7th Circuit Slams Door on Gun Rights for Illegal Aliens

A major legal decision just came down from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and it has powerful implications for the Second Amendment and immigration law. In the case United States v. Carbajal-Flores, the court ruled that illegal immigrants have no Second Amendment right to bear arms. According to Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, this decision was expected, and it matches long-standing historical views about who “the people” really are under the Constitution.

The Case at the Center: Carbajal-Flores

The case revolves around Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, a Mexican national found in possession of a firearm during a chaotic incident in Chicago in 2020. According to Benjamin Owen at The Reload, Carbajal-Flores fired a pistol during rioting, and was arrested for violating federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibits non-citizens unlawfully in the U.S. from owning guns. After a district court initially sided with Flores post-Bruen, saying the law violated his rights, the Seventh Circuit reversed that ruling and upheld the ban.

A 3-0 Decision With Deep Implications

The Seventh Circuit’s decision was unanimous. Judges Michael Brennan, Amy Eve, and Ilana Rovner agreed that the federal government can constitutionally disarm illegal aliens. As Mark Smith noted, the ruling follows the legal standard set by Bruen, asking whether a modern gun restriction fits within the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States. The judges concluded that it absolutely does.

Who Are “The People”?

One of the biggest questions in this case was whether someone unlawfully in the U.S. counts as part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member, emphasized that the Founders likely saw “the people” as those loyal to the national community. The court acknowledged the debate but sidestepped a hard answer, saying it didn’t matter – even if Flores was “the people,” the law still holds up under historical scrutiny.

Historical Support for Disarmament

The court’s main reasoning was based on historical tradition, a key test in Bruen. According to Owen, the opinion relied heavily on examples from English common law, colonial-era practices, and early American statutes. In England, for example, only the landed gentry had gun rights, and aliens were denied property and arms due to lack of allegiance. Even Catholics were disarmed, as they were viewed as being loyal to the Pope, a foreign sovereign.

Colonial Parallels in America

The panel also drew parallels from America’s own early history. Both Mark Smith and Benjamin Owen pointed out that slaves, Native Americans, and even white colonists who refused to pledge allegiance were often denied the right to bear arms. According to the ruling, this historical trend shows that loyalty to the sovereign was always a key condition for the right to bear arms. The court concluded that illegal aliens, by definition, have not pledged allegiance to the U.S., and therefore fall outside this protection.

Judge Brennan: A Deep Dive into Allegiance

Judge Michael Brennan, writing for the panel, highlighted the traditional link between allegiance and rights. He argued that like in England, early America also limited the rights of non-citizens based on their foreign status. Brennan noted that laws in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and New Jersey disarmed men who refused to swear loyalty oaths during the Revolutionary War. According to him, this long pattern of requiring loyalty fits neatly with today’s restrictions on illegal aliens possessing firearms.

A Bruen-Compliant Ban

Under the Bruen standard, courts must ask whether a modern law fits into a longstanding historical tradition. And in this case, both sources agree – it does. As Mark Smith explained, the court found that the government met its burden, proving that this restriction has deep roots. The ruling concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is not just constitutional on its face, but also immune to as-applied challenges, such as the one raised by Flores.

Why This Decision Matters Nationwide

This case is the first time the Seventh Circuit has ruled on this issue since Bruen, and it joins a growing list of circuits doing the same. As Owen reported, both the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have already upheld similar bans on illegal aliens owning firearms. What’s unique is that the Seventh Circuit admitted illegal aliens might count as “the people” – but still ruled that banning them from gun ownership is historically valid. That makes it an outlier in logic but not in outcome.

A Tough but Logical Ruling

While the topic is controversial, it’s hard to argue with the court’s logic. As Mark Smith emphasized, the right to bear arms has always been tied to allegiance and citizenship in historical practice. It may feel harsh, especially in cases where non-citizens have no violent record. But from a legal standpoint, this decision follows precedent closely and sticks to the Bruen test faithfully. Whether you agree or disagree, the ruling offers a clear window into how originalist courts are handling the Second Amendment today.

Could This Expand Further?

One lingering question is whether this historical reasoning could be used to disarm other groups, like green card holders, visa overstays, or those awaiting asylum. Both Mark Smith and Benjamin Owen highlight how the allegiance standard is the backbone of this case. That raises the stakes and possibly opens the door for further legal challenges in the future. How courts distinguish between illegal presence and lawful but non-citizen status will be worth watching.

Flores Loses, Gun Law Stands

In the end, the court reversed the lower ruling that had dismissed Flores’ indictment. His case will now proceed, and the federal ban on illegal immigrants owning firearms remains firmly in place. As Judge Brennan concluded:

“The government has carried its burden. This law fits within our Nation’s regulatory tradition.”

That’s the legal bottom line. And as Mark Smith said in closing on The Four Boxes Diner, “Orders up. Table 2A.”