•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Note examines the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibits unlawful aliens from possessing firearms, under the Supreme Court’s text-and-history framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and developed further in United States v. Rahimi. In the wake of Bruen, lower courts have fractured over how strictly to demand historical analogues and how to treat longstanding status-based restrictions in § 922, including prohibitions on possession by felons, domestic-violence offenders, and noncitizens. Against that backdrop, this Note argues that § 922(g)(5) is constitutionally sound.

Part I traces the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence, from pre-Heller case law through Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi, and situates § 922(g)(5) within the broader statutory scheme regulating firearm possession. Part II surveys how state and federal courts have applied Bruen to a range of firearms regulations, highlighting both convergence and divergence in their approaches to historical analogy and status-based disarmament. Part III advances a civic-duty, status-sensitive account of the Second Amendment, arguing that the right to keep and bear arms has historically been tied to allegiance, legal recognition, and participation in the political community. Drawing on English, colonial, and early American regulations, as well as modern legislation, this Part contends that disarming unlawful aliens fits comfortably within the Nation’s historical tradition of restricting arms to citizens and law-abiding, lawfully present members of the community.

Ultimately, this Note concludes that § 922(g)(5) survives Bruen’s two-step inquiry: unlawful aliens fall outside the core political community whose rights the Second Amendment protects, and a robust historical tradition supports status-based limits on firearm possession grounded in allegiance and public safety.

Download

Share

COinS