I was reading all 25 pages as you were typing. The Headline is correct: 18 USC 922(n) is now ruled unconstitutional.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 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.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.
Me, too. Lying on a federal form is a crime, so I don't know what will happen.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."
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.Me, too. Lying on a federal form is a crime, so I don't know what will happen.
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.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.
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.Thanks for sharing OP, wasn't aware of this case.