Oscar Bernabe-Martinez was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits aliens unlawfully in the United States from possessing firearms. Following his conviction, Bernabe-Martinez appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the statute violated his rights under the Second Amendment as applied to his specific circumstances. The appeal was submitted for decision without oral argument, with the panel consisting of Circuit Judges Silverman, Nguyen, and Hurwitz.
The central legal issue on appeal was whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) violates the Second Amendment. The Ninth Circuit addressed this by applying the doctrine of stare decisis and the binding nature of its recent precedent. The court noted that its decision in United States v. Vazquez-Ramirez, 163 F.4th 706 (9th Cir. 2026), was decided after the briefing in this case but squarely addressed the same constitutional question. In Vazquez-Ramirez, the panel explicitly held that the Second Amendment does not invalidate § 922(g)(5)(A). Because the Ninth Circuit is bound by its own prior panel decisions, the court found Bernabe-Martinez's constitutional challenge foreclosed. The court relied on the specific language from Vazquez-Ramirez stating that the statute remains valid despite Second Amendment claims.
The affirmation of Bernabe-Martinez's conviction stands, meaning the defendant remains subject to the penalties associated with the firearm possession charge. The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's position that § 922(g)(5)(A) is constitutional as applied to aliens unlawfully present in the country. There are no remand instructions as the case is fully resolved on appeal. The ruling leaves open no new doctrinal questions regarding this specific statute within the Ninth Circuit, as the issue is settled by Vazquez-Ramirez.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download