Form 4473 unconstitutional!

[Skookum]

A federal judge in the Western District of TX says at least a part of it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34n355sZd1s

A man under indictment for felony burglary bought a handgun.  He lied on his 4473, saying he was not under felony indictment (question 11b).  Apparently, he was never convicted of burglary, but he was reindicted for felony perjury on his 4473.  He was convicted of the felony, and asked the district court to reconsider the conviction in light of  SCOTUS's NYSRPA decision.

The judge ruled there is nothing in the text of the 2nd Amendment depriving anyone of his right to keep and bear arms due to an indictment, nor is there any long standing history or tradition of doing so (the federal law behind 11b was first passed in the 1930s).  Thus, the ban on receiving a firearm, because you are under indictment, is unconstitutional.†

The government has appealed to the 5th Circuit.

The ATF may have to revise 4473 soon.

Another take on this decision:

https://youtu.be/CETO8IeZsvQ

†The authority for question 11b currently traces to the GCA of '68, as amended in '93.  Thus, this ruling, if upheld, also renders part of the GCA unconstitutional.  (I'm thinking much of both the GCA and the NFA of '34 will soon be toast due to NYSRPA.)

[RSR]

†The authority for question 11b currently traces to the GCA of '68, as amended in '93.  Thus, this ruling, if upheld, also renders part of the GCA unconstitutional.  (I'm thinking much of both the GCA and the NFA of '34 will soon be toast due to NYSRPA.)

Here's hoping! 

The judge ruled there is nothing in the text of the 2nd Amendment depriving anyone of his right to keep and bear arms due to an indictment, nor is there any long standing history or tradition of doing so (the federal law behind 11b was first passed in the 1930s).  Thus, the ban on receiving a firearm, because you are under indictment, is unconstitutional.†

Wonder what this might mean for red flag laws?

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

Unalienable rights and shall not be infringed mean just that. There's nothing I've ever seen in the constitution that says you can deprive a person of their constitutional rights based on a criminal conviction for any crime. If we want dangerous criminals to not do crime keep them locked up.

[M1A4ME]

I know a guy who was arrested and jailed due to a complaint from his wife that he'd pointed a gun at her.

He had a relative go to the house and take all his guns before she sold them (still lost some of them) as he wasn't allowed to go back to the house when he got out of jail.

It went to trial and he was convicted in spite of inconsistencies in her story and a failure of his lawyer to ask some questions based on his account of what happened.  They (judge and prosecutor) asked him several time to plead guilty to lesser charges that would have permanent stripped him of his gun rights and he refused (I was at the trial as a possible character witness).

He appealed the conviction, paid the lawyer more money and it went to trial the second time.  At that trial his lawyer asked the wife and arresting officers the questions he should have asked the first time and the prosecutor asked the judge to drop the charges.

The wife lied.  The gun "he pointed at me" was a rifle he was carrying by the handles of the case it was zipped up in on his way out the door to go to the range to do some shooting. 

They would have stripped him, forever, of his rights based on a lying wife who would have sold his guns/ammo (he had a nice little collection of some rare stuff before this mistake in judgement (getting married to that woman.)

The next few years may be very interesting indeed.

[Gunnerdad80]

Unalienable rights and shall not be infringed mean just that. There's nothing I've ever seen in the constitution that says you can deprive a person of their constitutional rights based on a criminal conviction for any crime. If we want dangerous criminals to not do crime keep them locked up.

Yes

[Skookum]

Yet another take:

https://youtu.be/wre72v96qfE

[Skookum]

Unalienable rights and shall not be infringed mean just that. There's nothing I've ever seen in the constitution that says you can deprive a person of their constitutional rights based on a criminal conviction for any crime. If we want dangerous criminals to not do crime keep them locked up.

You must not have read the 5th and 14th amendments, which in part state:

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … .
–5th Amendment

No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … .
–14th Amendment

Given that our English law tradition, as recent as the 17th century, classified all felonies as capital crimes, I have no problem permanently abridging certain civil rights of convicted felons, as long as such felons have access to a process to petition to have their rights restored after having served their sentences.  Anyone who has proved himself a social misfit by breaking our most important laws does not deserve to walk among us as an equal.

The argument to just keep dangerous criminals locked up fails, as we have a history of releasing dangerous criminals, not only after their sentences have been served, but today they are released almost immediately after arrest in jurisdictions that abhor civilization.

[Skookum]

Wonder what this might mean for red flag laws?

I think red flag laws are toast, too.  Not only do they violate the 2nd Amendment, but also are devoid of due process.

[Minfred]

Unalienable rights and shall not be infringed mean just that. There's nothing I've ever seen in the constitution that says you can deprive a person of their constitutional rights based on a criminal conviction for any crime. If we want dangerous criminals to not do crime keep them locked up.

There is no promise of "unalienable rights" in the constitution. That phrase does show up in the Declaration of Independence, however the declaration has no weight in law.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

Unalienable rights and shall not be infringed mean just that. There's nothing I've ever seen in the constitution that says you can deprive a person of their constitutional rights based on a criminal conviction for any crime. If we want dangerous criminals to not do crime keep them locked up.

