Court Considers If Non-Citizens Can Claim Second Amendment Rights

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is currently weighing one of the most complex and controversial questions in modern Second Amendment law: Can undocumented immigrants claim the right to bear arms? The case involves Moreno Vizcaíno-Peguero, a Dominican migrant living in Puerto Rico, who was convicted under a federal law banning non-citizens from possessing firearms. Now, he’s arguing that the ban violates his constitutional rights.

The Man Behind the Case

According to Josh Russell of Courthouse News Service, Vizcaíno-Peguero was convicted in 2023 for possessing a firearm and ammunition while being unlawfully present in the United States. His attorneys argue the law used against him, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), is unconstitutional because it bans all undocumented immigrants from gun ownership without any individual assessment of their threat level or criminal background. They say this goes against recent Supreme Court precedent.

Bruen’s Shadow Looms Large

The 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision is central to Vizcaíno-Peguero’s argument. The ruling shifted the legal standard for gun rights by requiring the government to show that any firearms restriction aligns with “this nation’s historical tradition.” Vizcaíno’s lawyers argue that the government hasn’t proven that disarming undocumented immigrants fits within that tradition. In fact, they claim that the Constitution’s reference to “the people” includes all persons physically present in the United States – citizens or not.

“The People” and What It Means

The meaning of “the people” in the Second Amendment is the heart of the debate. Vizcaíno-Peguero’s defense, as summarized by Josh Russell, claims that the founders considered “the people” to be a broad, inclusive term. His lawyers cite other rulings where the Supreme Court interpreted “the people” to include anyone who is part of the national community or has meaningful ties to it. In their view, physical presence and community integration matter more than legal paperwork.

The Government’s Argument: History Says No

In response, the U.S. government reached far back into colonial history. As Russell explains, prosecutors cited 17th- and 18th-century laws from Massachusetts and Virginia that disarmed Native Americans, Catholics who hadn’t sworn loyalty, and British loyalists. These examples, they say, show a tradition of denying firearms to individuals outside the “political community.” They argue that undocumented immigrants fall into the same category today.

Judge Barron Weighs In

During oral arguments, Chief Judge David Barron said that simply being one of “the people” doesn’t mean someone automatically gets to carry a gun. “That’s Rahimi, that’s Heller, that’s Bruen,” Barron said, referring to key Supreme Court cases. He pointed out that the government has the authority to restrict gun rights in certain situations, including when someone is unlawfully present in the U.S. Barron, an Obama appointee, was joined on the panel by Judges Jeffrey Howard (a Bush appointee) and Lara Montecalvo (appointed by Biden). The panel did not issue a ruling from the bench.

Guns & Gadgets: “A Natural Right for All?”

In his coverage of the case, Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets took a different angle. “The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right – one we get from our creator, just for being alive,” he said. Yanis questioned whether the government should be allowed to deny that right based solely on someone’s immigration status. “Do you magically lose your right to self-defense just because you crossed a border?” he asked. It’s a provocative question that gets to the core of the philosophical divide.

Gun Control’s Troubling History

Yanis also pointed out that some of the same colonial laws the government cited were blatantly racist or discriminatory. “The first gun control laws were made to disarm people of color,” he said. Citing laws against Native Americans and religious minorities as justification for modern disarmament raises serious ethical concerns, even if those laws fit the historical test outlined in Bruen. It forces us to ask: Should we really be modeling today’s policies on the biases of the past?

No Clear Line Between Rights and Status

This case doesn’t fit neatly into political talking points. On one hand, it’s understandable that a country wants to reserve certain rights for its citizens. On the other, denying someone the right to self-defense, especially if they’re otherwise law-abiding, feels like a punishment without a trial. As Yanis noted, Vizcaíno-Peguero wasn’t charged with any violent crime. He wasn’t robbing a store or threatening anyone. He just had a firearm and lacked a green card.

Are Rights Earned or Inherent?

This case is fascinating because it forces a question that’s both legal and moral. Are rights something you earn through citizenship, or something you have by default, just for being human? Many Americans believe the Constitution applies to “citizens,” not just “people.” But if we accept that line of thinking, what happens to someone who’s lived here for years, pays taxes, and has no violent record – but who’s undocumented? Do they deserve zero protection under the Bill of Rights?

A Ruling That Could Echo Nationwide

What makes this case especially important is that whatever the First Circuit decides, it could influence future rulings across the country. If the court sides with the government, it sets a precedent that other circuits might follow, reinforcing a boundary between citizenship and constitutional rights. If it sides with Vizcaíno-Peguero, it could open the door to more non-citizens claiming Second Amendment protections – something likely to ignite major political debate.

A Legal Gray Zone with Huge Implications

At the end of the day, the First Circuit must decide whether history justifies excluding undocumented immigrants from the Second Amendment. But history isn’t always clear – or moral. As Josh Russell reported, colonial laws targeted people based on race, religion, and loyalty. Now, those same laws are being used to justify modern exclusions. And as Jared Yanis asked, “Who makes the decision about which rights you get – and when you get them?” That’s the real question, and how the court answers it could ripple far beyond Puerto Rico.