denied 4473 gun purchase social media check
courtesy wikipedia.org

The Texas case arose out of the conviction of a man who had purchased a gun while under indictment and lied about it during his background check, according to [US District Court Judge David] Counts’ ruling. Last year, while indicted on charges of burglary and missing court dates, Jose Gomez Quiroz tried to buy a semi-automatic pistol at an Alpine store. He denied he was under indictment on his background check form, and, after a seven-day wait for approval, picked up his new gun.

Days later, the federal system alerted that the purchase was illegal. He was convicted on the same day of the Supreme Court [Bruen] ruling. Almost immediately, he appealed, claiming the New York ruling invalidates the law he broke. Counts agreed.

“The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right,’” he ruled. “No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right.”

Nicole Golden, executive director of Texas Gun Sense, said there have long been “reasonable limitations” on the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment.

“Support for sensible gun laws has been really high, especially this summer in the wake of Uvalde,” Golden said. “This feels very much in violation of what I think the public is expecting when it comes to how we address our public safety.”

— Jolie McCullough in Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

75 COMMENTS

  1. About time. Once people realize that the government gets to say who can and can’t have guns then eventually they will say you can’t have them no matter who you are. When the gun control Act was first written the class of prohibited persons was intended to be expanded to cover pretty much everyone by the mid 1980s. Had the NRA not freaked out and formed their legislative action branch none of us would have the guns we have today.

    • ^This.

      For sure, there are people out there who shouldn’t have guns, for their own safety and everyone else’s. It’s a sad fact. But I don’t think the government should be making those determinations. It has ulterior motives, unstated agendas, and is generally untrustworthy.

      • I don’t think the government should be making those determinations.

        Yeah, let “natural selection” sort out who should or should not have a gun.

        • Exactly this MM. 👍

          The leftards pave the ‘road to hell’ with problems that are thinly vailed as good intentions.

          It’s all about their feelz🤪, then the (un?) intended consequences kick in.

          HARD FACT!
          Gunfights in the old West were rare, some of the largest cities on the frontier only saw two or three a year. But they almost always WITHOUT EXCEPTION ‘took out the trash’.

          I’ll bet Chicago exceeds 1k deaths by firearms next year.
          Thanks Demtards. 🤡

      • “For sure, there are people out there who shouldn’t have guns…”

        As determined by whom, exactly???

        I’m always a bit careful at deciding which rights and liberties someone else should be “allowed to have”. Isn’t that primarily how we got to this rights denial situation in the first place?

        Some of us need to do some inward soul searching, IMO.

        • My first impulse is to say that anyone who wants to take other people’s guns away but doesn’t have enough respect for the issue to even learn basic facts shouldn’t have guns — at least until they learn those basic facts.

      • it’s not the government; it’s a jury. the issue here is that it was not a grand jury and there was no conviction thus it was just like an arrest. of course once a jury of one’s peers concludes guilt it is game over

    • Had POTUS GW Bush not allowed the democRat clintoon-biden gun bans to sunset we would not have the firearms we have today. Obviously sorry old Jim Crow Gun Control democRat joe and his ilk miss their Gun Control rot and want it back.

      • I don’t recall Bush being promoted to King. it was congress that did not renew the ban when it sunset. it was also congress in 1994 that put the sunset provision in.

      • You must have a pretty poor memory. Bush wanted to sign it but when it became clear that Congress wasn’t going to reauthorize it he back pedaled and then clammed up about it. It’s kind of funny that you bring him up right now and that I just happened to read it at this very moment because I’m at a house across the street from his.

        • Bush did say he would sign an extension of the assault weapons ban. He said Congress should vote and to extend the ban. And I think he was playing 3D chess with them. Because he knew that signing the AWB, had caused Bill Clinton/Democrats to lose control of the House of Representatives. Bush wanted the democrats to go on record with a vote. And that was used against the democrats in congress, by the NRA, and that caused the House of Representatives, to flip republican for the first time in 45 years.

          Also when Al Gore ran for the presidency he had made gun control a top priority in the campaign. And I remember very well the liberal media saying just what a big mistake it was. Even NPR reported the large number of gay gun owners, who voted for Bush and against Al Gore. They stated specifically it was the issue of gun control, that motivated them to vote for a Republican, for the first time in their lives.

          And it also helped that Ralph Nader ran against Al Gore that year.

      • He (Bush) didn’t “allow” the sunset provisions. Those were crafted by NRA ILA lobbyists when it was clear that passage was going to happen regardless of gun organizations’ clout and citizen outcry ahead of time. Had the “no compromise” people led by Neal Knox held firm and decided the outcome, we would be in a much worse place today.

    • All true, Officer Bill, but who enables these unlawful acts by actually enforcing them? That’s right… food for thought. Maybe even a recipe for Liberty. I’ve said it before, without their willing gestapo these pandering grifters wouldn’t even peep out the windows. Now tell me, rock and a hard place/lucrative retirement package aside, who’s the bad guys?

  2. Make no mistake about it…nicole golden is hauling around her Gun Control schemes on the coatails of murdered children…The Gun Control Laws for Jews in nazi germany and freed slaves in America were thought to be “sensible” too. How did all of that work out nicole?

  3. Golden is a leftist liberal BITCH as is the rest of her freedom-hating organization. I’m glad Judge Counts ruled the way he did even if it was for no reason other than to rub karens like Golden’s nose in the liberation of our gun rights. Personally I hope nothing for the members of such organizations to have their damn legs grow together. Same goes for those that support her and other such useless organizations.

    • If Beto gets elected Governor, his wide-open border will make Biden’s look isolationist. We can expect more Fentanyl, more terrorists, more goons and skyrocketing crime. Golden has no idea how awful it would really get. The polls look bad for democrats, but they have honed their ballot harvesting scam skills to a fine edge, don’t be surprised.

      • “Texas Gun Sense” tells me everything I need to know about her (and her organization). Whether they know it or not is irrelevant. It’s an emotional decision–and she employs buzzwords to tug on others’ heartstrings so that they react emotionally. They’re willing to *attempt* mass disarming of gun owners to support their feelz about public safety. And do absolutely NOTHING about the actual criminal/gang element causing the shootings, violence, and general all-around mayhem.

        • Yeah, they’re all in for Robert Francis.🙄

          Here’s that turd Katie C giving Bob a stage to stand on children’s graves from…….

          https://youtu.be/RAKVrzYjdtU

          Katie C lost all respect when she called the Covington young man a horrible little white supremacists racist that needed to apologize to that poor military veteran native american.

          That POS wasn’t a veteran, and his group actually confronted the school group yelling racist comments and profanities.

          The real vid and following lawsuits brought the truth to light. How much did it cost her network?
          IIRC, all the lawsuits totalled around 70 million.

          F’ Texas Gun Sense
          F’ Robert Francis
          F’ Katie C
          All three, with a Pyle driver!

      • Surprised? About what?

        Nothing from these stupid turds surprises me anymore; NOTHING.

        If Beto gets in to office it will ONLY be via fraud like Biden did. This may also cause the damage to finally break.

        No rights, whatever the type, is to be barred from enjoyment for a criminal offense until there is a final conviction. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights provides for freedom until proven guilty.

  4. “Counts agreed.” ?

    Does that include counts, discounts, no accounts, and on account?

    “This feels very much in violation of what I think the public is expecting when it comes to how we address our public safety.”

    Oh so that’s how its done, based upon ‘feeling’. Please point me to the part of the constitution and bill or rights where it says ‘government may infringe any right they choose if they feel like it.”

    Actually, this is pretty significant. The question on the 4473 about being under indictment is derived from a part of the NFA. In other words, in the 1791 context of Bruen, the NFA just got its first building block knocked out of its foundation. There is nothing ‘restrictive’ in the NFA, GCA, FOPA, or any present bill or law or rule in the firearms area that meets the 1791 context of Bruen as these are all 20th and 21st century ‘invention’.

    watch this on the subject for this case > https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=CETO8IeZsvQ

    • The surprise, really, is that this has not been challenged previously.

      The BASIC tenet of U.S. jurisprudence is “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.”

      Just because you are under indictment and awaiting trial for some crime that if proven guilty would inhibit your natural right to keep and bear arms does not mean you are guilty of that/those crimes.

      I seem to recall some guy named Kyle who was indicted for two murders and is a free man today.

      • NYSRPA vs Bruin taking away the balancing option judges had probably was why. Going to be fun once we figure out what that means over here re bail reform.

        • “NYSRPA vs Bruin taking away the balancing option judges had probably was why.”

          This is just a taste of the possibilities. There were no ‘background checks’ at the founding of this nation.

          And background checks of private sales are a very new thing.

          We *have* to get a mandatory gun registration case heard by the High court and St. Thomas & Company. I think we can present a convincing case that the government not knowing where all guns are is critical to stopping an actual Leftist Scum Fascist ™ from ‘making a grab for the brass ring’ of gun confiscation…

  5. The counter is literally “muh feelings.” Adult thumbsuckers have far too much pull. This has to stop.

    • The ‘Bruen’ decision was awesome, but the fight is just starting. Their next move will be to make as many people as possible legally-prohibited persons.

      Get a speeding ticket? Someone who can’t be trusted to operate a dangerous motor vehicle can’t be trusted with a gun.

      Get into an angry argument at work? Someone who can’t control their temper can’t be trusted to own a gun.

      Just *think* of the ‘Progressive’ possibilities! 🙁

  6. Not everyone that gets indicted gets convicted, so why isn’t that lack of due process? A pot full of people have been exonerated after being indicted. That’s why we have a trial.

  7. “He denied he was under indictment on his background check form“

    Setting aside the indictment issue, isn’t it a crime to make a false statement on an official form in order to purchase a firearm?

    I mean, sure the burglary suspect appreciates your efforts on his behalf, for sure he’d be a lot more successful at his alleged trade if he was armed.

    But he made a false statement on his 4473 form, is there no consequence?

    So an adjudicated psychopath should be able to purchase weapons just as well, all he hast to do is deny it is medical status on form 4473 and purchase a firearm.

    Should there be no consequence in that case as well?

    “Intentionally and knowingly making a false statement on a Firearms Transaction Record can result in up to 10 years in federal prison. Failing to disclose illegal drug use (including marijuana) or an addiction is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.“

    https://www.notafraidtowin.com/false_statement_firearms_transaction_record/

    It seems clear, you guys want everybody, including bad actors and the mentally unfit, to have access to firearms.

    • minor49IQ…Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Then there are appeals, etc. Clowns like you cater to criminals by supplying them with unarmed victims like in ny, CA, etc. You must be controlled.

    • , isn’t it a crime to make a false statement on an official form in order to purchase a firearm?

      Hmmmmmm, seems like I’ve heard that, I know let’s ask Hunter Biden, I bet he knows the answer, he’s the smartest guy Braindead knows…

      • Yes, it IS a federal crime to make a false statement on a form 4473.
        Perhaps dacian will now chime in with the long awaited location of the super-secret federal penitentiary housing those millions of violators.
        Certainly they were all charged and prosecuted, right lil’d ??

        • “Yes, it IS a federal crime to make a false statement on a form 4473.”

          Repeat after me, over and over again :

          “There was no form 4473 at the founding of this country…

          There was no form 4473 at the founding of this country…” 🙂

    • “But he made a false statement on his 4473 form, is there no consequence?”

      That’s a valid question. The answer seems to be it depends on who you are. Since we have a corrupt, two-tiered justice system, people like Hunter Biden are free to make false statements without consequence. Average Joe usually isn’t so lucky unless he can prove it was unconstitutional. This development will be interesting to follow.

      Like Cliff mentioned, we have that “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” thing. But are we okay with someone out on bail for attempted murder being able to walk into a store and buy a firearm? What if that was someone who tried to kill your daughter? That doesn’t seem like a good policy. Are we going to say it’s natural selection when it’s Mr. Bad Guy Murderer vs. your daughter, sister, mom, or wife?

    • @Miner49er

      “Setting aside the indictment issue, isn’t it a crime to make a false statement on an official form in order to purchase a firearm?”

      “But he made a false statement on his 4473 form, is there no consequence?”

      It turns out the law upon which that is based is unconstitutional. It is not illegal to buy a firearm while under indictment, and its not illegal to answer that question ‘NO” if you are under indictment because its irrelevant because its unconstitutional.

      This explains it > https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=CETO8IeZsvQ

    • In a just world there would be no 4473 form to fill out. we will have to come up with a method to keep guns out of the hands of the insane and people that have committed violent acts with guns in the past that were deemed criminal. We could also just pass a law permitting an annual Purge and this kind of thing will sort itself out.

      • The fact of the matter is, there is a 4473 form…This clown knew he could not carry, transport or purchase a gun, until his case was resolved/disposed…He was explained all of those rules when released as a condition his bond/release (which he agreed to follow)….Then, he lied on a federal law enforcement sanctioned document under oath or affirmation, followed by his signature…This judge should have thrown the book at that moron…We have to pick our battles more carefully…That is if our side wants legitimacy….We can’t fix stupid. but WE SHOULD CURE HIS..!

        • “The fact of the matter is, there is a 4473 form…”

          For now… {Insert evil laugh *here*}

          Maybe not for long if the ‘Bruen’ decision is followed… 🙂

    • Clearly you are fine with someone going to prison for a conviction on an unconstitutional law.

      • Of course he is. He’s been gloating over a weaponized doj making political prisoners out of protestors from 1/6.

        We need a Nuremberg 2.0. miner needs to face justice.

        • jwm,

          “We need a Nuremberg 2.0. miner needs to face justice.”

          Hell, jwm, he hasn’t even faced REALITY, yet.

      • the moron broke the law on purpose… its not unconstitutional when he chose to intentionally break the law!!!… being under indictment Or information of a court is a disqualifier on a 4473… he should have made a private sale…. he was on bond agreement for a grand jury indictment awaiting trial… he agreed and signed to the stipulations of his bond to keep from sitting in jail until Trial..That meant no guns..

    • I believe it was Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. who said that it is not just the option but the duty of every citizen to disobey an unjust law (though it gets attribute to Jefferson). Having to fill out a form in order to buy a gun is an unjust law. Since not filling it out means you won’t get a gun, filling it out in whatever way will get you a gun is the only way to uphold this moral imperative.

    • MajorStupidity,

      “It seems clear, you guys want everybody, including bad actors and the mentally unfit, to have access to firearms.”

      Surely you are not arguing that, in a legal system based on “innocent until proven guilty”, that anyone ACCUSED of a crime is foreclosed from their Consitutional rights, are you?? I mean, I would be shocked if even a fascist like yourself would argue that. So, if being ACCUSED of a crime bars you from possession of firearms, surely that means you couldn’t vote, either, amirite?? Be careful how far you allow your ingrained fascism to push you, MajorStupidity.

      As for “mentally unfit”, is it your contention that there is an objective standard for determining “mental fitness” to exercise INHERENT human rights???? Who decides?? You are probably too ignorant to be aware of this, but a declaration of someone being “incompetent” to manage their own life is (EXCEPT in the case of the horrible, unconstitutional, fascist “red flag” laws) is made ONLY after an evidentiary procedure, with the subject having the ability to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, etc., and REMAINS OPEN. A person declared legally incompetent can petition for a rehearing ANY TIME, and as many times as they want. An intelligent person might glean something from that.

      If your argument is that psychiatry is a science . . . that is laughable. Brain chemistry is BECOMING a science, but we have miles to go. A “psychiatrist’s” OPINION as to mental fitness is . . . an OPINION. Ex. A of how stupid that is would be Dr. Bandy Lee.

      So, basically, your argument is that “anybody I don’t like should not have the RKBA”. As I’ve often said of you “Quelle surprise, MajorStupidity is a fascist @$$hole.” ANY deprivation of rights, for ANY period, must be subject to due process, presumption of innocence, limited in scope and duration, and targeted.

      But then . . . fascist gotta fasc.

  9. So does this mean we have incentive to actually lock up violent offenders as they will have standard citizen rights when they finish their sentence……. could be an improvement but wasn’t expecting this issue for another few years.

    • That’s a good point. I would say yes, if you’re a logical person. That means the Left would be even more incentivized to keep letting those violent offenders out early with a slap on the wrist. They need chaos and mayhem so Big Government can swoop in and rescue everyone by having more power and control over everyone.

      P.S. The federal government is forcing car makers to design their new cars to spy on the driver. (For the children)

      • Been doing the car thing for a while re connected to the phone (which periodically pings car location even when either is not in use). Also realized this is for release prior to sentencing so will probably be another lawsuit or three before my previous comment is relevant (reading comprehension fail on my part).

  10. A P.O.S. THIEF….He knew he was indicted!… He lied on the 4473 on purpose!…C’MON MAN!…At some point common sense has to be the rule…The clown spun the wheel on purpose and LOST…I am anti gun control as it gets… I want the gun rights only for JUST AND GOOD people, not this moron…Judges like this hurt our arguments, with these stupid rulings…Now, if the guy is found not guilty or was wrongfully indicted I hope his rights are fully restored in the future…BUT YOU CAN’T WANT ANY CAREER OR FUTURE CAREER THUG CRIMINAL TO HAVE GUN RIGHTS…I want those types of people pushing up daisies…

    • The premise of “career thug” is enough indication that there are already bigger issues at work. It makes no sense to concentrate on the guns while completely ignoring the killer. That’s how we got here to start with.

    • Is the requirement to fill out a form to be allowed to exercise a natural right just, or unjust?

      It’s plainly unjust.

      According to Reverend Martina Luther King, Jr. it is the moral obligation of every citizen to disobey an unjust law. Therefore it is a moral obligation to not obey the law about filling out that form honestly.

      The law is also unjust because its very nature allows legislatures (and bureaucracies) to bar the exercise of a natural right by citizens of whatever class they choose to target: all they have to do is decide to ‘upgrade’ a particular crime from misdemeanor to felony, and suddenly everyone who has committed that crime is barred from exercising their natural right. Thus, this law is unjust on two counts, and it is therefore the moral obligation of every citizen to disobey this law.

      • The clown in this case was on felony bond for a grand jury indictment… as a condition to his bond he agreed that he would not possess, transport, or carry a firearm to keep his rear end out of jail, until trial…He affirmed or swore to the rules and stipulations in his bond agreement and signed on the dotted line… he intentionally broke the law!!…
        then he went and violated a federal law by lying under oath or affirmation on federal firearms paperwork… it’s not unconstitutional if he chose to violate the law…. he should not have even been in a gun store trying to buy a gun!!… he should be locked up right now!!.. The guy is an idiot!

  11. What Nicole Golden really meant to say is,

    “This feels very much in violation of what Progressives, who refuse to be responsible for their life choices (especially personal security), expect when it comes to how we address our public safety.”

  13. I see nothing on the 4473 that has direct bearing on the NICS process. These are two different things. You could be run through NICS without having that form. The form is only required as an aspect of law. Law can be changed. Outside of that, the 4473 serves as a paper trail that ultimately finds it’s only real use in a registry. Where I can see some degree of purpose for NICS, many of its biggest issues are tied to that form. Otherwise, there would be no reason for serial numbers to be written down.

    Indictment does not mean conviction. Otherwise it would say “conviction”

    I would like to see the 4473 form itself stopped. This might be the first step in that process. It certainly warrants considering a redesign of the paperwork.

    • “I would like to see the 4473 form itself stopped.”

      I can’t find a reference to a ‘4473’ in the Founding Documents, anywhere.

      Earliest reference I found was the late 1960s, a *long* ways after the late 1700s…

  14. The way the question ought to read is:

    Have you ever been convicted in state or federal court of a violent felony during the commission of which you intended significant harm to another human being?

    No “under indictment” question, because it’s an invitation to corruption: all a law officer and/or prosecutor has to do to bar exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is indict a person.

    And only those who intended serious harm to someone is a risk.

  15. The age of the person has NO relevence in law so why mention it.? The man was a SUSPECTED felon pure and simple and if he is allowed to purchase a handgun after DELIBERATELY lying about his CRIMINAL background then anybody can. Is this what the pro-gun fraternity really want? That KNOWN potential criminals are let loose onthe street with firearms even if it is in TEXAS one of the States high, very high on the list of Gun Crime casualties and deaths??

    Here In the UK this kind of thing is avoided because the LAW applies to everyone everywhere

  18. The issue here is not that the government cannot impose restrictions on people indicted for felonies- there is PLENTY of historical precedent for that- but that it has created a policy where everyone indicted for a felony has that restriction, with no discretion or appeal.

    This ruling could be ‘fixed’ by implementing a system where the court system has to actually decide if someone is dangerous enough to restrict them (in the same way it puts ankle monitors on people, or holds them without bail) but I’m sure those on the left would rather simply run on the issue politically rather than try and come to a reasonable solution.

Comments are closed.