The battle over the meaning of “the people” in the Second Amendment just got a big update. In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled this week that illegal aliens have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
This landmark case—United States v. Carbajal-Flores—was brought after Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, a Mexican citizen unlawfully in the U.S., was arrested for firing a pistol in Chicago during the 2020 riots. He argued that the Second Amendment protected his right to carry a gun for self-defense.
The court disagreed, finding that America’s tradition of tying gun rights to loyalty and citizenship stretches all the way back to the Founding Era—and even earlier.
What the Court Actually Said
Writing for the panel, Judge Brennan didn’t mince words:
“From the colonies to—most critically—the early Republic, governments consistently conditioned the ability to possess firearms on one’s loyalty to the sovereign. People outside the polity were regularly disarmed unless and until they swore an oath of allegiance. This provides strong historical evidence that the Founders would have considered such regulations compatible with the Second Amendment.”
Put simply: if you haven’t pledged allegiance to America, you don’t get to claim its constitutional protections—especially when it comes to firearms.
The court explained that this principle wasn’t new. Back in colonial times, even white settlers who refused to swear loyalty to the revolutionary cause were disarmed. Slaves and Native Americans were barred from bearing arms too—not merely because of race, but because they were viewed as outside the “national community.”
“Aliens, as a matter of their status, have not yet affirmed their allegiance to the sovereign. That has uniformly served as the basis for disarming them.”
How This Fits With Bruen & Heller
After the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, courts have been re-evaluating gun laws based on whether they fit America’s “historical tradition.” Flores argued that because he lived in the U.S. for years, he should count as part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.
But the Seventh Circuit said even if Flores fell under “the people”, the government carried its burden by showing a long history of restricting guns to those loyal to the nation.
“Section 922(g)(5)(A) is thus sufficiently analogous to many earlier firearm regulations. Because the law ‘comport[s] with the principles underlying the Second Amendment,’ we hold that it overcomes Carbajal-Flores’s facial challenge.”
A Major Win for 2A Logic
Second Amendment attorney Mark Smith, host of Four Boxes Diner, broke it down bluntly in his reaction video:
“There’s no way, no how that individuals here illegally are going to be deemed to have Second Amendment rights. Period. Full stop.”
This ruling aligns with decisions from other federal circuits. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have also said that people in the country illegally can’t claim Second Amendment protection.
Why This Matters for U.S. Gun Owners
This case reinforces something many gun owners have long argued: the right to keep and bear arms isn’t just about geography—it’s about being part of “We the People.”
It’s not about whether someone is dangerous or peaceful. It’s about allegiance. As the court wrote:
“The unfortunate practice of disarming slaves and Native Americans survived the Revolutionary War, confirming the Founders adhered to the tradition of barring groups deemed outside the polity from keeping arms.”
In today’s context, the court found this tradition extends to illegal aliens.
Could This Reach the Supreme Court?
With several appeals courts now in agreement, it’s likely only a matter of time before the Supreme Court gets asked to weigh in. When that happens, expect major fireworks.
For now, though, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling stands as a strong precedent and a reminder that the Second Amendment is deeply tied to loyalty, citizenship, and the responsibilities that come with being a U.S. citizen, not border crashers.
Survey: Most Americans Misled on Illegal Immigrant Crime Rates Despite Mounting Evidence ~ VIDEO
Is the Second Amendment Only America’s Right? Do Illegal Immigrants Have Gun Rights?
The constitution was written for the people of this country, not illegal aliens.
It seems to me that unless your a citizen of the US the constitution and all the rights it entails are for citizens. So in other words words if your not a citizen then you don’t have rights other than basic human rights! Just my opinion.
What a dilemma for the Left. On the one hand they will always want to protect and defend the illegally present alien but on the other they will work against anything in favor of gun owners or ownership. For them, either choice is good and bad.
Wildly incorrect rationale from the judges there. The 2A was meant to keep the government in line because they’d be shot if they got uppity, restricting it to only the loyal defeats the entire purpose. The actual reason illegals have no protection is much easier: They are an invading force and thus not “the people” of the US.
Shall not be infringed
The supreme court has ruled in at least two separate cases that the 1st amendment applies to non-citizens. This ruling regarding the 2nd amendment just re-affirms that the courts continue to think of the 2nd amendment as a 2nd class amendment. They continue to believe that the right to bear arms is a right that can be taken away, severely limited, afforded to the “right” kind of person, ect. Meanwhile, all the other rights are given freely to non-citizens. The 1st amendment, which by its very wording was supposed to be a limitation on congress has been afforded to all… Read more »
Our argument that the right to keep and bear arms is beyond the permissive laws of man falls apart with this decision.
Either this right is unalienable, bestowed by God and thus exercisable by all of humanity, or it is subject to the law of man.
Which is it? We can’t have this both ways folks, otherwise we are simply advocating another form of the “rules for thee but not for me” mentality the antis are pushing.
There never was A birthright citizenship.
Read the 14th amendment please.
If someone is here illegally they are not
“A subject of the jurisdiction thereof.”
Illegals! Are in fact legal subjects of whatever jurisdiction or country they came from.
ABSURD RULING!!! SO CALLED “ILLEGALS” STILL HAVE 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, and first amendment rights, and 8th amendment rights.
Rights are granted by God, not government. The first right of nature is the right to self-defense.
Tying the right to bear arms to loyalty and allegiance is scary. In the future who will determine if you are a loyal citizen?
I think the Founders were rather clear, and one need look no further than the preamble to the Constitution. “We the People OF THE UNITED STATES, …, and secure the blessings of liberty to OURselves and OUR posterity… .” The Constitution is a framework of a nation–the United States–and does not apply to anyone who is not a citizen, including resident aliens, those here on visas, etc. We may choose in certain (most) cases to extend the rights enumerated in the Constitution to others while they are in our country, but such rights are by no means granted to non-US… Read more »