USA v. Vasquez-Yax

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) MEMORANDUM OF
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
FELICIANO ISMAEL VASQUEZ-YAX, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 17].
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2025, the Defendant was charged by way of a
Criminal Complaint with possessing a firearm as an illegal alien, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). [See Case No. 1:25-mj-00040-WCM, Doc. 1 at 1].
On November 21, 2025, the Defendant was arrested in the Northern District
of Georgia. On December 2, 2025, the Defendant was charged in a Bill of
Indictment with one count of violating § 922(g)(5). [Case No. 1:25-cr-00092-
MR-WCM, Doc. 5]. On December 2, 2025, the Criminal Complaint against
Case 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM Document 35 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
the Defendant was terminated, and Case No. 1:25-mj-00040-WCM was
closed.1
On December 29, 2025, the Defendant made his initial appearance
before the Honorable W. Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge,
at which time the Government moved for detention. A detention hearing was
held on January 5, 2026, and the Magistrate Judge ordered the Defendant
detained. [Doc. 12]. On January 20, 2026, the Defendant appealed the
Detention Order to this Court. [Doc. 14]. The Court affirmed the Detention
Order on February 9, 2026. [Doc. 26].
On January 27, 2026, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Bill
of Indictment arguing that § 922(g)(5) violates the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. [Doc. 17]. The Government requested an extension of
time to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss, and that request was
granted. [Docs. 22, 24]. On March 12, 2026, the Government filed its
Response. [Doc. 31]. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
II. DISCUSSION
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
1 Per this District’s usual practice, the Criminal Complaint was docketed as the first entry
in Case No. 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM, even though the Bill of Indictment [Doc. 5] has
become the operative charging document.
Case 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM Document 35 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. Section 922(g)(5)
reads, in relevant part: “It shall be unlawful for any person . . . who [is] an
alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States . . . [to] possess in or
affecting commerce, any firearm.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).
The Defendant argues that the indictment should be dismissed
because § 922(g)(5) infringes on his right to keep and bear arms, a right
codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [Doc. 18 at 1-2].
He claims that under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597
U.S. 1 (2022), the Government cannot meet its burden to prove that
§ 922(g)(5) fits into our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
[Doc. 18 at 2].
In Bruen, the Supreme Court “set forth a new framework under which
courts must now analyze Second Amendment challenges.” United States v.
Price, 111 F.4th 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc). First, the court asks
“whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue.”
Id. Second, the court asks “whether the Government has justified the
regulation as consistent with the principles that underpin our nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Case 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM Document 35 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
The Fourth Circuit has addressed § 922(g)(5)’s compatibility with the
Second Amendment. In United States v. Carpio-Leon, 701 F.3d 974 (4th Cir.
2012), the court held that “the Second Amendment right to bear arms does
not extend to illegal aliens.” Id. at 982 (emphasis removed). This is because
“illegal aliens do not belong to the class of law-abiding members of the
political community to whom the Second Amendment gives protection.” Id.
at 979. While Carpio-Leon predated Bruen, the Fourth Circuit recently
confirmed that the decision has survived the advent of the new framework.
United States v. Murillo-Lopez, 151 F.4th 584, 591-92 (4th Cir. 2025) (“We
thus conclude that Carpio-Leon’s Second Amendment holding survives
Bruen and [United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)], and that we as a
panel lack the power to depart from it.”).
Under Carpio-Leon, Congress may deprive illegal aliens of their right
to keep and bear arms without violating the Second Amendment. The
Defendant does not challenge the Government’s assertion that he is an
illegal alien. [See Doc. 18 at 1-3]. Thus, § 922(g)(5) has been properly
applied to the Defendant and the Second Amendment has not been
infringed. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Defendant’s challenge to
§ 922(g)(5), and the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Case 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM Document 35 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
O R D E R
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 17] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: April 6, 2026
Case 1:25-cr-00092-MR-WCM Document 35 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 5