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.
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.