9th Cir.

United States v. DeBorba

June 3, 2026 ·24-3304 ·Unanimous ·M. Margaret McKeown · By James Taylor

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions of a noncitizen for unlawful firearm possession, false statements, and silencer violations, rejecting Second Amendment challenges based on binding precedent.

Background

Joao Ricardo DeBorba, a Brazilian national who overstayed his visa, obtained a concealed carry permit and filed gun purchase forms by falsely claiming to be a United States citizen. He was subject to multiple domestic violence no-contact orders that prohibited firearm possession. Law enforcement seized nineteen firearms, ammunition, and a silencer from his apartment. He was convicted of unlawful possession of firearms by a noncitizen, unlawful possession by a person under a restraining order, making false statements on gun forms, making a false claim to citizenship, and unlawful possession of a silencer under the National Firearms Act.

The court’s reasoning

The panel held that DeBorba’s challenges to Section nine hundred twenty-two subsection g paragraph five are controlled by United States versus Vazquez-Ramirez, which found the statute constitutional. The court reasoned that historical tradition disarms those lacking legal status. Challenges to false statement convictions failed because they relied on the premise that the Second Amendment protects his disarmament, which is foreclosed. As-applied challenges to Section nine hundred twenty-two subsection g paragraph eight were foreclosed by United States versus Rahimi and United States versus VanDyke, which recognize disarmament for those presenting a threat. The silencer challenge failed because silencers are not arms under the plain text and the National Firearms Act is a constitutional shall-issue regime.

DeBorba asks us to construe the Second Amendment so broadly that it would bowl over a number of criminal statutes. But DeBorba’s actions put him outside the class of ordinary law-abiding citizens who enjoy Second Amendment rights.

United States v. DeBorba, 24-3304 (9th Cir. 2026)

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the constitutionality of federal prohibitions on firearm possession by noncitizens unlawfully in the United States and individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, while confirming that silencers are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.