Reported / Citable
Background
João Ricardo DeBorba, a Brazilian citizen who entered the United States on a tourist visa in 1999 and never obtained legal status, accumulated a substantial firearms collection while living in Washington state. In 2019, he obtained a concealed carry permit by falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and purchased handguns using the same false claim on ATF forms. That same year, a Clark County judge issued a domestic violence no-contact order against DeBorba, finding he posed a credible threat to his wife’s safety and barring him from possessing firearms.
Despite the order, DeBorba continued possessing firearms. Multiple subsequent domestic violence charges led to additional restraining orders. In May 2022, federal agents executed a search warrant and seized five firearms, ammunition, and a homemade silencer labeled “Tick Suppressor” from his bedroom, along with his Brazilian birth certificate. DeBorba admitted in a post-arrest interview that he knew he was not supposed to possess firearms because of his immigration status and domestic violence convictions.
DeBorba was convicted via stipulated-facts bench trial on charges of unlawful firearms possession by a noncitizen, possession while under a domestic violence restraining order, false statements on ATF purchase forms, a false citizenship claim, and possession of an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act. He appealed, raising Second Amendment challenges to nearly every statute underlying his convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed all convictions. On the noncitizen firearms ban (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)), the panel held the challenge was foreclosed by its recent decision in United States v. Vazquez-Ramirez, which held the statute consistent with historical firearm regulation traditions. From “the common law onward,” those without legal status have historically been disarmed unless they swore allegiance to the sovereign.
On the domestic violence restraining order provision (§ 922(g)(8)), the panel applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi (allowing disarmament of those posing a credible threat) and the Ninth Circuit’s VanDyke decision (recognizing traditions of disarmament based on judicial dangerousness findings). The Clark County court’s express credible-threat finding brought DeBorba squarely within Rahimi’s scope.
The court’s most notable holding involved silencers. Applying the two-step framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the panel held that silencers are “optional accessories”—not “arms”—under the Second Amendment’s plain text, citing its en banc decision in Duncan v. Bonta. The court further held that the NFA is a presumptively constitutional “shall-issue” licensing regime under Bruen’s footnote 9, noting that DeBorba failed to show the registration process was being put toward abusive ends. The $200 transfer fee had been reduced to $0 as of January 2026, further undermining any exorbitant-fee argument.
Key Takeaways
- Silencers are “optional accessories” to firearms, not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text, joining the Fourth and Fifth Circuits in so holding.
- The NFA’s silencer registration requirements are a presumptively constitutional shall-issue licensing regime under Bruen’s footnote 9, with no evidence of abusive implementation.
- The federal ban on firearm possession by noncitizens unlawfully in the United States (§ 922(g)(5)(A)) is constitutional under the Ninth Circuit’s Vazquez-Ramirez precedent.
- Domestic violence restraining orders with credible-threat findings (§ 922(g)(8)(C)(i)) and post-conviction no-contact orders (§ 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)) both support lawful disarmament under Rahimi and VanDyke.
- False statements on ATF forms and false citizenship claims remain material—and criminal—when the underlying firearms prohibition is constitutional.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for the ongoing post-Bruen landscape of Second Amendment litigation. By holding that silencers fall outside the Second Amendment’s plain text, the Ninth Circuit joins a growing circuit consensus and narrows the scope of accessories that can claim constitutional protection. The shall-issue analysis of the NFA also provides a framework that may apply to other federal licensing schemes.
For California practitioners, the decision reinforces that the state’s strict firearms regulatory environment remains on solid constitutional ground after Bruen. The court’s comprehensive treatment of § 922(g)(5) and § 922(g)(8) also provides useful authority for prosecutors and defense attorneys handling cases involving noncitizen defendants or domestic violence restraining orders.