United States v. Deborba

── United States v. Deborba ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-3304 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:22-cr-05139- DGE-1 v. JOAO RICARDO DEBORBA, OPINION Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 2, 2025 Portland, Oregon Filed June 3, 2026 Before: M. Margaret McKeown and Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges, and Sidney A. Fitzwater, District Judge. * Opinion by Judge McKeown * The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 2 USA V. DEBORBA SUMMARY ** Criminal Law The panel affirmed João Ricardo DeBorba’s convictions, following a bench trial on stipulated facts, for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition by a noncitizen illegally or unlawfully in the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A); unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition by a person under a domestic violence restraining order, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8); making false statements during purchase of firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6); making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, 18 U.S.C. § 911; and unlawful possession of a firearm silencer under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), 5845(a)(7). The panel held that DeBorba’s facial and as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(5) are controlled by United States v. Vazquez-Ramirez, 163 F.4th 706 (9th Cir. 2026), which held that Section 922(g)(5)(A)’s prohibition on the possession of firearms or ammunition by noncitizens “illegally or unlawfully in the United States” is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as required by the Second Amendment. The panel held that DeBorba’s materiality challenges to his convictions for making false statements on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives gun purchase forms and making a false claim to citizenship on his Washington concealed carry application, which he conceded ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  USA V. DEBORBA 3 depended on a holding that the Second Amendment does not allow his disarmament based on citizenship or immigration status, fail because his challenges to Section 922(g)(5) fail. The panel held that United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (underscoring that our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others), and United States v. VanDyke, 157 F.4th 1082 (9th Cir. 2025) (recognizing historical traditions of both individual disarmament based on a judicial determination of dangerousness and categorical disarmament via legislatively presumed danger for certain groups of people), together foreclose DeBorba’s as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(8)(C). The panel held that DeBorba’s facial Second Amendment challenge to the NFA’s silencer registration requirements fails because (1) optional accessories to firearms are not “arms” covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, and (2) the NFA is a shall-issue licensing regime that DeBorba has failed to show is being put towards abusive ends. The panel held that DeBorba’s vagueness challenge to the NFA fails because (1) the stipulated facts render DeBorba guilty of