U.S. District Judge David Counts, a Donald Trump appointee, ruled Monday laws barring people with felony indictments from purchasing guns do not square with the Constitution.
The case in question centers on Jose Gomez Quiroz, the Defendant, who was indicted June 9, 2020, in a Texas court for a second-degree felony (burglary). In mid-2021 he failed to appear for a hearing, receiving a third-degree felony for “jumping bail/failing to appear.” He was able to pick up his gun on December 30, 2021, then the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System contacted the ATF to let them know about the felony indictments.
The Defendant was charged with two counts in March 2022: “(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).”
Within a week, the Defendant asked for the ruling to be set aside and “for this Court to reconsider his previous motion to dismiss because of the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bruen.”
In taking up the case, Counts noted, “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.”
Counts heard the case and pointed to the Supreme Court of the United States’ June 23, 2022, NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling, noting in a post-Bruen world it is not clear “whether a statute preventing a person under indictment from receiving a firearm aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
He noted: “This Nation does have a historical tradition of excluding specific groups from the rights and powers reserved to ‘the people’ in those contexts. But unlike the historical tradition of excluding felons or violent actors from the rights of ‘the people,’ little evidence supports excluding those under indictment in any context.”
Counts painted with a broad brush, going so far as to acknowledge that “the constitutionality of firearm regulations in a post-Bruen world” is unknown.
Counts wrote, “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.”
The case is U.S.A. v. Quiroz, No. 4:22-cr-00104, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Pecos Division.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. AWR Hawkins holds a PhD in Military History with a focus on the Vietnam War (brown water navy), U.S. Navy since Inception, the Civil War, and Early Modern Europe. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.