The 2nd Amendment does not protect the gun rights of illegal migrants, according to a federal appeals court.

A federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled that illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that federal restrictions on illegal immigrants owning firearms are constitutional, and the Second Amendment does not apply to those who have entered the country unlawfully.

In 2022, Jose Paz Medina-Cantu was arrested by Border Patrol agents in Texas and charged with illegally possessing a handgun and unlawfully re-entering the country after being previously deported.

Last year, Medina-Cantu pleaded guilty to 15 months in prison for a gun charge, but he reserved the right to appeal on the grounds that the charge infringed on his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The lawyers used the 2022 landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision by the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority as the basis for their argument, establishing a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment.

The Bruen ruling mandated that gun regulations be in line with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation, and a three-judge panel ruled that the Supreme Court's recent gun rights rulings did not completely abolish the precedent that the Second Amendment does not cover illegal aliens.

Numerous gun control laws have been declared invalid after Bruen's court challenge.

The ruling in Medina-Cantu's case weakened a 2011 decision by the 5th Circuit in United States v. Portilla-Munoz, which upheld the constitutionality of the immigration-related ban, as there is no historical tradition dating back to 1791 of disarming people based solely on their immigration status.

The three-judge panel ruled that Portillo-Munoz's decision "remains good law" and that the rights of U.S. citizens do not apply to illegal migrants.

Judge James Ho, a conservative appointee of President Trump, wrote in a concurring opinion that the term 'the people' under the Second Amendment does not include illegal aliens.

"An illegal alien cannot be considered part of a national community by entering it unlawfully, just as a thief cannot be considered an owner of property by stealing it."

Ho went on to clarify the precedent in the case.

"The Court has consistently stated that an alien does not become a citizen under our Constitution by attempting to enter our country illegally. However, that is precisely the definition of an illegal alien - someone who tries to enter our country in a way that is forbidden by law."

Therefore, illegal aliens are not included in the group of individuals protected by the Second Amendment.

To concede that the United States is governed by the Constitution, an illegal alien must appeal to it.

Under our Constitution, the power to exclude aliens from the United States has been established. As a result, the Court determined that those who are excluded cannot assert the rights that are generally available to citizens or others in a land to which they do not belong.