United States v. Vazquez-Ramirez

No. 24-3544 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 2, 2026 · No. 24-3544

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Oscar Vazquez-Ramirez’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits firearm possession by aliens who are illegally or unlawfully present in the United States. The court held that its prior intermediate-scrutiny approach was clearly irreconcilable with N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and applied Bruen’s historical-tradition framework. Assuming without deciding that unlawfully present noncitizens are protected by the Second Amendment, the court concluded that § 922(g)(5)(A) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Johnnie B. Rawlinson; Daniel A. Bress; Patrick J. Bumatay
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
January 2, 2026
Docket number
24-3544
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion to dismiss a federal indictment charging possession of a firearm and ammunition by a person illegally or unlawfully in the United States. He entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his Second Amendment challenge.
Standard of review
De novo review of the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Ninth Circuit opinion
Parties
Oscar Vazquez-Ramirez v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

second amendmentconstitutional lawcriminal procedureimmigrationstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawconstitutional lawfirearms lawimmigration lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Ninth Circuit's intermediate-scrutiny framework for Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) remained valid after N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen.
  2. Whether § 922(g)(5)(A), as applied to a noncitizen illegally present in the United States, is consistent with the Second Amendment under Bruen's text-and-history framework.
  3. Whether the denial of Vazquez-Ramirez's motion to dismiss the indictment should be affirmed.

Holdings

  1. The Ninth Circuit's prior holding that Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(5)(A) are subject to intermediate scrutiny is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen and is overruled.
  2. Assuming without deciding that noncitizens illegally present in the United States are among 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment, § 922(g)(5)(A) is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation and survives Vazquez-Ramirez's as-applied challenge.
  3. The as-applied Second Amendment challenge fails, and the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment is affirmed.
  4. The concurrence would hold that 'the people' refers only to members of the nation's political community and therefore excludes illegal aliens, but this was not the holding of the court.

Key quotations

Bruen establishes a two-step framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges. (at 5–6)
As it is not necessary to resolve the issue in this case, like several of our sister circuits, we will assume without deciding that noncitizens illegally present in the United States could be considered part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. (at 6)
Accordingly, Vazquez-Ramirez’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(5)(A) fails. (at 11)
Illegal aliens are not among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. (at 34)

Factual background

Oscar Vazquez-Ramirez was born in Mexico and entered the United States unlawfully at age seven. He is not a United States citizen and has no lawful immigration status. In December 2021, police stopped him in Othello, Washington, for failing to yield at a crosswalk and found a firearm in his waistband; he was subsequently charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A).

Procedural history

Vazquez-Ramirez was charged in the Eastern District of Washington under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). The district court denied his as-applied Second Amendment motion to dismiss, after which he entered a conditional guilty plea and received five years of probation. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the constitutional ruling de novo and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…