Federal Judge: Individuals with Felony Indictments Do Not Lose 2A Rights

(Photo: Kenzie FitzPatrick)

This past Monday, U.S. District Judge David Counts used a previous U.S. Supreme Court Ruling to determine that it is unconstitutional to prohibit people under felony indictment from exercising their 2A rights, reports the Texas Tribune.

Judge David Counts was appointed by former President Donald Trump to Texas’ western federal district and was the judge who ruled on the case of United States of America v. Jose Gomez Quiroz.

Jose Gomez Quiroz was indicted on charges of burglary and missing court dates last year, and during that time, he filled out Form 4473 at an Alpine store to purchase a pistol.

Quiroz lied about his indictment on this Federal form and, after the 7-day waiting period, was able to pick up his new handgun. It wasn’t until days later that the Federal system caught up, and the illegal purchase was flagged.

In June of this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law-abiding Americans have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. This struck down a New York law that required people to submit to the government a “proper cause” in order to obtain a concealed carry license.

The SCOTUS case is known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen and it essentially set a precedent that courts should only uphold gun restrictions if there is a tradition of them in United States history.

SEE ALSO: SAF Files Federal Challenge to NY’s New De Facto Gun Ban

Judge Counts did not find a historical precedent to back a law that deprives 2A rights to citizens charged but not convicted of a felony.

The high court ruling in the New York case happened on the same day Quiroz was convicted. He appealed his conviction immediately, sourcing the New York ruling that he didn’t break any laws when he bought a gun while under felony indictment.

Judge Counts dismissed the charge against Quiroz because, according to his ruling, it is unknown “whether a statute preventing a person under indictment from receiving a firearm aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Judge Count also said it’s unknown, “the constitutionality of firearm regulations in a post-Bruen world.”

“​​This Court does not know the answers; it must only try to faithfully follow Bruen’s framework,” he added.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Kenzie Fitzpatrick is the Owner of Reticle Up, LLC, a marketing agency specializing in working with businesses in the outdoor industry. She is a firearms instructor, a professional competitive shooter, a certified AR-15 armorer, and the host of the Reticle Up Podcast. She’s a positive voice in the 2A community, traveling the country to attend firearms events and sharing her passion with others.

{ 7 comments… add one }
  • ALBERT LEVINE October 3, 2022, 10:55 am

    Indictment doesn’t mean anything until they’ve had their day in court. Next thing will be does he look honest?

  • Armed and Dangerous October 1, 2022, 1:27 am

    THE JUDGE IS WRONG:
    On federal form 4473 question 21b asks: Are you under indictment…in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year….
    If you answer yes, the FFL cannot complete the transfer. If he answers no, he’s lying on the form.

  • Dano September 30, 2022, 6:58 pm

    Ridiculous. He had missed previous court dates and lied on the form. He is obviously a career criminal.who has no intent to follow the law. The fact that some think this is ok is absolutely ridiculous.

  • Todd September 30, 2022, 12:38 pm

    One is either *Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty* or one is NOT!

  • dougo September 30, 2022, 7:03 am

    Seven day waiting period? Does not exist in Texas.

  • SuperG September 28, 2022, 8:40 am

    Seems right to me, as he wasn’t convicted of anything, but isn’t lying on a federal form its own offense?

    • Elapid King September 30, 2022, 5:43 am

      If simply being under indictment isn’t considered a disability then the question on the form is invalid and would have to be revised with that particular question removed.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend