your possessions and deport you.

    Going to be long lines of new pickups headed for Mexico and enough housing freed up for every homeless person in America…

  8. Fifth Circuit Rules Marijuana Users Aren’t ‘Dangerous,’ Can Possess Firearms When Sober > see article on todays front page of SNW. (I didn’t post the link because it would have gone to moderation, but I know some people have interest in this subject.)

  9. Thanks to Joe Biden and Border Czar Kamala Harris > Armed crew storms Colorado apartment building overrun by Venezuelan gang spilling out from sanctuary city: wild video > see story at NyPost (if I post the link to news article it goes to moderation) … but here’s the video from Fox31 in Denver…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2F4cArA3uc

  10. The Bill of Rights, unless it expressly uses the term Citizen, applies to everyone in the United States regardless of their status.

    If you want to play the term “the people” as meaning “citizens”, (when in the Framers time it did not preclude people (which slaves, legally, were not) regardless of immigrant status such as it were.

    In any event, here’s how TTAG covered the same ground just months ago:
    thetruthaboutguns.com/justice-department-to-challenge-ruling-on-rights-of-illegals-to-possess-firearms/

    • “These cases do not stand alone but are part of a broader wave of litigation testing the limits of gun control laws post-Bruen. High-profile challenges include disputes over prohibitions for drug users and domestic violence suspects, as well as state bans on high-capacity magazines and certain semiautomatic rifles. The outcomes of these cases could significantly impact America’s legal landscape regarding who can legally possess firearms and has reshaped the legal arguments in ways even pro-gun supporters could not have imagined when Bruen effectively struck down a number of anti-Second Amendment laws on the books”

      Seems pretty objective and consistent to me. This is exactly what was discussed in that article, the future of cases directly arguing Bruen. Later in the article we included positions from both sides regarding ‘the people’ argument.

      “The Times article noted critics like Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, argue that undocumented immigrants do not constitute part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Conversely, scholars like Gulasekaram see no constitutional basis for excluding noncitizens from these rights, suggesting that doing so would erode the egalitarian foundations of American law.”

    • That is so much nonsense. You cannot go to another country, and demand all the same rights, privileges, and considerations that their citizens have. Basic human rights, yes, but not citizen’s rights. This particular lawbreaker has already been deported, so he has zero rights in this country. No rights. We may afford him the liberty of continuing to breathe while he is here, but he is an undesirable, so he has no rights among us. He may be imprisoned, he may even be executed if he plays enough stupid games. He may be deported again, and he may be shot on sight the next time he attempts to invade our country. Lawbreakers are routinely stripped of their rights, and when their offenses are severe enough, they may be stripped of life.

  11. Anyone entering into the United States illegally should not be afforded the rights or protections enumerated in the Constitution…Period.

  12. See all them spiderwebs glinting with jewels of dew in the morning sun, in that field around us? Well, they aren’t from spiders, they’re trip wires connecting landmines…

  13. If persons/people residing in the US illegally do not have 2A rights, do they have any, as in any, protections under the Constitution and BOR? Which clauses/amendents do/do not provide protections? If people reside in the US, without legal documentation, and are “outlaw”, why is there any law protecting them at all. Seems citizens simply killing illegal residents cannot be a crime. What am I not seeing here? Thinking that if illegally residing in the US were to result in mass killings of those people, the waiting line for illegal entry would pretty much evaporate.

    • That’s why rights, in general, apply to people and not citizens. Governments are given the power to protect god given rights, governments do not bequeath rights.

      Madison has an essay on Property in which he argues Rights are mans (not Americans) most fundamental property.

      • Bill,

        Cool political theology, ya got there! So, help me out, here. My rights are property? And I have various rights (as somewhat outlined in the DoI, to a slightly greater extent (in the negative, about the government not messing with them) in the Constitution. “Owning property” is certainly one of them, right? OK, so IF I own property, it is our government’s obligation to protect that property, but WHERE, EXACTLY, does it say the government has to GIVE me that property, in the first place? Americans secured their ‘inalienable rights’ by eight years of bloody war, and then took another 10 to establish and ordain the Constitution (for “We the people . . . of the United States of America”. Congress is expressly given the power to establish laws governing naturalization (which it has done). You want those rights? Become a citizen, or help establish them in your own country. No, you don’t get to waltz in, IGNORING the laws governing immigration and naturalization, and automatically get the benefit of ALL rights American citizens have. Actually, there is PLENTY of SCOTUS jurisprudence differentiating between the rights of citizens and aliens (see, for example, Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914), and McCready v. Viriginia, 94 U.S. 391, 396 (1876)).

    • It’s illegal to murder another human. It’s pretty simple. Was that supposed to be sarcasm, Sam?

      However, there is a current loophole. You can hold a fully developed baby in, and slice them up to your heart’s content (in certain states). New York lit up World Trade Center pink to celebrate this.

      A baby that wants to come out and live their best life? Booo! Die!! Illegal immigrants, from throughout the world, pouring into our country? Yay!! We aren’t allowed to stop that, or even question it.

      • “It’s illegal to murder another human.”

        Depends.

        If a person is declared “outlaw”, it is not the same as a person being a criminal. In the good ol’ days, with open sewers, and shoot-outs in the main street, “outlaw” was short for “outside the law”. Thus, posters proclaiming, “Wanted, Dead or Alive”. Upon issuance of such posters, the ordinary citizen could arrest, or terminate an individual…legally. Note that my comment addressed illegals being declared “Outlaw” (which hasn’t happened).

        Hence, the comment might be sarcasm, or might be lobbying for a declaration of “Outlaw”; depends.

  14. Sure didn’t stop the south american gangs in colorado,They seem to over run places and the police don’t do squat. the laws only Hurt the Citizens.

Comments are closed.