[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-13139 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus IGNACIO JIMENEZ-SHILON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00393-WFJ-SPF-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-13139 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 2 of 27

2 Opinion of the Court 20-13139 Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. NEWSOM, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court. NEWSOM, Circuit Judge, filed a concurring opinion. NEWSOM, Circuit Judge: This case requires us to decide whether a federal law that prohibits illegal aliens from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. We hold that it does not. I Ignacio Jimenez-Shilon, an illegal alien from Mexico, lived in the United States for more than 20 years before his recent depor- tation. One afternoon in 2019, he drunkenly brandished a gun out- side a taco stand in Tampa, Florida. He was arrested, and a grand jury charged him with one count of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Although Jimenez never disputed his guilt, he moved to dis- miss the indictment on the ground that a conviction would imper- missibly punish him for engaging in conduct protected by the Sec- ond Amendment. Jimenez also sought an evidentiary hearing to establish his connections with the United States. The district court denied Jimenez’s motion to dismiss and later denied his motion for reconsideration. USCA11 Case: 20-13139 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 3 of 27

20-13139 Opinion of the Court 3

The case proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, where the district court found Jimenez guilty based on the undisputed facts. Acknowledging that Jimenez had served more than a year in prison on pretrial detention, the court imposed a sentence of a year and a day, followed by three years of supervised release. Jimenez ap- pealed. Our review of his constitutional claim—that § 922(g)(5)(A) violates the Second Amendment—is de novo. United States v. Bo- latete, 977 F.3d 1022, 1032 (11th Cir. 2020). II The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Mili- tia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held “that the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual”—as op- posed to a collective—“right to keep and bear arms.” 554 U.S. 570, 595 (2008); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767–68 (2010). Jimenez’s argument to us is straightfor- ward: (1) Even as an illegal alien, he lived in the United States for decades and was thus among “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects; and (2) as a consequence, he couldn’t be punished for exercising his individual right to possess a firearm. But the inquiry isn’t as mechanical as Jimenez suggests. As we will explain, being a member of “the people” to whom the Sec- ond Amendment applies as a general matter is a necessary condi- tion to enjoyment of the right to keep and bear arms, but it is not alone sufficient. The reason is that the Second Amendment’s text USCA11 Case: 20-13139