United States v. Ignacio Jimenez-Shilon, 34 F.4th 1042

Ignacio Jimenez-Shilon, an undocumented Mexican national who had lived in the U.S. for over 20 years, was arrested in 2019 after drunkenly brandishing a firearm in Tampa, Florida.
He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) (possession of a firearm by an unlawful or undocumented alien).
Jimenez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the Second Amendment protects him as one of “the people,” so the statute is unconstitutional; he also sought an evidentiary hearing to establish his ties to the U.S.
The district court denied the motion and the hearing request; the case proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, resulting in a conviction and sentence (1 year and a day, plus supervised release).
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the Second Amendment claim de novo, assumed arguendo that Jimenez might be among “the people,” but conducted an originalist text-and-history inquiry into whether the Second Amendment’s pre-existing right extended to illegal aliens.
The court concluded historical practice and Founding-era sources show aliens were disqualified from the right to bear arms; it affirmed Jimenez’s conviction and held § 922(g)(5)(A) constitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 922(g)(5)(A) violates the Second Amendment	Jimenez: After decades in the U.S., he is among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be criminally punished for possessing a firearm.	Government: Second Amendment codified a pre-existing right limited by text, history, and tradition; aliens (especially unlawful ones) were historically excluded from the polity and from the right to bear arms, so the ban is permissible.	Court: Assumed arguendo Jimenez is among “the people” but held history/text show illegal aliens are disqualified; § 922(g)(5)(A) does not violate the Second Amendment.
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on Jimenez’s ties to the U.S.	Jimenez: Hearing needed to show ties that might bring him within the Second Amendment’s scope.	Government: Jimenez admits he is an illegal alien; even proven ties would not overcome historical disqualification.	Court: No abuse—admission of illegal status dooms the Second Amendment defense, so a hearing would not have changed the outcome.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right and must be interpreted by its text and historical understanding)
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (definition of “the people” as national community or those with sufficient connection)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states; reliance on Heller’s methodology)
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) (rights enshrined were those understood at adoption and subject to recognized exceptions)
Dawson’s Lessee v. Godfrey, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 321 (1808) (early precedents on aliens’ rights with respect to property and privileges)
United States v. Bolatete, 977 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for Second Amendment challenges in this circuit)
United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, 798 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2015) (concluding unlawful aliens can be among “the people” for some Second Amendment analyses)
United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010) (recognizing some groups may be disqualified from Second Amendment protections)
United States v. Perez, 6 F.4th 448 (2d Cir. 2021) (discussion of allegiance, membership in polity, and disarmament of nonmembers)