United States v. Meza-Rodriguez - 798 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2015)

Rule:

Congress's interest in prohibiting persons who are difficult to track and who have an interest in eluding law enforcement is strong enough to support the conclusion that 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(5) does not impermissibly restrict an unauthorized alien's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Facts:

Defendant Mariano Meza-Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, was brought to the United States by his family when he was four or five years old. Without ever regularizing his status, defendant has remained in the United States since that time. When defendant was arrested, he was carrying a .22 caliber cartridge. The government later filed an indictment alleging that defendant had violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibited foreigners who were not entitled to be in the United States from possessing firearms. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment that followed, arguing that § 922(g)(5) impermissibly infringed on his rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The district court denied his motion on the broad ground that the Second Amendment did not protect unauthorized aliens. Subsequently, the district court sentenced defendant to time served with no supervised release, and he was later removed to Mexico. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from his conviction. 

Issue:

Was defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(5) properly denied by the district court? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(5) was properly denied because the Second Amendment did not preclude certain restrictions on the right to bear arms, including the one imposed by § 922(g)(5). According to the court, the Congress's interest in prohibiting persons who were difficult to track and who had an interest in eluding law enforcement was strong enough to support the conclusion that 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(5) did not impermissibly restrict defendant's Second Amendment right to bear arms.