Jump to content

People Under Felony Indictment Have the Right to Buy Guns


mauserme
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/19/second-amendment-texas-case-buy-guns-felony-indictment/

 

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

BY JOLIE MCCULLOUGH

 

U.S. District Judge David Counts, appointed by former President Donald Trump to Texas’ western federal district, found that a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June invalidates federal law which prohibits those charged with a felony from obtaining a gun. ...

 

 

Counts said he found no such history for limiting access to guns for those charged but not convicted of felony crimes, though he acknowledged his search was “not exhaustive.”

 

In the same ruling, Counts both tossed a charge of obtaining a firearm while under indictment and noted it was unknown “whether a statute preventing a person under indictment from receiving a firearm aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Also unknown, he said, is “the constitutionality of firearm regulations in a post-Bruen world.”

 

“This Court does not know the answers; it must only try to faithfully follow Bruen’s framework,” he said.

...

The Texas case arose out of the conviction of a man who had purchased a gun while under indictment and lied about it during his background check, according to Counts’ ruling. Last year, while indicted on charges of burglary and missing court dates, Jose Gomez Quiroz tried to buy a semi-automatic pistol at an Alpine store. He denied he was under indictment on his background check form, and, after a seven-day wait for approval, picked up his new gun.

 

Days later, the federal system alerted that the purchase was illegal. He was convicted on the same day of the Supreme Court ruling. Almost immediately, he appealed, claiming the New York ruling invalidates the law he broke. Counts agreed.

 

“The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right,’” he ruled. “No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right.”

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok so buying a gun wasn't a crime, because being under indictment is not being convicted of a crime. Good, good. I'm with you there. 

 

He did however lie  on the 4473 when answering 21 B. So my question there is, what type of crime is lying on the 4473 and is it enough to prohibit him from owning a firearm now? I would assume even after the judge ruled that it's not illegal to own a firearm while under indictment, that the crime of lying on the 4473 still stands. 

 

My last question, and probably the most relevant, was the guy ultimately convicted of the felonies he was indicted for and now cannot own a firearm anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2022 at 8:16 AM, solareclipse2 said:

ok so buying a gun wasn't a crime, because being under indictment is not being convicted of a crime. Good, good. I'm with you there. 

 

He did however lie  on the 4473 when answering 21 B. So my question there is, what type of crime is lying on the 4473 and is it enough to prohibit him from owning a firearm now? I would assume even after the judge ruled that it's not illegal to own a firearm while under indictment, that the crime of lying on the 4473 still stands. 

 

My last question, and probably the most relevant, was the guy ultimately convicted of the felonies he was indicted for and now cannot own a firearm anyway?

This is addressed in the opinion. The judge reasoned that the answer to the question is immaterial if the prohibition is unconstitutional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2022 at 9:16 AM, solareclipse2 said:

...

He did however lie  on the 4473 when answering 21 B. So my question there is, what type of crime is lying on the 4473 and is it enough to prohibit him from owning a firearm now? I would assume even after the judge ruled that it's not illegal to own a firearm while under indictment, that the crime of lying on the 4473 still stands. 

...

 

He actually was charged with falsification of federal documents, which is a felony if done for a variety of reasons. Obtaining a firearm is one of them. He wasn't a convicted felon at the time of buying/receiving a firearm, but he is now.

 

The case is US v Quiroz, because the US legal system has trouble with patronymic-matronymic names. (It should probably be captioned US v Gomez. Oh, well.)

 

Opinion said:

...

On June 9, 2020, Jose Gomez Quiroz ("Defendant") was indicted in a Texas state court for burglary, a second-degree felony. Defendant subsequently failed to appear for a hearing on the burglary charge and was indicted almost a year later for jumping bail/failing to appear, a third-degree felony. In late 2021, while both charges were pending, Defendant attempted to buy an M1911, Semi Auto .22 caliber firearm from a local firearms dealer. To obtain the weapon, Defendant denied he was under indictment for a felony when filling out the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives'("ATF") Firearms Transaction Record form (Form 4473). Because the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS") returned a delayed response, Defendant waited seven days and then picked up the firearm on December 30, 2021. But less than a week later, the NICS informed ATF of Defendant's illegal firearm purchase.

 

Defendant was federally charged in March 2022 with two counts: (Count 1) making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), and (Count 2) the illegal receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). A jury convicted him of both counts.

...

 

The US appealed this decision immediately to CA5. (Both the opinion and appeal were filed yesterday.)

 

FWIW, before the 1960s, not even conviction of all felonies prohibited a person from possessing firearms. Only conviction of murder, rape, burglary, and treason (and attempted versions of them) prohibited firearm possession. The expansion to all felonies was, of course, racist. At the time, white people were roughly 75% of the general population. Blacks were 15%. Latinos were 10%. But also whites were 40% of felons; blacks were 50%; and Latinos were 10%. Prohibiting felons from owning firearms was a way to prohibit blacks from owning firearms. White felons just had to take one for the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2022 at 11:39 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Just like the insani-T act (I like the name) it's blacks that pushed this just like the crack cocaine law that just bashed the black community hard. 

I just think most people in jail on hold for bail probably live where most the crime is and well you know, might not be good.

If you get the chance watch the series ‘We own this city’, on HBO, it’s an eye opener. 
Here’s a trailer 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...