The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that illegal immigrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
This ruling is a significant victory for the rule of law and American sovereignty, as it underscores the importance of upholding the rights and protections reserved for U.S. citizens.
The case involved Jose Paz Medina-Cantu, a Mexican national who was arrested in Texas by Border Patrol agents in 2022. Medina-Cantu, who had illegally re-entered the United States after being deported, was found in possession of a handgun.
After pleading guilty to the charges of illegal possession of a firearm and unlawful re-entry, Medina-Cantu shamelessly attempted to challenge the legality of his conviction, arguing that the ban on his firearm possession violated his Second Amendment rights.
However, the three-judge panel delivered a decisive response, affirming that the Second Amendment’s protections do not extend to individuals who are in the country illegally.
U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a respected conservative voice appointed by President Trump, wrote a concurring opinion that highlighted the clear distinction between the rights of American citizens and those who have violated our immigration laws.
Judge Ho wrote:
The Second Amendment protects the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. Our court has held that the term “the people” under the Second Amendment does not include illegal aliens.
[…]
Illegal aliens don’t qualify under the definition of “the people” set forth in Verdugo-Urquidez and Heller—not as a matter of common sense or Court precedent. As to common sense, an illegal alien does not become “part of a national community” by unlawfully entering it, any more than a thief becomes an owner of property by stealing it.
[…]
And as to precedent, the Court has repeatedly explained that “an alien . . . does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law.”
[…]
Moreover, the Court has provided further reason why it reaches this conclusion. For an illegal alien “[t]o appeal to the Constitution is to concede that this is a land governed by that supreme law.” And “the power to exclude [aliens from the United States] has been determined to exist” under our Constitution. So, the Court concluded, “those who are excluded cannot assert the rights in general obtaining in a land to which they do not belong as citizens or otherwise.”
You can read the ruling here.
