The Bruen Saga Continues: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) Held Unconstitutional by District Court
We previously reported on the wake the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 382 (2022) has made in challenging the constitutionality of various federal gun laws. Since the Count’s October 2022 decision, district and appellate courts across the country have been split on how application of Bruen’s history and traditions test applies to various subsections of federal gun crimes codified under Section 922 of Title 18.
On March 8, 2024, a district judge in the Norther District of Illinois issued a memorandum opinion and order holding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in United States v. Carbajal-Flores, No. 20-cr-00613 (N.D. Ill.). Subsection (g)(5) makes it a federal offense for a non-citizen in the United States illegally or unlawfully to possess any firearm.
Background of the Case
Carbajal-Flores was charged with possession of a firearm while in the United States illegally or unlawfully, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). Twice before he unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment. His second motion to dismiss, premised on Bruen, was renewed following the Third Circuit’s decision in Range v. Garland, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc) (holding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to that defendant) and the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Atkinson v. Garland, 70 F.4th 1018 (7th Cir. 2023) (remanding to the district court to perform historical analysis consistent with Bruen of 922(g)(1)).
Case Analysis
In reconsidering Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss, the district court noted that it previously found the conduct covered by the Second Amendment–step one of the Bruen analysis. Under the new Bruen framework, step two required the government to that the statute is part of the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Bruen, at 2126, 2130.
Utilizing the framework of Bruen and the Seventh Circuit’s guidance in Atkinson, the district court considered the government’s “step two” arguments. The district court found that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) is still facially constitutional. Nonetheless, Carbajal-Flores raised an “as-applied” challenge to § 922(g)(5) which is distinct from whether a statute is constitutional on its face.
Delving into this nation’s rich history, the court examined regulations placed on British loyalists who were deemed “untrustworthy” or “dangerous” and prohibited from possessing a weapon. However, the court also found that exceptions were made for British loyalists who were determined to be nonviolent during individual assessments and permitted to carry weapons.
Under this historical analogue, the court concluded that Carbajal-Flores is a noncitizen unlawfully in the United States but has never been convicted of a felony or violent crime. As such, prohibiting him from possessing a firearm under § 922(g)(5) deprives him of his Second Amendment right under the Bruen framework. Accordingly, the court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional as applied to Carbajal-Flores and granted his motion to dismiss the indictment.
Experienced Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys
The decision in Carbajal-Flores is yet another way courts across the country have interpreted and applied the Bruen framework to the federal prohibition of firearms statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). In order to fight cases like these, it is essential to have experienced federal criminal defense attorneys who are up to date on the various changes Bruen has brought about. The attorneys at Newland Legal have significant federal criminal defense experience and can represent federal defendants across the country. If you are interested in speaking with a federal criminal defense attorney about your case, call or text us at (303) 948-1489 or email us at info@newlandlegal.com.
