Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Texas Federal Judge Rules Part of 4473 Unconstitutional

LINK

Well, part of 4473 and the underlying federal law. Note that this is a single case. YMMV.

One of the questions on 4473 is whether or not you are under indictment for certain crimes. The person in question was under indictment, bought a firearm from a dealer, and answered no to that question. He was indicted for making a false statement on the 4473.

The judge found the law unconstitutional.

Basically, under Bruen, simply being accused of a crime is not a sufficient bar to purchasing a firearm. As the judge quipped, you can get a grand jury to indict a burrito.

If I understand correctly, this case does not create a precedent. It just applies to this one defendant.

I’ll take it. I don’t need it, but the way things are going, we might!

Excellent!

If the government doesn’t appeal it will just apply to the individual and will set a weak precedent. If the government appeals and loses then it becomes a stronger precedent. If a similar case is adjudicated in another district with an opposing settlement the the SCOTUS will hear the case most likely. But it definitely sets a precedent that will be cited in any similar case.

I think the whole damned form is unConstitutional!

🤬

I agree.

I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think wife beater or non-citizens should have guns. The constitution applies to American citizens who aren’t criminals. I’m happy with that construct.

"Would you want no restrictions on gun purchases in South Chicago?" Definitely.

You think 4473 forms are stopping criminals? Lol

Hmmmmm- - - - -what part of "innocent until PROVEN guilty" do people NOT understand? If the scumbag is actually guilty, and buys a gun to even the score with his accuser, the accuser should have the option of dropping the perp in his tracks with his own weapon- - - - -problem solved.

What you think, and what the constitution says, are two different things. The Lautenberg Amendment which made firearms possession after a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction illegal should clearly be struck down as unconstitutional. A misdemeanor should not prevent someone from exercising their second amendment rights. If the crime is serious enough to deny someone's rights then it should be made a felony.

It depends. It probably stops, or at least slows some. Felons aren’t always the brightest people out there. But that doesn’t change the fact that I don’t think felons should have guns. And if a felon lies on a form that’s another charge they can be convicted on. The same goes for a felon who attains a gun without a background check. It’s all illegal.

Do you think convicted felons should have guns?

So clearly you’re juxtaposing what I “think” against what you “think”. How many women are beaten by their lover who is arrested/detained/etc…. who is then released, only to be killed by their aggressor. It happens all the time. Defending yourself is one thing, but any man who beats his woman is a punk not worthy of possessing a firearm.

Non violent felons should absolutely have their 2nd amendment rights. Just my opinion and I’m a retired cop so I’ve known plenty of felons.

The constitution doesn't limit who can have guns and I believe in following that document to the T. I'm all for dangerous freedoms and not safe tyranny.

Yes they absolutely should.

"Do you think convicted felons should have guns?"

I think it all depends on the circumstances. If he serves his time according to the judges demands and passes muster after the probation period, maybe he should have his rights restored. I have a neighbor who stopped a crime at gunpoint. He gets arrested, the perps were turned loose and he's convicted of aggravate assault. 5 counts. The prosecutor wanted him to get 5 years on each count served consecutively. That's 100 years in the klink for stopping a crime. Well, the judge was a good guy. Gave the guy one year supervised probation. When that was served he extended it to normal unsupervised probation. When that was done he petitioned the court to restore his civil rights which was granted. He got his guns back and can buy a gun if he wants to. He even got his CCW permit. He never should have been charged but prosecutors are recognized highly the more felony convictions they get, whether they're guilty or not.
PJ

On misdemeanor domestic charges, you can get a misdemeanor conviction for a simple shouting match. A simple loud argument that the neighbors hear and call the cops. No one gets hurt, just a noisy argument. Cops will take the guy away every time.
PJ

Exactly! There is a bunch of things you can do, and never once lay a hand on anyone in anger that'll get you hemmed up on a misdemeanor DV charge.

Probably an incredibly small percentage of them.

How many woman make false accusations during breakups or custody battles?

The “law” doesn’t read wife beater. It’s domestic violence. It applies to any two people living together and the slightest of any physical and sometimes non physical contact. It could be two 20 year old college roommates in a shoving match over a girl, two adult siblings a pair of [bleep] or dykes that slap each other, a dude that slaps a wife or girlfriend caught cheating or that spit on or slapped/shoved him first or even a man that postures in a way that the woman perceives as threatening or purposefully intimidating her while going through a heated divorce, custody issues ect. are all DV charges that happen every day.

None of those minor misdemeanor charges should result in a lifetime ban on one of our most important rights. “Shall Not be Infringed.”