The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Oscar Vazquez-Ramirez for violating federal law that prohibits persons illegally in the United States from possessing firearms, rejecting his constitutional challenge to the statute in a decision filed Jan. 2.
The three-judge panel upheld Vazquez-Ramirez's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which makes it a federal crime for anyone "illegally or unlawfully in the United States" to possess a firearm. The decision comes as federal courts grapple with how to apply the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to immigration-related gun restrictions.
Vazquez-Ramirez had moved to dismiss his indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, raising an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to the federal statute. District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson denied the motion, leading to the appeal before the Ninth Circuit.
The case required the appeals court to reconsider its approach to Second Amendment challenges involving immigration status. In its per curiam opinion, the panel acknowledged that its previous holding in United States v. Torres (2019) – which subjected Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(5)(A) to intermediate scrutiny – was "clearly irreconcilable" with the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen.
"The panel concluded that this court's previous holding that Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(5)(A) are subject to intermediate scrutiny is clearly irreconcilable with N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc'n v. Bruen and is overruled," the court wrote, formally abandoning the Torres precedent.
The Bruen decision fundamentally changed how courts analyze Second Amendment claims by establishing a two-step framework that focuses on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment rather than applying tiers of constitutional scrutiny like intermediate or strict scrutiny.
Applying Bruen's methodology, the Ninth Circuit panel assumed without deciding that noncitizens illegally present in the United States could potentially invoke Second Amendment protections. However, the court ultimately determined that the federal prohibition on firearm possession by undocumented immigrants is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The decision reflects ongoing tensions in federal courts as judges work to apply Bruen's historical analysis to various categories of prohibited persons under federal gun laws. The Supreme Court's ruling has led to successful challenges to some longstanding firearm restrictions, particularly those affecting certain categories of prohibited persons where historical precedent is less clear.
Section 922(g)(5)(A) is part of a broader federal scheme that prohibits various categories of people from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, persons subject to restraining orders, and those unlawfully in the United States. The provision has faced increasing Second Amendment scrutiny since Bruen, with mixed results in federal courts.
The case was argued and submitted before the three-judge panel on June 2, 2025, in Seattle. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Daniel A. Bress, and Patrick J. Bumatay, with Judge Bumatay filing a separate concurrence.
The decision adds to a growing body of post-Bruen jurisprudence examining how immigration status affects Second Amendment rights. While some federal courts have questioned whether certain categories of noncitizens can claim Second Amendment protections, others have focused on whether specific restrictions are justified by historical tradition even when such protections might apply.
For immigration attorneys and gun rights advocates, the ruling provides clarity on how the Ninth Circuit will approach similar challenges going forward. The court's explicit overruling of Torres signals that future Second Amendment challenges to immigration-based firearm restrictions will be evaluated under Bruen's text-history-tradition test rather than the more deferential intermediate scrutiny standard.
The affirmance of Vazquez-Ramirez's conviction also reinforces that federal prosecutors can continue to pursue charges under § 922(g)(5)(A) against undocumented immigrants found in possession of firearms, even as the legal framework for evaluating constitutional challenges to such prosecutions has evolved.
The case originated in the Eastern District of Washington, where Vazquez-Ramirez was charged in 2022. The specific circumstances of his arrest and the firearm possession that led to charges were not detailed in the available portions of the appellate opinion.
This decision follows a broader trend of federal appellate courts reconsidering their Second Amendment jurisprudence in light of Bruen, often resulting in the abandonment of multi-tier scrutiny frameworks in favor of the Supreme Court's historical methodology. The Ninth Circuit's explicit acknowledgment that Torres was "clearly irreconcilable" with Bruen demonstrates the substantial impact the 2022 Supreme Court ruling continues to have on constitutional analysis of firearm regulations.