The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an order and judgment Tuesday in *United States v. Salazar*, a case that highlights ongoing constitutional debates over federal gun laws and Second Amendment rights for undocumented immigrants.
Gerson Armando Romero Salazar was indicted on one count of being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). The federal statute makes it unlawful for any person who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States to ship, transport, possess, or receive any firearm or ammunition.
Salazar moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 922(g)(5)(A) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied the motion, rejecting the defendant's constitutional challenge to the federal firearms prohibition.
Following the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss, Salazar pled guilty to the charge. The trial court sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The case then proceeded to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Matheson, Murphy, and Federico heard the appeal.
The constitutional challenge in *Salazar* reflects broader legal debates that have emerged following the Supreme Court's decision in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen* (2022), which established a new framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges. Under the *Bruen* standard, courts must determine whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Section 922(g)(5)(A) is part of a broader federal scheme that prohibits certain categories of people from possessing firearms. The provision specifically targets individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States, making firearm possession a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
The Tenth Circuit's order and judgment in *Salazar* was issued without oral argument, as the three-judge panel determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision based on the briefs and appellate record. This procedural approach is permitted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(f) and Tenth Circuit Rule 34.1(G).
The court's decision carries a footnote indicating that the order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. However, it may be cited for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
Constitutional challenges to 922(g)(5)(A) have increased in frequency since the *Bruen* decision, as defense attorneys argue that the historical tradition test calls into question various federal firearms prohibitions. The provision has faced scrutiny in multiple federal circuits, with courts examining whether the founding-era historical record supports disarming individuals based on immigration status.
The case originated in the Northern District of Oklahoma, where Salazar was initially prosecuted under case number 4:24-CR-00125-JFH-1. The relatively quick progression from district court to appellate resolution suggests the legal issues were well-developed and the parties were prepared for expedited review.
The Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, making its interpretation of Second Amendment challenges to federal firearms laws particularly relevant for immigration enforcement and gun prosecutions across the region.
Firearms prosecutions involving undocumented immigrants have become increasingly common as federal authorities prioritize enforcement of existing gun laws. The intersection of immigration status and Second Amendment rights presents complex legal questions that federal courts continue to grapple with in the post-*Bruen* landscape.
The outcome in *Salazar* will likely influence how similar constitutional challenges are resolved in the Tenth Circuit and may provide guidance for other federal appellate courts confronting parallel issues. Defense attorneys in similar cases will closely examine the reasoning and analysis employed by the three-judge panel.
While the complete text of the Tenth Circuit's analysis was not immediately available, the procedural posture suggests the court addressed substantive constitutional questions regarding the scope of Second Amendment protections and their application to individuals unlawfully present in the United States.
The case underscores the ongoing evolution of Second Amendment jurisprudence and its intersection with federal immigration enforcement priorities. As courts continue to apply the *Bruen* framework, similar constitutional challenges to longstanding federal firearms prohibitions are expected to continue appearing on appellate dockets nationwide.