Nonimmigrant Aliens and Firearms Disabilities Under the Gun Control Act
Background
- ATF issued an interim final rule interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B) to apply to all nonimmigrant aliens, not only those admitted with a visa.
- The statute prohibits aliens admitted under a nonimmigrant visa from firearms possession or receipt related to interstate commerce.
- The opinion concludes the text requires a visa for the prohibition to apply, not merely nonimmigrant status.
- ATF’s broad interpretation raised questions about statutory text vs. policy or historical interpretation, and DHS provided contrary views.
- The memorandum formalizes informal guidance that the plain statutory text forecloses ATF’s reading and limits the prohibition to aliens admitted under a visa.
- The analysis addresses statutory text, legislative history, and potential implications for pending or past cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B) apply only to aliens admitted with a nonimmigrant visa? | ATF’s interpretation includes all nonimmigrant aliens. | ATF argues broader application is warranted by statute and policy. | Statute requires a visa; broader interpretation rejected. |
| Is ATF entitled to rely on legislative history to justify its interpretation? | Legislative history supports broader scope. | Legislative history does not override the clear text. | Legislative history does not overcome plain text; rejected. |
| What is the proper approach to past or pending prosecutions if § 922(g)(5)(B) does not apply to all nonimmigrant aliens? | ATF may proceed under broader interpretation. | Past prosecutions predicated on broader interpretation are improper. | Section 922(g)(5)(B) does not authorize broader prosecutions; implications for past cases require separate action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (U.S. 1997) (constitutional and federalism context shaping statutory interpretation)
- United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1984) (legislative aims and public safety in firearm distribution)
- Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1976) (history showing congressional concern about firearms access)
- Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. De La Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1982) (avoid rendering statutory provisions nugatory; give effect to all parts)
- Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1992) (textual plain meaning governs when unambiguous)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1994) (avoid using legislative history to distort a clear text)
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1990) (legislative history generally not to override text)
- PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (S. Ct. 2011) (courts not to rewrite statutory text to accommodate policy concerns)
- United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1971) (statutory interpretation and public interest considerations)