You must not have read the 5th and 14th amendments, which in part state:

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … .
–5th Amendment

No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … .
–14th Amendment

Given that our English law tradition, as recent as the 17th century, classified all felonies as capital crimes, I have no problem permanently abridging certain civil rights of convicted felons, as long as such felons have access to a process to petition to have their rights restored after having served their sentences.  Anyone who has proved himself a social misfit by breaking our most important laws does not deserve to walk among us as an equal.

The argument to just keep dangerous criminals locked up fails, as we have a history of releasing dangerous criminals, not only after their sentences have been served, but today they are released almost immediately after arrest in jurisdictions that abhor civilization.

Every criminal who wants a gun has a gun and those who don't yet will get them. The fact is that such deprivations of certain rights are an abject failure and only the truly law abiding are affected by them. Interesting that a certain party would restore like to restore voting rights to felons though.

Unalienable rights and shall not be infringed mean just that. There's nothing I've ever seen in the constitution that says you can deprive a person of their constitutional rights based on a criminal conviction for any crime. If we want dangerous criminals to not do crime keep them locked up.

There is no promise of "unalienable rights" in the constitution. That phrase does show up in the Declaration of Independence, however the declaration has no weight in law.

Yes I know Obiden says that alot too. He also says Roe V Wade WAS a right that society has now been deprived of. Of course the Declaration carries no weight when you allow it not to as has also been done with the constitution at this point. Our true rights are being stripped and replaced with perversity.

[Skookum]

And one more take:

https://youtu.be/sXwdrv1qrFA

[Skookum]

There is no promise of "unalienable rights" in the constitution. That phrase does show up in the Declaration of Independence, however the declaration has no weight in law.

No such promise is needed in the Constitution, because unalienable rights are natural rights:

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.
–https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights

However, the three unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration — Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness — are explicitly mentioned — in their Lockean format as life, liberty, and property — in amendments 5 and 14.  The unalienable rights the Declaration failed to enumerate (e.g., the right to revolt to unseat an unjust government) are addressed in the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Furthermore, the 4th Amendment limits restrictions on liberty through bodily seizure by requiring, as interpreted by SCOTUS, probable cause of criminal wrongdoing for an arrest, and reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing for an investigative stop:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Finally, arguments based on natural rights are always legitimate in any court in the US, as any statute inconsistent with natural law is immoral and illegitimate, and the Declaration makes it clear that our nation is founded on natural law:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

[Skookum]

Every criminal who wants a gun has a gun and those who don't yet will get them.

Why do you want to make it easier for documented predators to obtain, keep, and bear firearms?  If we would return to our 17th century tradition and just execute all felons, then we wouldn't offend your sensibilities by depriving them of firearms.

The fact is that such deprivations of certain rights are an abject failure and only the truly law abiding are affected by them.

I fail to see how any truly law-abiding citizen is affected by infringing on a convicted felon's 2nd Amendment rights, which, under natural law, he wilfully surrendered by chosing to, usually violently, violate the rights of another.

Interesting that a certain party would […] like to restore voting rights to felons though.

Unfortunately, the race to restore the right to vote to felons is bipartisan.  Many states automatically restore this right upon release from prison:

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-voting-guide/felon-voting-laws-by-state.html

Hell, it looks like felons in Maine get to vote from prison!

[RSR]

Wonder what this might mean for red flag laws?

I think red flag laws are toast, too.  Not only do they violate the 2nd Amendment, but also are devoid of due process.

I agree, but to date courts haven't seen them that way...  Wonder if this decision might affect or change that.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

Every criminal who wants a gun has a gun and those who don't yet will get them.

Why do you want to make it easier for documented predators to obtain, keep, and bear firearms?  If we would return to our 17th century tradition and just execute all felons, then we wouldn't offend your sensibilities by depriving them of firearms.

The fact is that such deprivations of certain rights are an abject failure and only the truly law abiding are affected by them.

I fail to see how any truly law-abiding citizen is affected by infringing on a convicted felon's 2nd Amendment rights, which, under natural law, he wilfully surrendered by chosing to, usually violently, violate the rights of another.

Interesting that a certain party would […] like to restore voting rights to felons though.

Unfortunately, the race to restore the right to vote to felons is bipartisan.  Many states automatically restore this right upon release from prison:

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-voting-guide/felon-voting-laws-by-state.html

Hell, it looks like felons in Maine get to vote from prison!

I never said it should be easier for felons to obtain weapons in any way. You seem completely ignorant of the simple fact that criminals do not follow the law, they get guns much easier in many states where laws are draconian (NY,Ill,CA.) and are seldom charged with that crime when caught. When they are charged with possession of a weapon it's usually dropped in the plea deal. Law abiding citizens are affected by ALL the BS laws supposedly designed to keep guns away from criminals while criminals couldn't care less about it.
Many states still do not allow felons to vote and in those states it's primarily the dems who push for it.
The death penalty should be swift and sure in cases that warrant it and when the evidence in indisputable. Why does it bother you that I might think someone who has paid their debt and displays a desire to assimilate normally into society should regain the same rights as everyone else.