Constitutional – Second Amendment – Immigration status

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(5)(A)., which makes it unlawful for a person who is an alien “illegally or unlawfully in the United States” to possess a firearm, the dismissal of the indictment must be reversed because the government met its burden to show that §922(g)(5)(A) fits comfortably within the tradition of firearm regulation.

“In this case, we must resolve the government’s challenge to the dismissal of an indictment that charged Alberto Rebollar Osorio (‘Rebollar Osorio’) with possessing a firearm as an ‘alien’ ‘illegally or unlawfully in the United States’ in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(5)(A). In that ruling, the United States District Court for the District of Maine determined that, under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), §922(g)(5)(A) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment because Rebollar Osorio is among ‘the people’ protected by that Amendment, and the government failed to carry its burden to show that, as applied to him, that statute is consistent with our nation’s ‘tradition of firearm regulation.’ We reverse, largely for the reasons set forth in United States v. Vizcaíno-Peguero, No. 23-1932, slip op. (1st Cir. May 5, 2026). …

“… We held in Vizcaíno-Peguero, after accounting for each of those dimensions of the inquiry, that the government had met its burden to show that §922(g)(5)(A) fits comfortably within the tradition of firearm regulation. … We relied there on the evidence that the government advanced concerning the English common-law tradition, colonial measures disarming Native Americans and Catholics, and founding-era laws conditioning the right to bear arms on an individual’s allegiance to the sovereign. …

“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the District Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Rebollar Osorio (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-093-26) (11 pages) (Barron, C.J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (Docket No. 24-2043) (May 5, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.