Rex Wholster/Shutterstock
September 20, 2024
An illegal alien, having been deported multiple times for violating U.S. immigration law, decided once again that the rules did not apply to him when he made a U-turn and came right back, this time in possession of a loaded Taurus PT-58 handgun. Federal prosecutors charged Jose Paz Medina-Cantu with illegal re-entry and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition after his arrest in 2022. Border Patrol agents discovered Medina-Cantu during an ambulance inspection at a South Texas checkpoint. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(5)(A) prohibits illegal aliens from owning or possessing firearms. In district court, Medina-Cantu requested charges be dismissed on grounds that Section §922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment, a protection he claims entitlement to, unlike the laws that he did not believe applied to him in the first place. Isn’t it funny how that works? District Court Judge Gonzales Ramos didn’t find it amusing, however, rejecting the request in light of precedent set in Portillo-Munoz, where in 2011 the Fifth Circuit upheld Section 922(g)(5)(A), reasoning that ‘the people’ referred to by the Second Amendment did not include those having illegally entered the United States.
He was subsequently convicted
Medina-Cantu appealed the conviction in the Fifth Circuit using a sideways-sounding Bruen decision argument, claiming that the government failed to perform the historical analysis necessary to uphold the constitutionality of 922(g)(5)(A). Prosecutors maintained their district court argument based on Portillo-Munoz adding that Bruen did not negate precedent and that Section §922(g)(5) is consistent with the historical tradition. The government also reasoned that illegal aliens are not entitled the right to bear arms based on the plain text of the Second Amendment, causing me to scratch a bald spot into my head wondering if this was the same “plain text” that the 2A community has been trying to explain to them for years, but I digress… In late August, the Fifth Circuit rejected Medina-Cantu’s arguments reaffirming that illegal aliens are not guaranteed or entitled to Second Amendment rights, citing that while Bruen addressed historical prerequisites to firearm regulation, the case did not provide guidance that would expand upon precedence as to who was protected.
Case closed? Not so fast.
Earlier this year, Illinois District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman held that Section 922(g)(5)(A) does violate the Second Amendment, concluding that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision should apply contextually to an illegal alien charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under Section 922(g)(5). Johnson went on to state that the “non-violent circumstances” of the arrest do not support a finding that the illegal alien poses a public safety risk and as such, he should not be deprived of his right to bear arms. The conflict between the Fifth and Seventh Circuits sets the stage for a future showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court, which will assuredly raise questions about public safety and national security. While it is true that the presence of illegal aliens is itself a violation of our immigration laws, that status can have compounding realities associated with it, such as identity theft, tax evasion, and more. While those circumstances may not be disqualifying factors when it comes to firearm ownership, a serious cause for concern lies in the fact that illegal aliens are, by definition, unvetted individuals whose backgrounds we more or less are unaware of. With Americans struggling to pursue our inalienable rights as recognized by the Founding Fathers, it is somewhat irritating to see Judge Johnson electing to cater to those who have entered the country illegally, but let’s face it, we all know what’s going on here. Granting Second Amendment protections to illegal aliens isn’t even the most egregious of offenses, as states like California, Colorado, and Illinois allow them to serve as law enforcement officers, requiring them to carry firearms and giving them authority over actual law-abiding citizens.
Citations
Fifth Circuit Rules Illegal Aliens Have No Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms
Advertisement
United States of America vs. Jose Paz Medina-Cantu
Illegal Alien Convicted for Handgun Possession Appeals on Second Amendment Grounds
18 U.S. Code § 922 – Unlawful acts
Advertisement
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ARMANDO PORTILLO-MUNOZ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISIONE
If you have any thoughts or comments on this article, we’d love to hear them. Email us at FirearmsNews@Outdoorsg.com.
Video That May Interest You