Seventh Circuit Rules Illegals Can Be Disarmed

In a major win for the federal government—and a ruling sure to interest the Second Amendment community—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), the federal statute barring illegal aliens from possessing firearms.

By Larry Z for Guns America

The case, United States v. Carbajal-Flores, centered around a 2020 incident in Chicago, where Heriberto Carbajal-Flores—then unlawfully in the U.S.—was caught on surveillance video firing multiple rounds from a pistol during a night of civil unrest.

While he claimed he was firing warning shots to protect his neighborhood from looters, federal prosecutors indicted him under § 922(g)(5)(A), which makes it a felony for an illegal alien to possess a firearm.

What followed was a winding legal battle involving challenges under the Second Amendment—and a sharply divided landscape shaped by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.

Table of contents

• From Bruen to Chicago: How the Second Amendment Test Was Applied
• Seventh Circuit Reverses: Allegiance Is the Key
• No Room for As-Applied Challenges Here
• A Win for History-Based Gun Law Interpretation

From Bruen to Chicago: How the Second Amendment Test Was Applied

The district court initially upheld the law. But after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen overhauled how courts evaluate Second Amendment claims, Carbajal-Flores renewed his motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the law failed Bruen’s “text-and-history” test.

While the court still found the statute facially constitutional, it accepted his as-applied challenge—claiming the government failed to prove he, personally, was dangerous or untrustworthy.

Since Carbajal-Flores had no felony convictions and held a job, the lower court said he didn’t fit the historical mold of those lawfully disarmed.

The government appealed.

Seventh Circuit Reverses: Allegiance Is the Key

In a 22-page opinion by Judge Brennan, the Seventh Circuit reversed. The panel didn’t just uphold the statute—it built a sweeping historical case showing that governments have always disarmed individuals who lacked allegiance to the sovereign.

Citing English common law, colonial statutes, the Revolutionary period, and early state constitutions, the court drew a direct line from 18th-century disarmament of foreign nationals, Catholics loyal to the Pope, and others outside the political community, to today’s prohibition on illegal aliens possessing guns.

“The law precludes only illegal aliens—those who have necessarily forgone the naturalization process—from possessing firearms,” Judge Brennan wrote. “But an alien who obtains citizenship by taking the oath of renunciation and allegiance… is entitled to keep and bear arms like every other law-abiding American.”

No Room for As-Applied Challenges Here

Notably, the Seventh Circuit sidestepped whether any part of § 922(g) might allow for as-applied challenges after Bruen. But it shut the door on Carbajal-Flores’s claim.

Why?

Because unlike the felon-in-possession law (§ 922(g)(1)), which might sweep too broadly, the panel held that the illegal alien ban is perfectly tailored: allegiance-based restrictions have deep historical roots, and unlawful immigrants—by definition—haven’t sworn allegiance to the U.S.

So while other circuits wrestle with felons and restraining orders, the Seventh Circuit found § 922(g)(5)(A) sits squarely within the “longstanding tradition” of disarming non-citizens who haven’t committed to the American constitutional order.

A Win for History-Based Gun Law Interpretation

For 2A supporters, the ruling is a prime example of how Bruen’s historical standard cuts both ways: the government can’t rely on interest balancing or policy arguments—but when it can produce a solid historical analogy, its laws stand.

The opinion acknowledged that illegal immigrants may fall under “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. But even assuming that’s true, Judge Brennan wrote, the government met its burden to show the regulation is “rooted in our Nation’s tradition of disarming individuals who have not sworn allegiance.”

In short: if you haven’t pledged loyalty to the U.S., the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t apply—at least not until you do.

Find the original article in its entirety at Guns America.