Skip to comments.Ban on Individuals Obtaining Firearms while Under Indictment is Unconstitutional
Posted on 09/26/2022 4:43:08 AM PDT by marktwain
On September 19, 2022, the District Court, W.D. Texas, found the ban on individuals under indictment from receiving firearms in federal law, (§ 922(n)) to be unconstitutional under the standards clarified by the Bruen Decision of 2022.
In the United States, people are considered innocent until proven guilty. If a mere indictment can eliminate the ability to exercise an enumerated constitutional right before there is any conviction, that standard is set on its head.
Courts loaded with Progressive Judges previously danced around this obvious barrier by promoting the fiction the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals. The 1943 Cases decision is discussed in a previous article.
In Cases v. United States, a three-judge panel, all Progressives appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), held the Supreme Court in the Miller case could not possibly have meant what it said.
Judge Counts in the current Quiroz case mentions the 1942 Cases decision and discounts it because it relies on the discredited “collective rights” argument.
Instead, Judge Counts follows the requirements of the recent Bruen decision.
From the Memorandum Opinion in US v Quiroz:
This Court faces a predicament similar to Plato’s allegory of the cave. There are the known knowns: a defendant was convicted of buying a gun while under indictment; after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, that defendant asks this Court to reconsider the constitutionality of his statute of conviction. The known unknowns:whether a statute preventing a person under indictment from receiving a firearm aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. And the unknown unknowns: the constitutionality of firearm regulations in a
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
...and with all the “no bail” policies being enacted, Good Luck to all you young folk who are going to have to live under this.
Could you elaborate?
“In Cases v. United States, a three-judge panel, all Progressives appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)...”
Especially since “indictment” means nothing more than “we accuse!”
Ever heard of a woman being “encouraged” to falsely claim someone attacked her?
I think he is referring to people who rape and murder and are let out of jail with no bail, prior to their court cases.
They can go buy guns and kill the rest of those families and witnesses.
Having recently served on a grand jury….not too many of the folks we indicted had the license or means to actual purchase a legal firearm.
It was the NRA and activist members, who got handguns removed from the act.
Licensing and registering all handguns was the major thrust of the NFA bill. Machine guns, silencers, and short barreled rifles and shotguns were just the consolation prizes left after the bill was gutted.
CM pretty much summed it up. Sometimes I’m quite content to be passed the “autumn of my years”
Sorry for the late reply...life intervened
The NFA was proposed during the quaint time in history when Congress was under the impression that they couldn’t Constitutionally actually ban anything, but could effectively ban things by taxing them heavily.
I don’t recall the Constitutional Amendment that lets Congress pass laws on anything/everything but it must be a big one.
The term “innocent until proven guilty” needs to be discarded.
The word “until” sounds like a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion, like a kangaroo court.
The word “until” should be replaced with “unless.”
Innocent unless proven guilty.
You really need to read the highly suppressed and out of print 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy.
Here is an interesting state case from Texas in 1878.
Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
The The decision discussed is an excellent one. I read through it a couple of days ago. Now we get to wait many months while our completely dysfunctional legal system processes the inevitable appeal.
I had a copy, at one time.
Guess I need to read it again.
Not if they get killed FIRST.
That phrase is used appropriately in a court context and is a useful way of labeling the practices derived from and applicable to the presumption of innocence in a court of law.
In the real world, the wrongdoer is guilty at the moment he commits the crime. In the teaching by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, he is guilty the moment he imagines the crime.
An innocent man however continues to be innocent during his conviction, sentencing, and execution and before God for all eternity, but this has nothing to do with the court.
There would be nothing wrong with making the change of that one word, but I don’t think it would help because you are addressing the emotional reactions of the common people.
I have found it important to clarify to people that though the court has to treat OJ Simpson as an innocent man, I DO NOT!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.