BOSTON (LN) — A First Circuit panel on Tuesday reversed a district court’s dismissal of a firearm possession charge against an undocumented immigrant, ruling that the federal ban on gun ownership by aliens illegally in the United States is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The panel, in an opinion by Judge Nancy Torresen, sided with the government in United States v. Rebollar Osorio, rejecting the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Alberto Rebollar Osorio.
Rebollar Osorio, who was charged in March 2024 with knowingly possessing a firearm as an alien illegally in the United States, had moved to dismiss the indictment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted the motion, concluding that Rebollar Osorio is among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment and that the government failed to show the statute is consistent with historical tradition under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen.
The First Circuit reversed, largely relying on its decision in United States v. Vizcaíno-Peguero, issued the same day. The panel declined to resolve whether undocumented immigrants are among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, finding it unnecessary because the challenge failed step of the Bruen framework.
The court held that the government met its burden to show the ban fits within the tradition of firearm regulation. The panel pointed to English common-law traditions, colonial measures disarming Native Americans and Catholics, and founding-era laws conditioning the right to bear arms on allegiance to the sovereign.
Rebollar Osorio argued that the historical evidence relied upon by the government was inapposite, characterizing some colonial laws as "oddball" and claiming the historical regulations were aimed at preserving a ruling class rather than preventing gun violence.
The First Circuit rejected that argument, noting that the relevant history reveals a longstanding concern about sovereign control over individuals who owe temporary allegiance to the country but belong to groups presumed allegiant to a foreign power. The panel held that § 922(g)(5)(A) fits within that tradition as a measure aimed at reducing the threat posed by a group lacking a regulable relationship with the government.
The court also addressed Rebollar Osorio's contention that the ban effects a permanent, categorical prohibition without historical support. The panel explained that the statute is "relevantly similar" to colonial and founding-era measures because it allows individuals to restore their right to possess firearms by signaling allegiance and entering the requisite relationship with the government.
The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.