Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ban on Individuals Obtaining Firearms while Under Indictment is Unconstitutional
AmmoLand ^ | September 23, 2022 | Dean Weingarten

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.

The three-judge panel ignored the  Miller decision. The Progressive judges made up their own standard in the 1942 decision.

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; court; indictment; texas
If a person is innocent until proven guilty, you may not take away a fundamental Constitutional right on a mere indictment.
1 posted on 09/26/2022 4:43:08 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

...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.

smh


2 posted on 09/26/2022 4:48:31 AM PDT by Roccus (First we beat the Nazis........Then we defeated the Soviets....... Now, we are them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roccus
Not sure what point you are making.

Could you elaborate?

3 posted on 09/26/2022 4:52:12 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“In Cases v. United States, a three-judge panel, all Progressives appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)...”


It is important to remember that back then like now, ‘progressives’ were very much against the idea of citizens owning firearms. Handguns were originally included in the National Firearms Act of 1934, but were left out of the Act at the last minute.


4 posted on 09/26/2022 4:54:22 AM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Especially since “indictment” means nothing more than “we accuse!”

Ever heard of a woman being “encouraged” to falsely claim someone attacked her?


5 posted on 09/26/2022 5:16:27 AM PDT by bobbo666 (Baizuo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; Roccus

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.


6 posted on 09/26/2022 5:30:10 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


7 posted on 09/26/2022 5:31:35 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu
Handguns were originally included in the National Firearms Act of 1934, but were left out of the Act at the last minute.

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.

8 posted on 09/26/2022 5:36:28 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; marktwain

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


9 posted on 09/26/2022 6:17:56 AM PDT by Roccus (First we beat the Nazis........Then we defeated the Soviets....... Now, we are them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


10 posted on 09/26/2022 6:34:25 AM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


11 posted on 09/26/2022 6:43:40 AM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (Disband and Defund the putrid FBI. America does not need an out of control Gestapo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

You really need to read the highly suppressed and out of print 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy.

https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

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.”


12 posted on 09/26/2022 8:11:45 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( FR is on GAB! https://gab.com/groups/67851)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


13 posted on 09/26/2022 9:34:42 AM PDT by zeugma (Stop deluding yourself that America is still a free country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
You really need to read the highly suppressed and out of print 1982 Senate report

I had a copy, at one time.

Guess I need to read it again.

14 posted on 09/26/2022 9:40:37 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Not if they get killed FIRST.


15 posted on 09/26/2022 11:02:11 AM PDT by egfowler3 (KungFlu, today's Hypochondriacal psychosis (aka: Delusional parasitosis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: july4thfreedomfoundation

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!!


16 posted on 09/26/2022 12:38:14 PM PDT by BDParrish (God called, He said He'd take you back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson