Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,947
    Glen Burnie
    With the idea in mind that we're not all Constitutional Scholars, it would be helpful if either the thread title or the contents of the thread had some kind of brief explanation of what the thread is trying to convey.

    I'm in the process of weeding my way through the document to figure out what it means, but the short summary is this:

    Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment.

    So with this in mind, if it is appealed and stands, would it present grounds for repealing portions of the Gun Control Act of 1968?
     

    BurkeM

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2014
    2,358
    Baltimore
    For those unwilling to read the 25 page order, here's the meat:

    The Second Amendment is not a “second class right.” No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right. After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden. Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n)—which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm—aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that (18 USC) § 922(n) is unconstitutional.

    Thus the first nail in the coffin of the Gun Control Act is driven.
     

    BurkeM

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2014
    2,358
    Baltimore
    With the idea in mind that we're not all Constitutional Scholars, it would be helpful if either the thread title or the contents of the thread had some kind of brief explanation of what the thread is trying to convey.

    I'm in the process of weeding my way through the document to figure out what it means, but the short summary is this:

    Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment.

    So with this in mind, if it is appealed and stands, would it present grounds for repealing portions of the Gun Control Act of 1968?
    I was reading all 25 pages as you were typing. The Headline is correct: 18 USC 922(n) is now ruled unconstitutional.

    That's one of the prohibiting factors on the 4473. (see Question 21, b) and d)). Answering yes to either renders the purchaser a prohibited person.

    18 USC 922 (n)
    It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
     

    cyberalex

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2022
    625
    Federalsburg, Maryland
    So not YET a Felon, just under indictment, is not a prohibitor. Innocent until proven guilty, in other words.

    Judge David Counts is a Trump appointee.
    I agree with the decision. Just because someone is under indictment, it doesn't mean that the person is guilty of the crime in question. After a conviction of a "disqualifying crime", then it's fair to strip the convicted of his/her Second Amendment rights.
     

    Kinetic

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 4, 2013
    1,068
    I found this part interesting -

    "Defendant’s motion hinges on the constitutionality of § 922(n) because if the provision is unconstitutional, then Defendant’s false statement during the purchase of the firearm is immaterial."
     

    cyberalex

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2022
    625
    Federalsburg, Maryland
    I found this part interesting -

    "Defendant’s motion hinges on the constitutionality of § 922(n) because if the provision is unconstitutional, then Defendant’s false statement during the purchase of the firearm is immaterial."
    Me, too. Lying on a federal form is a crime, so I don't know what will happen.
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,947
    Glen Burnie
    Me, too. Lying on a federal form is a crime, so I don't know what will happen.
    I think it would come down to the idea that the question on the form is unconstitutional, so therefore it should be disregarded in its entirety as if the question and the dishonest answer were never actually there in the first place.

    A case like this would be easier if it wasn't a dirtbag criminal filing suit, but then, if he was an upstanding member of society, this would never have been an issue for him, so there's that.
     

    joppaj

    Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Apr 11, 2008
    47,437
    MD
    A case like this would be easier if it wasn't a dirtbag criminal filing suit, but then, if he was an upstanding member of society, this would never have been an issue for him, so there's that.
    That's the truth of many Con law issues. Ernesto Miranda comes to mind...
     

    cyberalex

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2022
    625
    Federalsburg, Maryland
    I think it would come down to the idea that the question on the form is unconstitutional, so therefore it should be disregarded in its entirety as if the question and the dishonest answer were never actually there in the first place.

    A case like this would be easier if it wasn't a dirtbag criminal filing suit, but then, if he was an upstanding member of society, this would never have been an issue for him, so there's that.
    I see. The precedent set in this case would hold for pretty much eternity unless courts change opinions. It does happen with different makeups of the Federal District and Circuit Courts, and SCOTUS. Miller would've been different had the plaintiff went to court, and was not a member of a gang.
     

    bcr229

    FFL/SOT
    Jul 15, 2011
    1,392
    Inwood, WV
    Thanks for sharing OP, wasn't aware of this case.
    Honestly I don't think it was on anyone's radar because it was a criminal case, not one filed by a gun rights group challenging state or federal gun control laws. I wonder how many similar cases we're going to see over the next few months.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    277,261
    Messages
    7,362,576
    Members
    33,773
    Latest member
    iswear

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom