U.S. District Judge David Counts found that the law’s bans conflicted with the Supreme Court’s June ruling New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruenin which a conservative 6-3 majority ruled that law-abiding Americans have the right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense. The 25-page opinion by Counts, a Donald Trump appointee, invoked the language of originalism, the conservative legal theory that judges must interpret the Constitution based on the way it was understood when it was adopted. The judge said he found little historical evidence that the law barring those charged with a felony from possessing a firearm “is consistent with the historical tradition of this Nation.” “The Second Amendment is not a ‘second-class right,’” Kunds wrote. “Post The bridge, the government must demonstrate that laws regulating conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment are consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition. The government is not meeting this burden.” Therefore, he said, the law was unconstitutional. The Justice Department said it intended to appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The case stemmed from the indictment of Jose Gomez Quiroz of West Texas, who bought a .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun in 2021 while facing state burglary and cash bail charges. According to the ruling, Quiroz denied at the time of the sale and background check that he was under any charges. After waiting a week, he picked up the gun from a retailer in Alpine, Tex. Soon after, the National Criminal Background Check System notified authorities that the purchase was illegal. Federal prosecutors charged Quiroz in March with making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm and illegally receiving a firearm from an accused person. After a jury convicted him on both counts, Quiroz asked the court to reconsider his case in light of the Supreme Court’s decision The bridge. Government lawyers argued that prosecutors were allowed to impose a range of restrictions on defendants, including conditions of detention and pretrial detention. But Counts said the Supreme Court’s decision had “changed the legal landscape” on gun restrictions. It found that barring Quiroz from receiving the gun while under indictment amounted to a form of prior restraint that violated the Second Amendment. “There are no illusions about the real-world implications of this case — there are certainly valid public policy and safety concerns,” the judge wrote. “Yet The bridge he framed these concerns solely as a historical analysis. This Court follows that framework.’ A federal public defender representing Quiroz did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The ruling comes just weeks after another major court ruling on gun access, in which a different federal judge in Texas struck down a state law barring adults under 21 from carrying guns. U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman found last month that the Constitution did not place an age limit on the right to bear arms, meaning adults 18 to 20 should not be prevented from carrying guns outside the home.
